But cross training is not only about preparing leaders; it can also increase efficiency and even cut operational costs. For Edward E. Lawler, a professor and expert in organizational management at the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, one of the biggest benefits can be the flexibility it gives companies when it comes to staffing requirements. "You never quite know what your workload will look like, with illnesses, absenteeism, turnover," he says. "It's nice to have people who can work in different spots."

Blue-Collar Roots

It is difficult to say how many companies today train their employees in multiple disciplines. Broad-based recent numbers are scarce, and there is not a precise definition of what a program must offer in order to qualify as full-fledged cross training. A 1998 study by three Labor Department economists extrapolated that about 24% of U.S. companies with 50 employees or more have instituted some kind of program they consider cross training. How many finance units use it is still another question. Wayne S. Mello, executive director of permanent placement for Robert Half International, a finance-professionals staffing company, estimates that about 30% of his clients incorporate job rotation into their departments. GM's Parekh, for instance, interviewed with about 10 companies just before completing his M.B.A.–only three of which offered job rotation.

If the concept makes a lot of sense, why is it not more pervasive? One reason may be that its roots are more blue-collar than white-collar, starting in the 1950s as a way to relieve the boredom of repetitive factory jobs. Eventually, factory managers realized it offered another benefit: giving employees, accustomed to performing an isolated task, a productivity-boosting understanding of the wider organization, USC's Lawler contends. Still, many finance executives probably had little exposure to the concept in business school or early in their careers, and human resources managers may often reserve it for the factory floor.

That began to change during the almost non-stop corporate restructuring to make companies leaner and flatter that went on in the 1990s–particularly in the first half of the decade when the country was coming back from recession. Then, cross training became a necessity, as departments were sometimes drastically reduced in size, and employees were increasingly called upon to perform more than one job. Still, only a minority made cross training part of their corporate culture. And with the constantly expanding economy that followed, many companies chose to hire rather than expand the skill set of current employees. The need arose again when the pool of qualified candidates began to evaporate. And, as Robert Half International's Mello points out, employees with a wide-ranging skill set are particularly important during the current recession when companies want to avoid expensive hiring but still need to get the job done.

The Drawbacks

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which tragically demonstrated to some companies what can suddenly happen to a workforce, might also prompt managers to give more thought to cross training as a form of business insurance, Mello suggests. "My guess is companies will look at cross training this year more and more, because it's another check on what we can do to combat uncertainty in the future or disruption to the workforce," he says.

Those considering cross training should know that the practice has some drawbacks, according to experts. There is a possibility that the company's institutional memory will weaken if no one has long-term tenure in any job. Perhaps more important is that even the brightest and most enthusiastic employee needs time to learn and settle into a new job. That can result in temporary dips in efficiency, says Michael A. Campion, a professor of management atPurdue University's Krannert Graduate School of Management in West Lafayette, Ind., and co-author of a study that examined a job-rotation program in the finance offices of pharmaceuticals giant Lilly. What's more, cross training can increase certain costs, Lawler says: Employees are generally paid extra for their enhanced skills, either through raises or bonuses.

Executives interestd in job rotating also need to consider the various tasks within their departments, because some jobs may not lend themselves to a steady churn of employees. At Lucent, Hund-Mejean believes that her risk-management operation, for example, requires professionals with intimate knowledge of the insurance field. The work, typically done by insurance-industry veterans, may be too specialized for newly minted M.B.A.s, she says.

Finally, cross training is not for everyone. Every organization has its share of "blockers"–people so comfortable in their current jobs that they don't want to make room for someone new or try something new. At GM, such employees typically can stay put, Feldstein says, but supervisors also make it clear that to move up in the organization an employee must have had a diversity of experiences. The problem rarely emerges, however, because the company takes pains to identify potential hires up to the rigors of a job rotation, says Kathi Callan, director of human resources for GM's New York-based treasurer's office.

Finding M.B.A.s eager to rotate jobs is easy. In fact, companies are using job-rotation offerings as a recruitment tool. Case in point: Ines Craviotto, a recently hired business development analyst at GM, who graduated from Harvard Business School last June. She chose GM over several offers, in large part–60% by her measure–because of the rotation. "That's one of the first things candidates will ask," says Carol Asselta, human-resources manager at Chicago electric utility Exelon Corp., which is in the process of rolling out a cross-training program. "'Once I come in, will I stick in that job forever–or will I move around.'"