It is important to use valid selection tools to hire people for the work you have for them. But, what happens when technology changes the tasks or the jobs get replaced by automation? You can let people go as their work becomes obsolete and hire new staff. However, in times with low unemployment, this strategy will be difficult to execute. Or, you can train people to acquire the new skills. This has big implications in industries where tech is changing the nature of work, such as mining and warehousing, just to name two. However, trying to train lots of people in new skills assumes that they have the interest and aptitude for learning them. Remember, people chose to pursue their given job/career for a reason.
Amazon and Walmart provide an example of this type of investment. Their programs include technical and college training. What is telling about their plans is that neither company considers it a “nice to have.” Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the skills it takes to run their businesses are changing and they don’t think they can find enough talent to meet future needs in the labor pool. This may be because so many young people want a career that requires as little work as possible.
The situation also makes one think about selecting people for industries where the skills required change rapidly. Instead of using tests or interviews that focus on specific abilities, perhaps addressing broader ones, such as openness to new experiences and general aptitude, will serve companies better.
The economy is in a unique position right now. Unemployment is at the lowest rate this century as is the net migration rate. This leaves employers of a skilled workforce in the position of a smaller pool of candidates in general and likely one that contains fewer people with the talents they are looking for.
When more the jobs in the country were in the industrial sector (and there was a higher participation in private sector unions), management and labor worked out apprentice programs. This allowed lower skill workers to obtain the knowledge and skills for jobs over time. It also required the companies to really think about how they wanted the work done and train people accordingly.
The knowledge and service economy (along with companies’ willingness to expand/contact their head counts and greater employee mobility) has ground the apprentice approach to a near halt. People are more willing to skip from job to job to gain skills and employers are less leery of candidates who have multiple firms on their resumes. This gives hiring companies less control of the skills of the people they are hiring. I was considering these ideas when I read this article about Kaiser Permanente breaking ground its own medical school.
Kaiser’s jump into medical education can be taken in several ways, but the one that interests me the most is that a very large player in a big industry (health care) has gone to another big industry (medical schools) and said, “You all are behind the times in providing us workers and we think we can do it better.” It would be like a software company offering degrees in computer science (I think I just gave Amazon an idea!). This is potentially a disruption of a 300 year old model of providing workers.
The investment Kaiser is making is large, but they obviously see the benefit is even bigger in the quality of their doctor labor pool. I would think that if this foray is successful that they would open schools for other professions where they hire a lot of people (e.g., nursing).
The question for other business sectors is this: If your pool of available skilled talent is getting smaller, what are you doing to do to ensure you have access to it in the future? Are you going to poach from competitors or are you planning on creating your own talent pipeline?
I get that the investment in training is high and has its risks (I don’t want to spend a lot of money investing in people just to see them leave). However, it provides you the opportunity to develop the right skills and create the culture you want. It seems like money well spent.
In any employment market there are going to be jobs in high demand and those that go unfilled. In our tech driven economy, the jobs that are hard to recruit for range from utility lineman (long hours, hard work, and fabulous pay) and, strangely enough, cyber security. With all of the hype and news around hacking, I was surprised to learn that these $80k/year jobs are readily available. But why?
From a selection standpoint, good cyber security engineers need an odd combination of skills. Of course they need to be great programmers with high levels of critical thinking. However, they often need to have a criminal’s mindset (“How would I get into this system without someone knowing?”), which makes them a risky hire given their access to sensitive data. And makes them attractive on the black market.
The incentives for prevention jobs are also difficult. After all, they are performing well when nothing goes wrong. But, when someone breaks into the system…
This is an opportunity for industry and universities to work together. College students want tech jobs (sorry to those of you who recruit linemen), but they tend to want to work in the sexier product/app development area. Tech companies can show higher education how to make the field more “fun,” perhaps through gamification and appealing to the cat-and-mouse aspect of the work.
My sense is that they pay for these jobs will also need to rise to fill them. If it is true that good cyber security engineers have good hacking skills, there needs to be a sense of doing the right thing pays at least almost as well as breaking into systems.
What we see is that even tech companies need to be thinking about how to get future workers trained and recruited for jobs that are not that appealing. As our economy constantly evolves, companies will still need “legacy” employees (yes, some day, app development will be boring compared to what is hot then). And it is possible that the cycle of job obsolescence will become shorter. This makes the challenge for schools to provide the skills to future employees even greater. Industry and education will both benefit if they work together in that venture. I just hope in the meantime no one has hacked my blog.
If the former, then we shouldn’t even bother with leadership development. We usually think of leaders as those who can inspire and motivate others to put out discretionary effort and effective managers as those who ensure that things get done consistently well. Of course, they are not mutually exclusive and when we talk about leadership development we are usually talking about both concepts.
There is plenty of research on what techniques work in this arena. But, because there are so many over-hyped programs out there, let’s start with what doesn’t work:
1. Job shadowing for senior managers
2. Outdoor activity-based programs (rope climbing, white-water rafting, etc.)
3. Paper-based self-study leadership modules
4. Executive MBA”s and web-based self-study modules when implemented late in the persons career
The second one is most interesting as those team-building weekends sound so attractive. But, they are a waste of time and money. Note that the companies that put these on don’t back up their claims with data.
So, what does work?
2. In-house universities
3. Job rotations, executive MBA and web-based programs when started early
Note that these listed above don’t rely on quick fixes. Leadership and good management skills are difficult and complex, so you should expect that they take some time to develop. The successful techniques are interactive. Leadership is a skill practiced in the presence of others. It should be learned that way.
As with other employees, it’s less expensive to make a good hire than to train. In the meantime, be a careful consumer of leadership development products and services.
For more information on leadership, skills assessment, and talent management, please contact Warren at 310 670-4175 or [email protected]