It is hugely expensive.
Currently, one manager in my plant has taken it upon himself to train leaders. It takes most of his time.
The results are great! But our sister plants are saying “We can turn over a new supervisor/process engineer in 3 weeks! IT TAKES IOWA 6 MONTHS!”
Of course, we are keeping most of those trained and our sister plants have 75% turn over year to date, but that is a hard argument to make. Training means you delay having an asset on the floor, and tie up another asset doing the training.
Most managers have no clue how to train people, and no patience for it. Most companies figure that if you hire enough bodies, one will figure it out.
Then there is the often heard statement “Why would I train my competition?” HR sometimes views training as a double loss as that individual is more valuable, and will leave.
If you notice, this is the same arguments made in 1857.
Companies either develop the capacity to train, or they die. It’s that simple.
Sports teams, the best one are outstanding at player development, and yes, they hold their players longer even in a market with massive wage inflation pressure.
HR looks at this as an expense because most have no idea what the actual mission of the company is.
Many of the people who started the company in the first place could land an interview from most HR departments, where people aren’t even review resumes any more.
HR is supposed to be a CONSULTING FIRM inside the company, trying to understand the specific conditions of a position and then seeking the candidate necessary to fill it.
I can’t think of many off hand that work that way.