MELLORCATalk to Mellorca
Moments

Learning & Growth

The Employee Who Never Has Time to Learn

When manual admin fills every hour, learning is always postponed to a quieter month that never comes. What changes when recovered time is deliberately given to growth.

Mellorca Moments2026-10-03

Ask people in busy administrative and finance roles what they would like to learn, and many will have an answer ready. A better grasp of the accounting system they use every day. Proper spreadsheet modelling. Payroll legislation. Management skills. A qualification they started and paused.

Ask when they will learn it, and the answer is often the same: when things quieten down.

In many businesses, things do not quieten down. Month-end follows month-end. The reconciliations come round again. The learning stays where it was, in a future that keeps moving one month ahead. This piece is about that deferral, what produces it, and what it costs the person who keeps waiting.

What the research says about time and learning

LinkedIn's 2025 Workplace Learning Report asked about the barriers that stand in the way of career development. Lack of time and resources came out as the most significant pain point. Respondents said that managers lacked support (50%), employees lacked support (45%) and talent teams lacked support (33%). By contrast, only 11% cited leadership not valuing career development as a barrier.

That contrast is telling. The problem, in this data, is not mainly that organisations do not care about growth. It is that the time and support to act on it are not there. The same report found that only 15% of employees said their manager had helped them build a career plan in the previous six months, down five percentage points on the year before.

Microsoft's Work Trend Index adds a related finding. In its survey, 64% of people said they struggled to have enough time and energy to do their job. Those who struggled were 3.5 times more likely to also say they struggled with innovation and strategic thinking. Learning is not the same as strategic thinking, but both depend on the same scarce resource: time not consumed by the immediate.

These are global surveys run by technology companies, and they should be read as such. They do not measure South African finance teams. But they agree on a pattern that many people will recognise: when time runs short, the forward-looking work goes first.

How routine work crowds out growth

Consider an illustrative case: a Nelspruit agricultural supplies business with about fifty staff and a finance team of three. The finance officer, two years into the role, wants to complete a payroll certificate and learn the reporting tools in the accounting system. The business is supportive in principle and has even offered to pay for the course.

In practice, her weeks are full. Supplier invoices arrive by email and must be captured by hand. Bank receipts are matched to customer accounts in a spreadsheet. Month-end involves pulling figures from three systems into a workbook and checking them twice. Payroll inputs arrive on paper from the depots. Each task is necessary as things stand. Together, they leave no room.

The causes are not unusual:

  • Manual processes expand to fill capacity. As the business grows, the same manual steps take longer, and the slack that might have gone to learning disappears.
  • Learning has no protected time. It is treated as something to do when work allows, so it loses to every deadline.
  • Key-person dependency. If only one person knows how to run month-end, they cannot step away, even for a day of training, as Mellorca discusses in key-person dependency is a systems problem.
  • The time is not measured. Because nobody records how long routine work actually takes, the cost of it, including the cost to growth, stays invisible. Mellorca's guide on finding the manual work nobody is measuring explains how to surface it.

The human tax: time and optionality

The obvious tax is time. The less obvious one is optionality.

Learning is one of the main ways people widen their options. A new skill can open a promotion, a different role, more confidence in the current job, or the possibility of work elsewhere. When learning is permanently deferred, those options narrow, not through any decision but through accumulation. Two years become five, and the person is still doing the same tasks in the same way, now with more volume.

It would be wrong to assume everyone wants the same kind of growth. Some people are content in a stable role and do not want promotion or a qualification. That is a legitimate choice. The concern is for those who do want to grow and cannot find the time, because the system they work inside consumes it. For them, the tax is a future that stays smaller than it needed to be.

What could change

Recovering time is only half of the intervention. Directing it is the other half.

  1. Measure the routine work. Record, even roughly, how many hours go on capture, matching and month-end assembly.
  2. Remove or automate the most repetitive steps. Bank feeds, invoice capture tools and a connection between the operational and accounting systems can each return hours. The cost case is set out in repeatable manual work and its payroll cost.
  3. Protect the recovered time. Decide in advance that a share of it goes to learning, and put it in the calendar like any other commitment.
  4. Build cover. Document key processes and cross-train so that the person can step away for training without the business stopping.
  5. Agree a plan. A short conversation about what the person wants to learn and why makes the time purposeful, and addresses the gap LinkedIn's data points to in manager support.

In the illustrative business, automated bank matching and invoice capture might free several hours a week. If half of that were protected for the payroll certificate, the finance officer could finish it within a year instead of postponing it indefinitely.

Trade-offs

  • Recovered time gets refilled. Without a deliberate decision, freed hours are absorbed by new work, and nothing changes for the person.
  • People may leave. Learning widens options, and some of those options may be elsewhere. A business that invests in growth must accept that risk; the alternative is keeping people by limiting them.
  • Short-term output falls. Protected learning time is time not spent on immediate work, and in a small team that is felt.
  • Automation shifts work. New tools need setting up and monitoring, which can consume the very time they were meant to release, at least at first.
  • Learning can become an obligation. Mandatory development that the person did not choose can feel like more work rather than growth.

Why it matters

The business case for removing routine manual work is usually about cost, accuracy and capacity. Those are real and worth pursuing. But there is a second outcome that a cost model will not capture: what the person does with the time that comes back.

If it goes to more of the same work, the dividend is efficiency for the business and little for the person. If some of it goes to learning, the dividend is optionality: a wider set of futures for someone who had been waiting for a quieter month. That quieter month rarely arrives on its own. It has to be made, by changing the work that fills every hour and then deciding, deliberately, to give part of the result back.

Sources and further reading

Related Mellorca reading

Article summaryWhen manual admin fills every hour, learning is always postponed to a quieter month that never comes. What changes when recovered time is deliberately given to growth.
Explore our solutionsStart a conversation