No Image Available

Seb Anthony

Read more from Seb Anthony

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1705321608055-0’); });

Evidence to support induction


I am struggling to convince the Senior Managment team that it is essential to provide a full induction programme that covers Customer service focus (Internal/external)
before new employees are released to the work environment.
I am aware that there is a need to reduce attrition, increase team environmnet awareness and improve customer satisfaction, however need to provide evidence to back up my proposition.
Can anyone assist me with this.
I would be greatful of any evidence that supports the return to the business against the cost of losing people in the first year.

with kind regards

rob jagger

8 Responses

  1. Some suggestions
    Just a couple of suggestions for data you could seek out and use:

    Do you know why people leave during the first year? For instance: didn’t feel a part of the team, left to sink or swim, poor team morale, lack of knowledge about the business, etc.

    Do you know what it costs to recruit each new employee (and what it costs to lose one)?

    Linking the reasons for leaving to the costs of recruiting a replacement could provide some clear data that you could use to (a) confirm the things you wish to include in the induction process versus (b) the net cost savings by doing this.

  2. Distinguish between job training and induction training
    The emphasis of induction training should be on introducing the new employee to the organisation, not how to do the job.

    Induction training aims to:
    * orientate newcomers to their workplace and colleagues
    * secure their acceptance by existing employees
    * reduce their anxiety and insecurity
    * develop a sense of belonging
    * understand what’s going on

    The obvious question then is: why would any organisation want to treat its newly recruited staff, often its most expensive asset, in any other way?

  3. Customers views?
    Good luck with this. Have you thought about looking at customer feedback, complaints etc. Is there any evidence that there are more complaints or adverse comments from people new to the organisation who may not have had an induction. I am thinking of complaints relating to people not knowing enought about the organisation rather than inability to do their job effectively.

  4. Induction Saves money
    A good induction programme saves money and in some occupational sectors can save a heavy fine. The writer below says a good induction introduces the employee to the organisation and plays an active part in the ‘settling in’ process.

    This is absolutely right and also cuts down the new employee interupting other workers constantly for as many weeks as it takes answers to come if no induction process exists. This can result in friction as new employees tend to have so much to take in less is retained so questions can be asked more than once.

    If machinery is involved a good induction will familiarise a new employee with all the safety procedures before training starts and can protect an employer from a heavy fine.

    It really is so shortsighted to avoid an induction process and as staff are almost always the highest expense it seems false economy to miss this vital step out.

    RM Edwards
    HR and Employment Law Consultants
    Lime One Ltd
    0870 240 4325

  5. Practice on your customers a good idea?
    [email protected]
    Hi Rob
    I have in the past worked both with and without the safety-net of a formal induction process for upto 170 employees and have successfully reduced labour turnover from 56% to 13% as well as achieving top customer satisfaction scores as my team knew what they were doing. These were done by doing a number of things differently including formalising the induction process.

    Do your Senior Management team have genuine aspirations of high service quality, low staff turnover with control of the turnover of the unsuitable new starters at an early stage, higher productivity and if all else is not of interest are you going to go for IIP. Perhaps get your Senior Managers to share good and bad inductions they have recieved and how they felt when told “thats how it works any problems see….” because who wants to ask and be seen as not having listened, not able to get a grasp quickly, doesn’t understand.
    I can help you put together a business case if you contact me and can supply some data.

  6. Line Managers view of HR
    Everyone is aware that Line Managers struggle to rationalise training within the workplace. Not only is important to show them the importance and benefits of an induction process, but essential that it is painless as possible for them.

    I have recently introduced a comprehensive formal Induction in my workplace. This induction takes a day. To help the acceptance of the Induction new employees are invited to start a day earlier. If they are to start with us on the Monday, we complete the induction on the Friday. This way Line Managers are not faced with “losing their employee” for a day

  7. Is training really your answer?
    Rob Says

    I am struggling to convince the Senior Management team that it is essential to provide a full induction programme that covers Customer service focus (Internal/external)
    before new employees are released to the work environment.
    I am aware that there is a need to reduce attrition, increase team environment awareness and improve customer satisfaction, however need to provide evidence to back up my proposition.

    I think you may have identified thise issues as being wholly solvable by training and an induction training at that. This isnt the case and management may be aware of that.

    You want your induction to

    1) Cover customer service focus – Have you identified the training need for this ? You will not convince the senior management unless there is a strong business case. Customer service staff frequently have the required skills and are recruited for those very reasons, to put them through some basic bucket training that doesn’t adequately meet their skill levels or experience will only add to attrition and dissatisfaction not reduce it.

    2) Reduce attrition – attrition is caused by many factors including management methods, job satisfaction, culture, pressure of job, remuneration, perks, environment etc. Frequently these are all ‘back end’ processes, in customer service environments a successful or unsuccessful front end induction session doesnt usually feature heavily in employee reasons for leaving.

    3) Increase team awareness – certainly an induction followed up by ongoing development can increase this.

    4) Increased customer satisfaction – depends what is causing the dissatisfaction – has this been adequately identified it could be down to product, systems, culture, image, service etc and may not be staff skills related.

    Its all too easy to assign these issues as being solvable by a more customer service orientated induction. Frequently customer service staff have been trained many times and have been in the industry for several years. Any successful induction needs to take on board the skills sets, knowledge, age and experience of its audience. If you recruit staff with the correct skills and have assessed their skills adequately then the induction only need be minimal and revolved around orientation, processes, H&S etc. However if you cant trust your recruitment to recruit adequate staff and believe that the problem is solvable from a training perspective then it is likely that the result of any training intervention will be inconclusive or negative.

    Eddie says:

    Induction training aims to:
    * orientate newcomers
    * secure their acceptance
    * reduce their anxiety
    * develop a belonging
    * understand what’s going on

    If staff have been recruited successfully and have the desired skills then Eddies right, that’s all you need do, no need to revisit their existing customer service skills unless for procedural issues. Don’t train for trainings sake.

  8. Does your induction need to be a ‘one hit’?
    I designed an induction programme which ran over the first six months of the employees contract including:
    – a starter pack with all the usual info etc
    – visits to other parts of the organisation with which they intereacted etc
    – a buddy
    – some formal organisational training eg H&S, policies etc

    In the organisation recruitment strategy meant that new appointees came as individuals and were not recruited in a bunch. HR supported the recruiting manager by clarifying the person profile etc and assisting with shortlisting and interviewing. HR then supported the manager to complete a personalised induction plan for the new staff member based on the scheme I designed. It covered things like check lists for setting up for the new employee (computer, desk, passwords etc)through assigning a buddy, setting an initial piece of work for the individual, walks and talks etc. I then provided a rolling programme of standard workshops covering the formal bits as well as a ‘meet and greet coffee’ with senior managers and the CEO. Induction was obviously more intense at the beginning weaning off over the six months. The managers got involved but were supported by HR and the system, the employee got a specifically tailored induction, there was long term attention on the employee which helped cement their attachment to the organisation, key pieces of information happened when it made sense to the new employee (ie they got the organisations big picture strategy at about month three when they had some understanding of the organisation) and the administrative input was minimised by the rolling programme and HR’s involvement.


Get the latest from TrainingZone.

Elevate your L&D expertise by subscribing to TrainingZone’s newsletter! Get curated insights, premium reports, and event updates from industry leaders.


Thank you!