[that_guy_iain]

Well the idea is to work on the personal development of the employees. They want their employees to improve. One poitn is it's a lot more cost effective if they improve their employees than it is to hire better employees. If they hire a so-so developer and spend two years turning them into a better developer, they now have a better developer at a so-so developer cost.

Another point is that they can show they invest in their employees and say to new recruits that working at their company will improve their abilities and obviously mean a higher paycheque down the line.

Another one is also to see how engaged the employee is. If the employee is like me and refuses to set goals. I was actually asked yesterday to set goals, I said I have no goals. My goal is to keep the system that is falling apart working. And there is no requirement for me to get better. With the strong legal job security along with the strong job security from being the only domain expert left in IT I can get away with that. It shows that I have zero interest in this company in the long haul. I'm literally not even willing to pretend to play their game. This should be a mark that HR needs to work on employee engagement heavily to try and turn me from an actively disengaged employee to an engaged employee. Which to be fair should have been obvious with the massive employee churn of "our best employees going to work for competitors." (word for word what management is saying) But if an employee gives really good achievable goals that align with the company they can measure that to be an engaged employee.