November 20, 2006
Executives School Next Generation of Retailers
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Director, Fine Food Network
A select group of Britain’s top retailers are taking training into their own hands. A new Fashion Retail Academy was recently opened in London with the purpose of training top
talent for the retail business in the U.K.
An interesting element of the new learning institution is that it is being jointly funded by well known retailers such as Marks & Spencer, Tesco, GUS, Next and Arcadia along
with recently formed, government-backed Learning & Skills Council (LSC).
“It is very unusual to get four retailers working together, but it has got to be better than poaching each other’s staff,” said Sir Philip Green, who owns some of the U.K.’s
largest retailers including the Arcadia Group and British Home Stores.
Sir Philip told The Telegraph the idea for the academy came to him because he was not happy with the talent pool for retailing.
“When you have vacancies for jobs paying £100,000, £150,000 a year that says something,” he added. “You get people with a university degree and a good idea but they haven’t a
commercial bone in their bodies.”
In addition to Sir Philip, other top executives are taking an active role in the academy. Stuart Rose, chief executive of Marks & Spencer; John Pearce, the group chief executive
officer of GUS; Simon Woolfson, the chief executive of Next; and Terry Green, the chief executive of Tesco Clothing are all going to be teaching master classes.
The academy, however, is not all about classroom work. Forty per cent of the time, students are learning various aspects of the business by working in stores and headquarters
locations.
Discussion questions: What are your thoughts on the cooperation between leading retailers in the U.K. to create and support the Fashion Retail Academy?
Do you see similar applications working in the U.S.? What about Sir Philip Green’s observation that university students are coming into the business but “they haven’t a commercial
bone in their bodies”? Is something similar taking place here?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
As an academic, I see the creation of “universities” by companies or groups of companies creating a similar threat as Wal-Mart has created in the retailing industry. If these “universities” were only retraining current employees because the business environment changed or new skilled were required, that would not be so much of a threat. However, these “universities” are also retraining newly hired employees because they are not prepared to function in their jobs. That’s a problem for universities and, like the retail industry, not too many are acknowledging the threat.
A sound idea, but hardly revolutionary. For the past year or so, I’ve been teaching marketing in the Fashion Merchandising program at Tucson Design College, a private, for-profit institution here in Arizona. I’ve also taken graduate study at the University of Arizona’s program in Retailing and Consumer Science. In addition, there are several notable higher education programs around the country that focus on preparing retail leaders – the JCPenney Center at SMU, and programs at Santa Clara University (CA), the Walton Retail Center at the University of Arkansas, and the Wharton College in Philadelphia come most quickly to mind.
Despite availability of these educational offerings, retail professional talent remains in shortage in this country, as it reportedly is in the UK. Store-level work is perceived as low-status, and our best executive talent tend to steer away from the field due to a perception that it is low paying. This high-profile launch may help counter these conceptions, at least among Londoners, and help advance the professionalization of retailing.
Retailing historically and for many reasons has not been a great attractor of those graduating from US universities that train the leaders for other industries. That has started to change in the US as more companies recognize that seat-of-the-pants management will not work in a highly competitive environment.
While the UK approach has some benefits (and risks), it reflects the overall view, UK and US, that retail suffers from a very shallow talent pool. Putting an emphasis on training and development (often the first area cut when sales drop) will certainly help retailers. Recognition that cooperating on training (not anti-competitive) will help all in the industry is an important step. US retailers need to focus more on training if they want to fend off competition from growing, global retail corporations.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this academy is that is essentially an apprenticeship and not a university program.
Great retailers of the past did quite well without advanced education because they were first and foremost merchants. My reading of Sir Philip Green’s comments is that he feels the same and understands that possessing a BA or MBA has little to do with retail greatness. Those qualities come from another place.
The British government has, for quite a few years now, been promoting apprenticeships in different industries as an important and valid form of training. Except for individual cases which I assume exist worldwide, they are not treated as second class citizens or particularly bullied. Employers who take them on are usually dedicated to the principle and try pretty hard to make them successful. As for Jamie’s reference to courses available in the US, cost is probably the big difference. Students under 19 going to the Fashion Retail Academy will not be paying course fees. I think for most forms of training, who bears the cost makes the biggest difference to who participates and how they’re treated.
Many potential retailing recruits screen themselves out because (1) retailing has a well-deserved reputation for paying entry-level people poorly and (2) many retailers haze recruits by assigning them low-skill tasks, like apprentices. It’s hard to see the ultimate rewards when you’re a poorly-paid apprentice in a low-status industry.
A great idea. Although some gnome in the deep recesses of the Federal Trade Commission would probably accuse participating retailers of collusion.
Bravo! Executives who have talked about the needs of retailers now can/are taking action.
When will certain industries in the U.S. get it and do likewise? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
As an academic, I see the creation of “universities” by companies or groups of companies creating a similar threat as Wal-Mart has created in the retailing industry. If these “universities” were only retraining current employees because the business environment changed or new skilled were required, that would not be so much of a threat. However, these “universities” are also retraining newly hired employees because they are not prepared to function in their jobs. That’s a problem for universities and, like the retail industry, not too many are acknowledging the threat.
A sound idea, but hardly revolutionary. For the past year or so, I’ve been teaching marketing in the Fashion Merchandising program at Tucson Design College, a private, for-profit institution here in Arizona. I’ve also taken graduate study at the University of Arizona’s program in Retailing and Consumer Science. In addition, there are several notable higher education programs around the country that focus on preparing retail leaders – the JCPenney Center at SMU, and programs at Santa Clara University (CA), the Walton Retail Center at the University of Arkansas, and the Wharton College in Philadelphia come most quickly to mind.
Despite availability of these educational offerings, retail professional talent remains in shortage in this country, as it reportedly is in the UK. Store-level work is perceived as low-status, and our best executive talent tend to steer away from the field due to a perception that it is low paying. This high-profile launch may help counter these conceptions, at least among Londoners, and help advance the professionalization of retailing.
Retailing historically and for many reasons has not been a great attractor of those graduating from US universities that train the leaders for other industries. That has started to change in the US as more companies recognize that seat-of-the-pants management will not work in a highly competitive environment.
While the UK approach has some benefits (and risks), it reflects the overall view, UK and US, that retail suffers from a very shallow talent pool. Putting an emphasis on training and development (often the first area cut when sales drop) will certainly help retailers. Recognition that cooperating on training (not anti-competitive) will help all in the industry is an important step. US retailers need to focus more on training if they want to fend off competition from growing, global retail corporations.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this academy is that is essentially an apprenticeship and not a university program.
Great retailers of the past did quite well without advanced education because they were first and foremost merchants. My reading of Sir Philip Green’s comments is that he feels the same and understands that possessing a BA or MBA has little to do with retail greatness. Those qualities come from another place.
The British government has, for quite a few years now, been promoting apprenticeships in different industries as an important and valid form of training. Except for individual cases which I assume exist worldwide, they are not treated as second class citizens or particularly bullied. Employers who take them on are usually dedicated to the principle and try pretty hard to make them successful. As for Jamie’s reference to courses available in the US, cost is probably the big difference. Students under 19 going to the Fashion Retail Academy will not be paying course fees. I think for most forms of training, who bears the cost makes the biggest difference to who participates and how they’re treated.
Many potential retailing recruits screen themselves out because (1) retailing has a well-deserved reputation for paying entry-level people poorly and (2) many retailers haze recruits by assigning them low-skill tasks, like apprentices. It’s hard to see the ultimate rewards when you’re a poorly-paid apprentice in a low-status industry.
A great idea. Although some gnome in the deep recesses of the Federal Trade Commission would probably accuse participating retailers of collusion.
Bravo! Executives who have talked about the needs of retailers now can/are taking action.
When will certain industries in the U.S. get it and do likewise? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm