Workforce Development - A Good Investment?

Preparing unemployed and underskilled workers for skilled positions

The other day I got a message from Laura Johnson, over at Public/Private Ventures in NYC.  She was telling me about a new study that had come out entitled "Tuning In to Local Labor Markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment Impact Study" available on their website.

I did a quick review of it, and from my point of view and it's an impressive study, loaded with sound thinking, backed up by empirical data, and packaged to answer any question a reader may have.  Here's a synopsis from the report.

For American workers, having a high school or general equivalency diploma (GED)—which once represented a means of entrance to the middle class—is no longer adequate for finding steady employment. In fact, three quarters of low wage workers have these qualifications but lack the relevant occupational skills and connections to employers needed to launch a career. At the same time, in some regions of the country there are persistent skills gaps clustered in particular industries, such as manufacturing and healthcare.Many of these jobs are expected to grow and require specific technical skills that can be gained only through focused training that is closely linked to the needs of local businesses.

Over the past two decades, an innovative approach to workforce development known as sectoral employment has emerged, resulting in the creation of industry-specific training programs that prepare unemployed and under-skilled workers for skilled positions and connect them with employers seeking to fill such vacancies. Based on earlier outcomes studies pointing to the promise of this strategy, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) set out to conduct a random assignment evaluation to assess whether sector-focused programs could in fact increase the earnings of low-income, disadvantaged workers and job.

This study focused on three distinct programs across the country:

1. an employer/union association,
2. a social venture and
3. a human service organization.

These programs had strong effects for participants, including higher earnings and better jobs (as measured by hourly wages and access to benefits).

In the conclusion, of the report the authors point out that as we emerge from the Great Recession, which has disproportionately affected disadvantaged workers, these strategies and the organizations that implement them may represent a key element in America’s economic recovery—for its workers and its employers.

In other words, the playing field has changed over the past 3 years, and the understandings and approaches that we as workforce managers need to change as a result.

 

 

Are we "tuning out" the creativity in business?

One of the many information sources I read on creativity has been very busy as of late discussing this topic. 

A colleague opined "our education system is geared up to make us take ourselves very seriously, not to mention become little drones who take up loans to go to university, where we are taught how to become the best mercenaries to corporations (not dissimilar to [a person], who fought for whoever could offer him better wages and benefits), become hugely in debt by the time we are 22 - and ruthless employers love employees who are in debt, because they cannot afford to lose their job!"

There are numerous questions that this observation raises, but one that my colleague hit upon that I'm pondering. 

Are organizations looking for "the coporation man " (as defined in Jonathan Cape's 1972 best seller by the same name)?  One would think that we're well beyond that stage (but perhaps not)

Are the way we educate and train people today (in post secondary as well as adult education), biased toward "non creative" areas?  If so, what is the consequence of this?

How "work based learning" will transform our newest employees

In today's workplace, individuals need to demonstrate competence in several skillset categories, some of which have previously not received anough attention :

• Work Ethic
• Workplace Communication
• Workplace Technologies
• Workplace Relationships
• Workplace Diversity
• Workplace Safety
• Lifelong Learning

That's the idea behind an initiative called "work based learning skills" that intends to prepare students for the new world they are entering.  Watch this space, as I plan on having more information on this exciting area soon.

The "third place" and why it is so important to understand...

People used to follow the jobs; they moved where the company sent them. But today, people often pick a place to live first and then look for work. Today, it may be where we live, rather than who's employing us at the moment, that attaches us to our work and careers.

So asserts Richard Florida a widely renowned expert in the areas of cultural and technological innovation. He author of the global best-seller The is the author of "Rise of the Creative Class" and "Who's Your City?" (a national and international best seller and amazon.com book of the month). His new book, "The Great Reset" explains how new ways of living and working will drive post-crash prosperity.

I just finished reading an article he wrote entitled "A place not home, not work" that appeared in the New York Times and St. Petersburg Times, that shows how dramatically our workplaces have changed.

It's a powerful and provocative article, and will make you think differently about the nature of the workplace of today. 

Why Dilbert-style upper management still stymies good performers

Pattie Vargas of The Vargas Group, in San DIego did an article last year called On Incompetent Employees.

This article which referenced a piece appreaing on Bnet, entitled  “The Five Ways Managers Breed Incompetence” struck a chord with me.

One of my former Booz-Allen & Hamilton colleagues recently queried a group of us asking, "What was the top ethical issue" in the marketplace today?

After thinking about it, I responded, "setting the wrong incentives" which as we know, more often than not, results in rewarding the wrong behaviors.

Pattie hits the nail on the head with her article when she states:

One of the ways cited in the article was “Rewarding Mediocrity.” Hear, hear. An organization I once worked for had this process down pat. As I was leaving a meeting where one of the senior product managers had tap-danced his way through a late schedule, incomplete deliverables and cost over-runs, I cynically thought to myself, “He’s in line for a VP position.” Even though I was half joking (gallows humor, you know) my premonition came true within the week.

So I'd like to thank Pattie for bringing this issue into clearer focus for me.

Perhaps the "top ethical issue" is the damage that "setting the wrong incentives" for poor performers has on the rest of the workforce who are trying to do the right thing, just because it's the right thing, not because there is a "carrot" being help out in front of you.

Thank you Pattie !

Is today's news even believable?

It seems that over the past 20 years that the "mainstream media" have evolved from the likes of responsible journalists like Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite to the increasingly shallow, biased and inaccurate reporting we see today.

Perhaps it is a function of having dozens to hundreds of 24/7 news channels on modern day media, and that we often seem eager to have delivered to us a sound bite or tweet at a time.

The speed, volume and lack of reference is also a problem because it allows for a blurring of the lines between news and opinion.

In the past, a newspaper may have had an editorial slant – union newspapers vs. business journals – but in general, newspaper articles concentrated on the facts; who, what where and why. Speculation and opinions were largely left to the editorial page. Now, with the advent of blogs and talk radio, the separation has become fuzzier. Much of what passes as network news these days is little more than anecdote, opinion and innuendo.

Sadly, "true news" by the major networks as delivered today (in my humble) can increasingly be found in cyberspace, than by the "professional" news networks.  While these new internet-based news sources lack the funding, polish and structure of the major networks, they are often getting the news out more quickly, and sometimes more accurately.  Case in point, the death of Michael Jackson.

For those that seek more (and more relevant), at the risk of stating the obvious (at least to me) perhaps we may want to rethink where we choose to get our news and how we access it.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves why can't we take the time to do some basic research and pick the spokesperson(s) in today's connected world that resonate best with how you view the world, then visit their websites, sign up for their newsletters.  Becoming more informed, and understanding the essence of the issue, not just the "splash" coverage we often get.

And take the time to read up on those that you disagree with as well.  It takes more time and effort than simply taking as fact the "pre-digested" version on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox etc.

However, please keep in mind that I'm speaking up to this point about the traditional "mainstream" news media, not the valuable industry and topic specific press.  I find the "industry news" media still do a very good job delivering "true" value, and are still, more often than not, worth reading. 

To the industry and topic specific publishers, keep up the good work !

Make better economic workforce decisions

The labor market today, as well as the overall economy is vastly different from what we had five years ago.  New situations pose new challenges for executives and workforce development specialists.  Among the issues being studied are:

1. Why is early retirement not a good instrument to reduce youth unemployment?
2. How would an increase in the standard retirement age affect the behavior of employers and workers?
3. Why do many firms employ older workers, but few firms hire older workers?

These and many other contemporary issues are covered in a recent book, "The Economics of Imperfect Labor Markets", published 2008 by Princeton University Press (authors: Tito Boeri and Jan van Ours)

Are we making sure that we're conveying the whole story?

After General Wellington had defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, the news was brought back to England by sailing ship. When it arrived on the south coast, the message was sent along by flag signals until it got to London. Finally the news was signaled from the roof of Winchester cathedral. It said: "Wellington defeated."

 A heavy fog had covered the area at the time and hid the signals from view. The sad news  was relayed to London and it plunged the citizens into a deep gloom.

But a short time later, the fog lifted and the remainder of the message came through. It had said: "Wellington defeated the enemy."

The good news raced through the city and country. If lifted the gloomy hearts from sadness to joy.

In other words, the "whole story" wasn't told, and until it came out, painted a very different picture.

Ask yourself, if you feel that you're getting the "whole story" from your colleagues in the place where you work, or simply a collection of "sound bites" (and Tweets) that convey little useful information (and require you to stitch the data fragments together to make sense)

Likewise today, our appetite for information often can cloud our judgement.

One aspect where this is particularly evident is in the aility (or skill) of detmining when there is enough quality data available, or to examine the true "information content" of communications, and determine whenh/how it should best be delivered.

Too frequently do we see incomplete (and sometimes misleading) information being disseminated, resulting in poor subsequent decisions / actions.  But there is another aspect of this phenomenon:  Any scientist will acknowledge that premature dissemination (or lack of proper "packaging") of data that has not been vetted or put into its proper context undermines the ability to later publish that data.

It seems that in today's workforce, that too often, much data gets disseminated in ways that don't support the organization's mission.

Question to my readers:  What are some of the "best practices" you have observed in how organizations convey meaningful information that tell the "whole story" in its proper context?

"Basic training" in Problem Solving

In the workforce, when you get down to the truth of the matter, we are paid to solve problems.

Yet, why is is that there is often no specific training provided to workers on the "methodology" of Problem Solving?

Here's a simple, straightforward approach that works in most cases...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you encounter a problem, there are four basic steps involved in getting an answer or solution.

They are:

1.     Find out what you already know

a.     Look at the problem.

b.     Have you ever had a similar problem before?

c. If so, how is this problem similar and how is it different?

d.     What facts do you have?

e.     What do you know that is stated in the problem?

2.     Choose a strategy

a.     How have you solved a similar problem in the past?

b.     What strategies do you know?

c. Try a strategy that seems as if it will work.

d.     If it doesn’t work, it may lead you to another that will work.

3.     Solve the problem

4.     Reflect

a.     Reread the question.

b.     Did you answer the question that was asked?

c. Is your answer reasonable?

d.     If it is a math problem, is your answer in the right units?

e.     Check your work if possible.

f.   Is there another answer that seems more reasonable than the one you got?

g.     If so, be sure you can rule out the other answer.