TRAINING
AND
WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT
IN
SME’S
–
MYTH
AND
REALITY
Many
feel
that
SME’s
have
a
minimal
role
in
the
training
and
development
of
the
workforce,
however,
I
would
like
to
challenge
that
conventional
wisdom
by
highlighting
that
their
contribution
is
more
significant
than
perhaps
currently
believed.
I
will
explore
the
significance
of
SMEs
to
the
skills
policy
agenda,
pointing
out
the
relative
importance
of
SMEs
as
employers
and
as
potential
sources
of
increased
productivity,
innovation
and
competitiveness.
The
relationship
between
skills
and
qualifications
may
be
problematic
with
the
potential
for
mismatch
between
public
policy
aspirations
and
the
priorities
of
SME
owner/managers,
however,
raising
skills
and
productivity
to
enable
Oman
to
compete
in
a
global
economy
is
a
significant
challenge
that
we
should
face
head
on.
There
are
ways
in
which
many
SMEs
can
improve
their
practices
in
relation
to
workforce
development
in
ways
that
will
enhance
their
own
business
performance,
the
prospects
of
their
employees
and
the
competitiveness
of
the
global
economy,
but
should
the
government
be
providing
more
structured
support?
The
availability
of
the
skills
that
are
needed
by
SMEs
is
crucial
and
there
is
a
need
to
get
a
lot
of
people
currently
in
the
workforce
trained
to
higher
levels.
When
considering
training
and
development
in
SMEs
it
is
important
to
recognize
that
the
concept
of
skills
is
multi
dimensional
and
means
different
things
to
different
people.
More
generally
skills
can
be
seen
in
terms
of
social
attributes,
general
education,
training,
qualifications
and
technical
skills.
The
relationship
between
skills
and
qualifications
is
particularly
relevant
in
the
case
of
government
policy
as
qualifications
are
seen
as
the
most
common
measure
of
skills
in
the
economy,
however,
it
cannot
be
taken
for
granted
that
someone
who
possesses
a
skill
has
a
certified
qualification,
neither
can
it
be
taken
for
granted
that
someone
who
has
a
qualification
has
the
necessary
skill
to
work
in
a
particular
industry,
occupation
or
job.
Within
the
SME
context,
it
is
the
ability
to
do
the
job
that
takes
precedence
and
whilst
qualifications
may
play
an
influential
role
in
the
recruitment
and
selection
process,
there
is
little
evidence
that
the
qualifications
play
a
material
role
in
terms
of
actual
delivery
within
the
job.
There
remain
many
employers
where
the
systems
to
support
skills
development
are
less
structured
or
almost
non‐existent.
SMEs,
particularly
the
smallest,
are
notoriously
informal
and
unstructured
in
terms
of
human
resource
management
and
investment
in
training
and
development.
They
may
not
have
a
Human
Resource
professional
in
the
business
to
champion
training
or
to
develop
and
manage
systems
and
processes
to
encourage
skills
acquisition.
Much
skills
acquisition
occurs
naturally
as
part
of
everyday
operations
and
is
informal
or
incidental
however
there
is
a
need
to
formalize
this
for
the
smaller
organizations.
Since
skill
levels
are
linked
to
national
performance,
the
under
provision
of
training
in
small
firms
perhaps
needs
to
be
addressed
by
public
intervention
to
raise
training
provision
in
small
firms.
There
is
evidence
that
shows
that
training
and
development
is
associated
with
lower
rates
of
business
closures
and
that
less
new
business
start
ups
will
fail.
It
may
be
the
case
that
many
SME
owner/managers
are
not
convinced
by
the
business
case
for
training
and
development.
One
difficulty
to
address
is
that
the
SME
sector
is
shorthand
for
a
highly
diverse
group
of
organizations
which
happen
to
share
one
key
characteristic
–
they
employ
relatively
few
people.
Beyond
this
number,
there
is
far
more
variation
than
there
is
commonality.
Some
compete
in
very
local
markets,
others
operate
on
a
global
stage.
Some
use
very
simple
technology,
others
operate
at
the
cutting
edge
of
innovation
and
technical
change.
Some
have
dramatic
growth
aspirations
and
plans
whilst
others
seek
stability
and
consolidation.
Sector
is
of
course
a
further
key
factor
that
influences
the
propensity
of
SMEs
to
undertake
training.
Furthermore,
the
size,
scope
and
nature
of
SMEs
changes
on
an
almost
daily
basis.
New
firms
are
created,
others
cease
to
trade,
some
remain
unchanged
for
many
years,
whereas
others
are
growing
and
changing
rapidly.
SMEs,
particularly
those
at
the
smaller
end
of
the
spectrum,
are
not
scaled
down
versions
of
large
enterprises.
Evidence
suggests
that
the
amount
SMEs
spend
on
off
the
job
training
increases
with
firm
size
and
that
larger
SMEs
have
more
formalized
training
practices.
Sometimes
SMEs
undertake
training
because
of
their
relationship
with
customers
who
may
insist
on
various
types
of
training.
Evidence,
however,
shows
that
staff
turnover
in
organizations
that
offer
training
and
development
to
their
employees
is
less
than
in
those
that
don’t.
Consider
the
investment
in
training
against
the
expense
of
identifying,
recruiting
and
settling
in
a
new
employee.
Not
undertaking
training
is
a
false
economy.
Unless
there
is
a
specialist
or
experienced
person
within
the
SME,
there
appears
to
be
little
focus
on
formal
training
but
this
does
not
mean
that
training
does
not
happen.
Very
often
the
approach
to
training
is
informal
within
SMEs
and
there
is
considerable
evidence
to
support
the
view
that
such
approaches
are
the
most
appropriate
to
ensure
that
the
employee
has
sufficient
skills
to
meet
current
requirements
and
business
objectives.
The
usually
close
relationship
between
the
owner/managers
and
their
employees
means
that
they
can
normally
satisfy
themselves
of
the
competence
of
individual
employees
without
recourse
to
external
assessors
or
examining
bodies.
A
common
approach
to
skills
development
in
SMEs
is
through
direct
supervision
and
corrective
coaching
by
an
experience
manager
or
employee.
Unless
there
is
a
legal
requirement
to
accredit
such
training,
there
is
little
value
to
be
realized
by
the
business
from
doing
so.
A
further
factor
that
discourages
many
SMEs
from
pursuing
formal
training
is
the
cost
and
disruption
associated
with
employees
needing
to
leave
the
workplace
to
attend
courses.
Of
course
this
is
an
issue
for
all
types
of
organizations,
however,
if
an
organization
employing
5
people
sends
one
on
a
training
course,
this
represents
20%
of
the
workforce.
Training
costs
may
also
be
greater
than
in
larger
firms
where
there
are
economies
of
scale
and
discounts
available
for
larger
numbers
of
attendees
on
programmes.
Whilst
the
cost
of
training
is
often
clear
to
an
SME
owner/manager
the
returns
are
often
less
clear
and
this
is
likely
to
influence
the
investment
decision.
Another
fear
is
that
the
employee,
once
trained,
will
leave
to
seek
better
paid
employment
with
their
new
skills
and
qualifications.
This
also
applies
to
larger
organizations,
but
the
argument
is
that
losing
one
key
employee
could
be
devastating
for
an
SME
whereas
larger
organizations
expect
a
degree
of
turnover
and
usually
would
build
this
into
their
manpower
plans.
Surprisingly
evidence
from
Europe
shows
this
not
to
be
the
case.
A
study
which
tracked
the
progress
of
SMEs
found
little
evidence
of
employees
moving
to
new
employment
as
a
result
of
training
received
–
quite
the
reverse.
They
felt
more
loyal
and
committed
to
their
employer
for
the
opportunity
of
personal
development.
The
question
of
whether
there
should
be
government
policy
on
training
which
would
apply
for
SMEs
is
therefore
a
difficult
one
to
answer.
Easy
access
to
funding
to
be
utilized
as
the
business
requires
would
be
far
more
beneficial
than
providing
a
training
course
for
SMEs
to
send
employees
on,
as
this
is
unlikely
to
be
the
right
course
at
the
right
time
for
their
employee
given
the
huge
differences
already
mentioned.
Research
does
show
a
positive
relationship
between
training
and
SME
growth
in
terms
of
productivity
and
turnover
but
also
that
there
are
shortages
of
skills
available
for
the
SME
market.
This
needs
to
be
addressed
to
enable
economic
growth.
It
is
therefore
necessary
for
the
government
to
adopt
approaches
that
recognize
the
reality
of
the
situation
facing
most
SMEs
and
to
help
to
facilitate
solutions
that
build
on
existing
good
practice.
For
example
there
is
some
evidence
that
suggest
that
SMEs
want
bite
sized
accessible
training
but
there
is
little
evidence
that
shows
they
need
a
credit
based
qualification
system.
SMEs
generally
value
the
application
of
skills
in
the
workplace
as
opposed
to
the
accreditation
of
such
skills.
What
is
clear
is
that
simply
increasing
the
supply
of
skills
at
a
higher
level
is
unlikely
to
have
a
significant
impact.
It
is
vital
that
education
adapts
to
ensure
that
those
leaving
school
are
prepared
for
work
within
an
SME
and
that
vocational
training
is
more
readily
available.
It
is
clearly
not
possible
to
generalize
about
the
workforce
development
activities
required
by
such
a
large,
diverse
and
rapidly
changing
group
of
employing
organizations.
Nor
is
it
appropriate
to
attempt
to
implement
a
one
size
fits
all
policy
approach
to
helping
or
encouraging
SMEs
to
develop
the
skills
of
their
workforces,
but
it
is
vital
for
the
future
development
and
growth
of
Oman
that
the
workforce
within
SMEs
is
developed
for
the
future.
Given
these
challenges
facing
SMEs,
Competence
HR
work
with
many
SMEs
to
support
the
development
of
their
employees,
from
assisting
the
SME
in
determining
what
the
actual
training
and
development
requirements
are,
to
sourcing
or
delivering
the
right
training
at
the
right
time
and
ensuring
that
the
learning
continues
after
the
employee
returns
to
the
work
place.
Training
is
not
a
‘one
stop
wonder’
and
needs
to
be
regularly
re‐enforced
and
refreshed.
Using
‘lock
in’
agreements
ensures
that
the
newly
trained
employee
does
not
leave
without
paying
back
the
financial
investment
of
the
SME
company.
Some
may
ask
whether
we
can
afford
the
resources
necessary
to
develop
an
improved
understanding
of
SMEs
needs
but
given
the
contribution
that
SMEs
and
their
employees
make
to
the
economy
and
the
benefits
to
the
economy
to
be
realized
by
their
growth,
can
we
afford
not
to?
We
are
focusing
in
this
forum
on
the
economic
growth
and
future
of
Oman
–
it
is
vital
that
we
focus
on
the
growth
and
future
of
Oman’s
SME
workforce
to
enable
Oman’s
economic
growth
to
continue.
SOME
INTERESTING
FACTS
REGARDING
SME
/
PRIVATE
SECTOR
According
to
the
Ministry
of
Civil
Service:
In
2013,
1085
Omanis
left
the
government
sector.
50%
of
Omanis
who
left
the
government
sector
moved
to
the
private
sector
(others
retired,
passed
away,
left
Oman,
or
resigned
for
health
reasons)
Of
these
45%
were
of
an
education
level
of
below
high
school,
10%
passed
high
school,
12%
were
diploma
holders,
33%
were
degree
holders
or
held
a
higher
qualification.
As
can
be
seen
the
vast
majority
are
not
highly
qualified.
Of
those
leaving
to
join
the
private
sector,
only
10%
were
supervisory/management
showing
that
90%
were
technical,
professional
or
junior
positions.
If
training
is
done
at
all,
it
seems
to
be
focussed
on
leadership/management/supervisory
training
and
development
but
what
about
the
other
90%?
Current
plans
will
Omanise
106,000
positions
–
the
workforce
needs
to
be
trained
to
undertake
these
jobs,
increasing
private
sector
Omanis
from
the
current
figure
of
approximately
250,000
to
over
350,000.
Training
will
be
vital
177,000
Omanis
are
working
in
the
private
sector,
an
increase
of
19.3%
on
the
previous
year
(figures
as
at
end
June
2013).
1548
Omanis
found
work
in
the
private
sector
in
the
second
week
of
March
according
to
Ministry
of
Manpower.
These
were
primarily
in
construction,
wholesale,
retail
and
vehicle
maintenance/repairs
–
primarily
needing
vocational
and
soft
skills
training