This, from Kelly, really hits the nail on the head: “The last two decades have radically altered the way skills are acquired and developed. Skills are no longer “front-end loaded” onto a career. Rather, they are characterized by lifelong development and renewal. Most skill sets have a finite life.”
Skills are no longer “front-end loaded” onto a career.
But who recognizes this really? Employers who lament that they can’t find the skills they need in the workforce? Students who report being less than adequately prepared to enter the economy? Unemployed workers who can’t connect to a new employer?
Most skill sets have a finite life.
This has never been truer than today – and the “lives” will be getting shorter and shorter.
In their recent Global Workforce Index™ report, Career Development and Upskilling, Kelly looks at survey data from 120,000 people (workers, presumably) in 31 countries and has some very interesting data to share.
For example, most workers believe they are proficient in critical “soft skills” but Bilingual skills, Leadership/initiative and Creativity/innovation were all seen as needing development. Employees believe this of their skill sets. And most business leaders would not argue with these areas of deficit. Of note, however, is the belief on the part of employees that they have good mastery over the most critical “soft skills.” If true, perhaps learning budgets (such as they are) could be better deployed. If untrue, some challenging performance conversations need to be held!
Of course, in terms of the skills gap, most attention is being paid to STEM workers. Interestingly, these workers believe that their proficiencies in the most important skills sets of Analytical/critical thinking, Evaluation, analysis and troubleshooting, and Complex problem solving are solid (no lack of self-esteem in this group). Where they might need development are in the more complex technical side of things: systems, computer, software and mathematics, calculations, measurement and monitoring.
And if self-driven learning is key, then a realistic assessment of current skill levels and actual skill gaps will be critical. For everyone: employers, employees, learning providers – everyone!
These observations based on their survey responses seem common sense and almost obvious. Almost. I think most business leaders – and HR professionals in particular – would agree with Kelly that skills are no longer front-end loaded onto careers. They’d also agree that most skills have a shelf life.
But it doesn’t appear that we’re approaching the answers to the skills gap as a systemic shift in the nature of careers. We’re approaching it as a simple supply vs. demand dynamic – if we approach it at all. Perhaps this data can shift the conversation and approach to a more useful and motivating discussion: the nature of careers has shifted and so the nature of education and employment needs to shift as well.
Then we might make actual progress in addressing the perceived mismatch between the jobs available and the skills in the existing talent pool.