Blog – Push vs pull: How do we define mandatory learning?

Blog by Katharina Ehrhart, Policy and Research Manager

• Organisations facilitate learning using two main methods: By ‘pushing’ employees (i.e. mandated learning) or enabling them to opt-in to ‘pull’ learning (i.e. non-mandatory). Certain training is mandated to uphold workplace and regulatory standards.
• Currently, the split of mandatory vs non-mandatory training amongst Financial Services Skills Commission members is 48% vs 52%. In recent years, many of our members have shifted the balance towards more non-mandatory learning.
• However, consistent measurement requires a common definition. That’s why we will define non-mandatory learning as anything that isn’t regulatory, health and safety training, and inductions.

Two types of learning

Ongoing learning is crucial for a high-performing workplace. It enables employees to develop skills that meet organisational needs and advance their careers, leading to higher retention.[1]

Learning can be divided into two types: mandatory and non-mandatory. Data from our 2023 member survey[2] shows the split between mandatory and non-mandatory learning is 48% and 52%, respectively. We will be releasing 2024 data in our Future Skills Report. Many of our members are working to increase non-mandatory learning, where the learner’s motivation drives growth, indicating a strong learning culture.[3]

How hard are firms pushing?

Mandatory learning refers to training where participation is not optional. As a regulated industry which carries a great deal of responsibility for customers’ financial interests, there is a clear need for mandatory learning. It is essential to maintain workplace standards and ensure that the organisation operates within legal and regulatory boundaries.

Mandatory learning is often implemented through ‘push learning’, where the company mandates participation and completion. It includes compliance training, health and safety awareness, and onboarding programs.

However, excessive mandatory learning can become counterproductive if it interferes with workloads, leading to disengagement.

Our survey shows the highest recorded hours for mandatory learning were 21 hours per person, per year, with the lowest at two hours, averaging 13.4 hours per person. These results account for the different ways that firms currently measure mandatory and non-mandatory learning.

To pull, rather than push?

Non-mandatory learning, or ‘pull’ learning, is where individuals control their own learning journey. Participation is a choice, and this learning is self-directed and flexible. Employees are more invested in learning related to subjects that align with their objectives, usually leading to higher engagement and knowledge retention.

However, too much flexibility can be a barrier, as employees may struggle to prioritise what learning to invest their time in. Not all employees have agency over how they spend their time, which is a further barrier to colleagues taking advantage of non-mandatory learning.

In our survey, members reported non-mandatory learning hours varying between 35 hours and 6.1 hours, averaging 14.4 hours per person. Examples of pull learning include voluntary online courses, conferences, and self-education resources, such as podcasts.[4]

The importance of standardised measurement

Measuring learning helps evaluate the time commitment asked of employees and indicates whether a learning culture is present. The goal is to equip the workforce with necessary skills, balancing both push and pull learning.

Our member survey shows the average learning hours per person, across all learning types, amounted to 27.5 hours annually in 2023, up from 23.3 hours the previous year.[5]

As an organisation representing the financial services sector on skills, we want to better understand learning undertaken, and how the balance between mandatory and non-mandatory learning is shifting.

That is why we are embedding a common understanding for measuring non-mandatory learning. This approach will define non-mandatory learning as anything that isn’t regulatory, health and safety training, and inductions.

More on this topic can be found in our previous blog, ‘Time well spent.’

What should firms do next?

To balance mandatory and non-mandatory learning, organisations should limit mandatory training to what is necessary and inspire learning as much as possible. Some of the most effective learning combines mandatory and non-mandatory elements, offering choice within business guardrails. Clear skills requirements and career pathways can help motivate people to learn and prepare employees for current and future roles and tasks.

For example, one of our members in the insurance market has recently adopted a more agile approach to learning, including the streamlining of mandatory learning. This approach recognises that their employees often have limited time and conflicting priorities, and therefore development needs are assessed on an individual basis, using no more time than is required. This has led to a range of positive outcomes, including some learning activities that would have previously taken one hour being cut down to just 30 minutes.

Encouraging employees to pursue topics relevant to their long-term aspirations supports reskilling across the business. By taking a skills-based approach, firms can support these journeys. We will further explore internal mobility in a future blog.

We will continue to work with members and industry to embed a common understanding of mandatory learning and have collected data in our 2024 member survey.

Footnotes

[1] LinkedIn Learning Report, 2024

[2] The member survey is completed by Financial Services Skills Commission member firms only, once a year. The data collected is institutional data.

[3] CIPD, Creating learning cultures: assessing the evidence (cipd.org), 2020

[4] Depending on the organisation, this training (or any other) may fall into a push category for some firms but a pull category for others depending on if the training is encouraged or mandated.

[5] Sample size of data: 17 member firms (2023) and 16 member firms (2022)