The learning gap at work

Employees can't be expected to learn on their own time.

Image created via Midjourney

Recently, I saw someone share a poll on LinkedIn asking people how much time they spend learning each week, asking workers how much time they spend learning each week. Poll responses ranged from less than one hour to more than 10 hours per week.

It didn't feel appropriate for me to respond to the poll since I'm sure it was directed at people currently working at corporate jobs. But throughout my career, I've never had an employer that made space for ongoing education of any kind. Granted, I've always worked for very small companies. It was always go-go-go. If I learned anything, it occurred outside of my job, on my own time, and at my own expense.

According to a 2023 report by Training Magazine, companies across all industries allotted anywhere from 48 to 59 hours of employee training per year, or around one hour per week (though it may have been distributed differently, such as a full day of training). Training Magazine further had a breakdown of how budgets are allocated:

Source: Training Magazine

What struck me about this breakdown is that a lot of training isn't necessarily "professional development." Onboarding is company-specific, and learning a software application is necessary for the job. I'm thinking of continuous learning and gaining new skills that benefit the company and also benefit the individual professionally. Learning and upskilling, which are often necessary to earn a promotion or for professional advancement, don't always occur during business hours. If the company doesn't see an immediate, direct benefit to itself, continuous learning doesn't happen. And that leaves some people behind.

Allocating time for learning

Google famously allocated "20% time" to its employees. At the time, Google understood that giving employees time to pursue side projects could eventually benefit the company — within their paid work time. Co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin wrote in 2004: "We encourage our employees, in addition to their regular projects, to spend 20 percent of their time working on what they think will most benefit Google. This empowers them to be more creative and innovative. Many of our significant advances have happened in this manner." Gmail was one such innovation that came out of 20% time. While Google's 20% time wasn't strictly used for professional development, it represents what companies should strive for: giving employees time to learn and explore on their own.

In 2013, The Atlantic reported that Google engineers referred to the program as "120% time" — meaning their workloads no longer afforded time to work on side projects without increasing their working hours.

Early in my career, I took a class through a local technical college and learned Microsoft Access and SQL. I paid for it myself and did all the coursework on my own time. These skills were foundational for my promotion a few years later to the company's first product manager. I knew how the software worked, but also needed to understand the "back-end" — the database and coding that made things happen. I had tried to learn by watching and copying what others did, but it was too complicated. I needed something more formal.

At that point in my life, I had no children, so I had the time to do the coursework in the evenings and on weekends. If I had a baby at the time (which happened about a year later), I seriously doubt that would have been possible, no matter how much it helped my career. My ability to take the class was also driven by disposable income that could pay for the class.

Too often, employees are expected to learn through osmosis or aren't given any formal training — even when the skills are necessary for their careers. Melina Cordero, Founder and President of P20, notes that management training, in particular, used to be very popular and standardized but has become a relic of the past as learning and development budgets are slashed.

Lack of time and budget also leads to a lack of documentation: a necessary tool for internal training. How often do employees join companies, only to find that critical job information exists only in someone's head? Or that company training materials are out of date? This lack of training, lack of time for learning, and lack of documentation comes at a cost. Perhaps an incalculable cost, but a cost nevertheless.

If no time is allocated during the workday, it begs the question: how much is continuous learning on the shoulders of the employee to advance their career, and how much is on the shoulders of the employer? If additional training doesn't happen during the workday, it creates a gap between employees who have time and resources to learn on their own and those who don't. And if people don't stay current, it can hurt their careers.

AI turns up the heat on learning

While the tech industry has seen layoffs over the past few years for many reasons, some companies have specifically cited AI. Some employees' jobs have been replaced by AI, but also some workers are told that their skills are no longer needed. For example, Intuit laid off 1,800 employees to "shift priorities to hire for AI."

What's interesting about laying off some workers to hire different workers with AI skills is that these companies couldn't figure out a way to upskill existing employees. Somehow, in their minds, it made more sense to hire completely new people — and onboard them and familiarize them with the product, etc. — rather than invest in their existing workforce. And it's not like there's a surplus of job seekers on the market with exceptional AI skills: there's currently a mismatch between supply and demand. I don't know where these companies think they'll find the talent they're seeking.

If AI becomes a necessary skill for almost all employees — and I think it will — companies will have to make space for learning and development. Most software product training follows a Point A to Point B approach ("click X button and Y will happen"). Generative AI, in particular, isn't like that. Anyone using it needs to understand how to prompt and evaluate the output with a discerning eye, looking for hallucinations or editing before sending it out into the world. Without those skills, generative AI output lacks usefulness or diminishes the company’s return on investment. (Those are both generous: bad AI output is complete garbage.)

Someone I know works for a large enterprise company that recently implemented Friday afternoon "learning time" within its tech department. Employees can spend that time on continuing education, and even purchase online courses that the company pays for. This is incredibly forward-thinking. The company recognizes that the skills it seeks in the tech market are incredibly competitive, and it makes more sense to upskill existing employees. My friend spends their Friday learning time diving into AI in ways that are completely outside of their current job requirements. It benefits them personally and will benefit the company, which has a multi-year roadmap that includes AI investments.

As for me, I've had to contemplate learning and development in my little self-employed world. For the first year or so, I didn't put any time or money into additional learning. I didn't have either: time or money.

Things are different now that my business has grown. I set aside a small amount of money every month to pay for something that will develop my skills (like a tool, course, or mastermind). Time is still a limiting factor. But I want to place more value on continuous learning than any of my prior employers — and give myself the time and space to grow.

You cannot exist without us

---

If you love this newsletter and look forward to reading it every week, please consider forwarding it to a friend or becoming a subscriber. Subscribers get access to additional stories I publish.

Have a work story you’d like to share? Please reach out using this form. I can retell your story while protecting your identity, share a guest post, or conduct an interview.