Why Technical Professionals Change Careers Faster Than Organizations Can Train Them

These days, turnover for systems engineers is a nightmare. Organizations trying to maintain their technical capability can just barely keep up with hiring practices: someone joins, spends about six months getting integrated into company practices and tools, and is then approached by a competitor for higher compensation or more exciting work, leaving the organization in the dust. Meanwhile, the organization, back to square one, is posting jobs again hoping the next candidate will stick around for longer.

This occurrence isn’t just annoying; it’s expensive. The time and manpower spent getting someone up to speed go right out the door the moment they say goodbye. But the issue isn’t that systems engineers are unfaithful or that organizations aren’t providing enough compensation; the greater issue at hand is that fields of technical knowledge change faster than most organizations can keep their employee training programs in check.

The Timeframe of Training

Corporate training has long been based on static considerations, not dynamic changes within fields. Most organizations offer trainings on an annual or quarterly basis, with curriculums months in the making. By the time an organization develops the training, gets it vetted and authorized, and sends it out to employees, the program subject matter might be antiquated by the time anyone receives it.

But systems engineering is a confluence of disciplines; a systems engineer not only needs to know about core engineering practices, but also, software development techniques, cybersecurity considerations and modern-day modeling standards. When any one facet of knowledge goes through a developmental change, everything needs revamping.

When organizations realize such a disjointed gap exists, they turn to structured professional development programs in other settings. For example, accessing STC training is one avenue in which technical professionals can stay up-to-date with organized methodologies without having to create an entire curriculum structure within an organization. But securing funding for external training is only one part of the solution to retention issues.

What Engineers Want

Retention discussions typically involve pay and benefits, but that’s only half the story. Sure, engineers want good pay. But more importantly, they want to work on exciting problems with modernized tools and methods. There’s nothing worse than feeling like what one’s been taught and used over the past five to ten years is irrelevant or on the wayside in development; when this happens, professionals begin looking elsewhere.

Thus, a vicious cycle emerges: organizations don’t want to spend too much on training efforts, especially since people don’t stay long enough, but people don’t stay long enough because they feel there’s not enough professional development opportunity for them. Professionals can see what’s out there via conferences, professional organizations and online communities; when theirs isn’t cutting it, it’s easy for them to disregard their current employment situation in favor of those elsewhere.

Therefore, the most effective retention solutions involve compensation coupled with legitimate interest in professional growth. Professionals need to be appealed to based on how their work is largely benefiting their career growth, no longer are we in a position where employees should feel lucky just to have stable paychecks for hours worked. Instead, regular exposure to contemporary methodologies and opportunities to engage with various tools beg all systems professionals an encouraged path of expertise accumulation that will remain transferrable across programs.

The Nature of Speed

To give a sense of how quickly expectations change in systems engineering practices, consider what has occurred over the last ten years within the sub-genre: SysML has changed drastically; digital engineering practices that were experimental five years ago are now baselines for government contracts; cybersecurity needs that were once nonexistent in engineering programs are now crucial to systems development.

Someone who’s graduated even five years ago could’ve been given a stellar education but still requires supplementary training hours to fulfill newfound expectations for current employment; what’s worse, organizations think this is a one-time deal, mastering the found general needs, but professionals know this isn’t true because it’s constantly on their radar what’s trending within public and private sectors.

Those who’ve rejected employment in one sector because it proved far too outdated for their tastes have moved up or down the road to positions that have integrated continual evaluation processes into their operations instead of annual or quarterly considerations. They’ve found organizations who’ve decided to maintain employee training as part of their personnel culture instead of something sent out if and when needed.

Those Organizations Who’ve Figured It Out

Therefore, some organizations have decided to treat technical training as an ongoing process as opposed to an event; instead of sending systems engineers away for a week-long course every few years, there’s a realization that a culture of constant learning can be obtained through small touchpoints held more frequently with less emphasis on major milestones.

For example, lunch-and-learn opportunities once a month, one-on-one mentorships between junior engineers and more seasoned vets or even time allotted on a weekly basis for professionals to pursue different certifications related to day-to-day work can go a long way.

The best solutions acknowledge that not all professionals learn at the same paces at different ages (some may never learn how to be specialties but instead grow into project managers). Those who can champion both sides are likely retain these engineers longer because they see there’s room for growth no matter what avenue they’re taking.

Taking A Risk Not To

Those who completely disregard this issue find other problems down the line: institutional knowledge that was once part of a particular systems engineers toolbox dies once the employee leaves. While new hires may have gone through additional training in vastly different settings, they still don’t have months’ worth of experience with how one company utilizes its system due to personalized customer considerations, insights developed through multiple user experiments or dedicated efforts of repeated lessons learned.

Thus, there’s also a competitive side. Organizations known for investing in employee training gain popularity among those seeking employment; systems engineers talk among themselves, and reputations are broadcasted through professional organizations; those who continuously treat their people well develop branding as favorable places to work.

The challenge that comes with keeping technical professionals up-to-date with contemporary standards isn’t going away; if anything, it’ll get worse once digital engineering takes off and newer technologies become emphasized. Organizations that discover how to leverage continuous learning as part of a culture will benefit far more than those attempting to sprinkle training opportunities along the way as they’re convenient.

The question isn’t whether to invest in keeping their technical professionals up-to-date with expectations, it’s whether they can afford not to.