There is only one thing worse than training employees and losing them, and that's not training them and keeping them
Recently, I was asked if I was going to fire an employee who made a mistake that cost the company $600,000. No, I replied, I just spent $600,000 training him. Why would I want somebody to hire his experience?
Given the rapid rate of change, the old paradigm of one-off education followed by a career will no longer work: life-long learning is a must, and it is up to governments and employers to invest in training and for employees to commit to constantly update their skill set.
Mankind spends much more on training pilots of aircraft than it does to train the nuclear reactor operators.
Congress and the public don't seem to have noticed that, while largely ignoring our own students, we are putting our money and our best talent into training our economic competitors.
I would rather train someone and lose them, than not train them and keep them
To have strongly integrated managers who have a deep understanding of technology is a rare and difficult combination to build. You have to invest a lot in selecting and training these people.
Train everyone lavishly. You can't overspend on training.
I spent twelve years training for a career that was over in a week. Joe Namath spent one week training for a career that lasted twelve years.
Our training is world-class across all the services. We spend an awful lot on every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman that comes in, and we ask them to do an awful lot, sometimes more than we expect of ourselves, and they do that.
Investment in training is a huge necessity for knowledge-based corporations.
Having to re-recruit, rehire, and retrain, and wait for a new employee to get up to speed is devastating in terms of cost.
When you spend $3,000 on a five-day training, you want to make it good.
