6 Ways Companies Fail to Help Workers Grow阻碍员工成长的六类职场环境

When it comes to worker advancement， good corporate practice is widespread. That’s a key finding that emerges in the American Opportunity Index， a first-of-its-kind ranking of Fortune 250 companies based on the lived experience of three million of their U.S. workers. The index was compiled as part of a study sponsored jointly by the Burning Glass Institute2 and the Harvard Business School’s Managing the Future of Work project.

在促进员工职业成长方面，不乏值得称道的企业惯例。这是美国机会指数的一个重大发现，该指数是首个此类指数，是根据《财富》杂志250强公司300万美国员工的亲身经历对这些公司所做的排名。凸透镜和哈佛商学院 “管理未来工作”项目联合发起了一项研究，内容之一就是编制该指数。

Two-thirds of the companies landed in the top quintile3 on at least one of the six measures created for describing worker advancement. That’s good news. But another key finding was that even top-ranked firms fail to deliver consistently on worker advancement.

在被编制出来描述员工职业成长状况的六项指标中，三分之二的公司至少有一项位列前五分之一。这是好消息，但另一项重要发现表明，在员工职业成长方面，即使是一些排名靠前的公司也未能持续达标。

When workers get stuck， what’s going wrong？

员工停滞不前，到底是哪里出了错？

To shed light on4 that question， we recently grouped underperforming companies based on measures of opportunity creation—from the speed of promotion to the success that employees enjoy at other firms after they leave. Below， we’ll describe each of our six archetypes5 in detail.

为了阐明这个问题，近来我们基于机会创造类指标——从员工晋升速度到其离职后在其他公司取得的成就——对表现不佳的公司进行了分组。下面，我们将详细描述六类典型问题。

Archetypes of underperformance

表现不佳公司的主要类型

Fast & Flimsy. These employers go well beyond their peers in creating opportunity for employees without prior experience， and they also rank well above others in the velocity of initial promotion. But， they don’t invest consistently in training， which means their workers’ careers stall quickly. That leads to low rates of continued promotion and a poor track record of landing a better job when they leave. Many retailers fall into this category. Stay six months at a retailer and there’s a good chance that you’ll wind up as a shift supervisor， given the high rates of turnover—but how far will you go from there？ In addition to retail， many companies in the hospitality， healthcare， manufacturing， and insurance sectors fall into this category.

其一，快速提升但无法持续。有些雇主在为无经验的员工创造机会这方面所做的远超其他雇主，在员工入职后最初的提升速度上，这些雇主也远超其他雇主；然而，他们不会为员工培训持续投资，换句话说，其员工的职业生涯很快就陷入停滞。这导致员工持续晋升率低，大多数人离职后也很难找到更好的工作。许多零售企业都存在这类问题。由于人员流动率较高，在一家零售商工作6个月后，你很有可能最终成为一名值班主管——但你还能走多远？除去零售业之外，餐旅接待业、医疗保健业、制造业和保险业中的许多公司都属于这一类。

Low Value-Add. Input and output measures were used to identify this archetype， which consists largely of employers that provide lots of entry-level opportunities to employees， but whose employees simply do not advance， internally or after they leave. If you start out as a nurse’s aide and， eventually， leave only to take a different job changing bedpans， you haven’t progressed. Many low value-add companies can be found in retail， manufacturing， healthcare， construction， and logistics.

其二，工作附加值低。我们用投入与产出指标来鉴别这类典型职场。这类企业大多提供大量低门槛入职机会，其员工不论是在职期间还是离职后，就是无法进步。如果你一开始是护士助理，辞职后找的另一份工作是给人换便盆，那么你只是在职业道路上原地踏步而已。零售业、制造业、医疗保健、建筑业和物流业中有许多低附加值的公司。

Churn & Burn6. The previous two categories of employers may not serve employees’ long-term interests well， but they do create lots of stable， entry-level opportunities. Churn & Burn companies， by contrast， have high turnover and fail to provide employees with experience and learning that would help them qualify for better opportunities after they leave. Workers garner a paycheck， but nothing that advances their prospects. Realizing that， most leave quickly， without gaining transferable skills. Over time they develop a disjointed work history—which then holds them back from advancing wherever they work. Seven of the top 10 Churn & Burn companies are in retail or hospitality.

其三，压榨式管理。前两类雇主也许无法保障员工的长期利益，但他们确实创造了许多稳定、低门槛的工作机会。相比之下，压榨式管理制度下的公司人员流动率很高，也无法给员工提供经验和学习机会，使得他们在离职后没有足够的资质从事更好的工作。员工们拿到了工资，但他们的前景一派迷茫。大多数员工在意识到这一点后，很快就离职了，没有从这段职业经历中获得可迁移技能。随着时间的推移，不连贯的工作履历使他们无论到哪儿工作都难以进步。在这种使用压榨式管理制度的公司中，排名前十的公司有七家隶属于零售业或餐旅接待业。

Caveat Emptor7. Worker experience at Caveat Emptor firms can vary widely from role to role. Workers in some occupations progress quickly; many others remain stuck. For example， at one major manufacturer， logistics workers advance quickly while other employees seldom move beyond their initial roles. For applicants， that is a treacherous8 minefield. They’re unlikely to be able to distinguish between roles that serve as career springboards and those that are dead ends prior to joining the organization.

其四，“雇员自慎”。在“雇员自慎”型公司工作，职业经历因岗位而异。有些岗位的员工进步很快，而许多其他岗位的员工则停滞不前。举个例子，在一家大型制造业公司中，物流岗的员工晋升很快，而其他工种员工则绝大多数止步于最初的职位。这对于求职者来说是一个危险的雷区。因为他们很难在进入公司之前辨别哪些职位可以作为职业跳板，而哪些职位没有出路。

Two-Class Workplace. There’s a troubling pattern here： Professional workers advance， but workers in jobs that don’t require a degree fare far worse. One chemical company in this category ranked among the top workplaces for professionals but in the bottom quintile for low- and mid-skill workers. Firms with the greatest disparities between the mobility of their professional and non-professional workforces include those in tech， financial services， pharmaceuticals， and manufacturing.

其五，有两个阶层的职场。眼下有一个令人困扰的状况：具备专业资格的员工有进步空间，而所处职位无学历要求的员工境况则糟糕很多。这类型的一家化学公司专业人士晋升前景排名靠前，但中低技能工人的晋升前景排名则在后五分之一。专业和非专业劳动力晋升空间差距最大的公司多数存在于科技行业、金融服务业、制药业和制造业中。

Fool’s Gold9. A company’s brand attracts more than customers. It attracts workers. Yet， at some employers， there is a considerable disparity between the strength of the brand with customers and the career prospects for workers. Eleven of the top 50 brands on Fortune’s “Most Admired Brands” ranking fall in the bottom quintile on the Opportunity Index， highlighting the peril to workers of assuming a well-respected company will be a good place to work.