Musings on Investing in People During Times of Economic Uncertainty.

Babs shares a cautionary tale of what happens when you don't.

Jun 09, 2025

The OECD projects that Canada's economic growth will slow from 1.5 per cent in 2024 to 1.0 per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026 because of trade tensions with the U.S., long its largest export market.
The organization also expects that business investment and exports will decline this year, and that a weak labour market will weigh on Canadian households' spending behaviour.
Canadian economy will be among those hit hardest by global slowdown, says OECD (CBC News, June 3, 2025)

A Tale of Two Organizations

Back in 2008 there were two organizations providing a similar type of service with similar levels of staffing, locations, and budgets. That year both organizations experienced funding cuts that resulted in tough decisions being made, and among other similar budget decisions they both reduced service hours. Their most significant difference in responding to the situation was that one removed the budget line for staff learning and development and one didn’t.

The one that removed the budget line for staff learning and development felt confident that with their nation-wide status as sector leaders that they had what they needed internally and leaned into in-house staff development, freely accessible webinars, and city HR compliance driven training.

The other, with budget constraints in mind, also leaned into in-house staff development, freely accessible webinars, and city HR compliance driven training. Additionally, with their smaller but still existing staff learning and development budget, they carefully sought out experiences for staff that targeted where they needed to grow as an organization to clearly demonstrate and deliver on their unique role and value to their community, partners, and funders.

As the economy recovered, both organizations began to slowly build back up their operating budgets. Within about 10 years they had both fully restored service hours and appeared to be operating as expected in regards to services and products.

But, today they are very different organizations. While still providing a similar type of service with similar levels of staffing, locations, and budgets, the one that did not remove its staff learning and development budget has become known for outstanding services and products and an excellent place to work. The other, not so much.

Additionally the one that did not remove its staff learning and development budget has proven resilient and creative in meeting more recent challenges and opportunities such as pandemic restrictions, the housing and opioid crisis, leadership succession and retainment, political polarization, the rise of AI, and the need for public dialogue. While again, the other, not so much.

A Note of Caution

We all know that correlation does not imply causation and that this post isn’t a research study. If it were, so many more factors would need to be investigated as to the possible whys and hows that two similar organizations, over a period of nearly 20 years, would end up being so starkly different. But this isn’t research, it’s musings.

The Musings

So, here are the musings that run through my mind when I think about those two organizations and the importance of investing in people during times of economic uncertainty.

When the economy feels uncertain and revenue suffers, what is more important, the open hours or the quality of service during the open hours?
Are people core to the why and how the organization does its work, or is the focus on what people do (greet the customer, deliver the product or service, follow the rules, …)?
How is everyone’s well-being at work?
1. Are people stressed, anxious, depressed, low on resilience, or otherwise unwell? Do they feel like they don’t belong, are not valued, or otherwise are not important at work? Research, statistics, and the faces of those around us suggest that the answer is “yes” for at least some of the people, some of the time.
2. Well-being is also part of investing in people. Not as a subset of learning and development, but as its own priority because caring about people is courageous leadership.
3. Note that if someone is not well, they are only going to be so receptive to learning and development and doing their best for the success of the organization.
Are people expected to be innovative, creative, and solutions-oriented? How do they to know when, where, and how to be innovative, creative, and solutions-oriented? (Read Hey Babs: Talking About Psychological Safety and Feeling Humiliated by Staff)
What happens to internal leadership development if there are limited or no funds to move beyond online webinars or the local conference or peer network?
- Local conferences and peer networks are awesome, until they aren’t and a shared mindset gets stuck looking at the same old problems with the same old tools and arriving at the same old solutions.
- We used to talk about not dismissing an idea with “we tried that before and it didn’t work”. That line of thinking is now biting us in the derrière as I hear people saying “we tried that before, we know how to do it, it is low risk, good enough, and so let’s do it again”. The same-old-same-old on repeat.
What are the signs that an organization is stuck in the same-old-same-old?
What happens to external recruitment, hiring, and retainment when possible wonderful lovely candidates realize that an organization is stuck?
If wonderful lovely people don’t want to work in an organization, what happens?
1. What happens to the wonderful lovely people who are already working in an organization that doesn’t prioritize investing in people?
If tough decisions have to be made about budgeting for staff learning and development, what of the investments made over recent years have had the results and outcomes that would build a strong argument for continuing those investments?
- Many years ago I was accepted to a “prestigious” leadership retreat. I was hesitant about attending (it sounded a little creepy and boring) but I was ambitious and wanted to rise further in my career, so I asked my manager, “why this path for me?”. I was told something along the lines that it was where leaders were made (the phrase “climbing the mountain” may have been used). I responded back with something like, “given how long this has been around and the number of people who have attended, where are the leaders?”. I may have had a small attitude problem back then, but I still stand by my question.
- My point being, just because the website and social medias says it is good and all the alumni shine each others halos and say it is good, doesn’t mean that it has results. So, where are your learning and development investments showing desired results and indicating desired outcomes?
Why and how have current competencies, learning paths, and desired results and outcomes been set? Are they still relevant?
What does the upcoming budget look like?
What will be the investment in people?