Floating Eyeball

Constructing Employability is the first installment in a series of short working papers for researchers and policymakers that summarize employability findings.This work is made possible by the generous support of Microsoft Community Affairs. A word version of this document is available.

Introduction

The global knowledge economy has changed workplace practices and the relationship between employer and employee. Flexibility and the rapid turnover of businesses, worker tenure and even business models, or ‘churning,\’ [1, 2] characterize the new terrain. Older models of long-term \”career\” tenure of employees have given way to short-term arrangements based on demand for specific skill sets and continuous training and skills development [3, 4]. The rise of the concept of ‘employability\’ in business and policy circles is part of this transformation.

The implications of ‘employability\’ for businesses, highly skilled workers and government, have received significant attention, particularly in Europe [5, 6]. New, educated entrants to the workforce have been studied [7]. Research has also examined long-term unemployed populations [8], people with disabilities [9, 10, 11] and youth, or pre-entrants to the labor market [12].

An important segment of the population, for whom \”employability\” requires further analysis, is lower skilled workers that face obstacles to employment or advancement. These populations typically work for lower wages. They are sometimes out of work and sometimes hold multiple jobs. They are often vulnerable to layoffs due to their precarious position within the workforce and personal circumstances, such as illness or the need to care for family members. For these populations, interventions that increase employability demand greater attention and careful thinking.

An individual\’s capacity for self-sufficiency in the labor market

Typical definitions of employability describe an individual\’s capability to gain, sustain and obtain new employment.  The work of Hillage & Pollard [13] is commonly cited:

In simple terms, employability is about being capable of getting and keeping fulfilling work.  More comprehensively employability is the capability to move self-sufficiently within the labour market to realise potential through sustainable employment.  For the individual, employability depends on the knowledge, skills and attitudes they possess, the way they use those assets and present them to employers and the context (e.g. personal circumstances and labour market environment) within which they seek work. (p.1)

In this definition, as in most analyses of the rise of employability, the concept is framed in terms of the individual. Increasingly scarce \”lifelong\” careers and public employment policies that emphasize individual skills and competition between workers (versus collective goals of full employment, for example) are central to this frame. An individual\’s knowledge, skills and attitudes, or some variation on individual assets, is frequently cited as the key to employability [14]. While individual assets are undoubtedly essential pieces of the puzzle, they insufficiently describe the range of inputs required to get a job.

Promoting, not achieving employability

Being employable is different than being employed. Employability can be promoted without necessarily resulting in employment. Employment is frequently mischaracterized as a binary condition (Do you have a job? Or not?), ignoring short-term temporary work and a host of underemployment scenarios. Employability describes a continuum where numerous factors combine in ways that resist reduction and isolation, especially for lower-skilled workers. Hillage and Pollard outline the central elements of the definition. More recent articulations frame the evaluation and outcomes conversation for policymaking. One typical example is from the Government of Scotland, which defines employability as:

…the combination of factors and processes which enable people to progress towards or get into employment, to stay in employment and to move on in the workplace.

Employability describes a \”combination of factors\” which \”enable…progress towards\” employment. This definition is useful because it captures the interdependent, system characteristics by stressing the combination of factors. Employability outcomes require analysis of an individual\’s assets (and baggage) and how those variables interact with the cultural, geographic and economic particularities of local labor markets. Understanding the \”combination of factors\” which \”enable progress towards employment\” demands contextualization.

When defining employability for program evaluation, however, there is often a desire to isolate variables. A framework built around interdependent, system characteristics often faces resistance. It is difficult to measure and often fails to yield significant, unambiguous quantitative results. Many stakeholders, who freely use employability to describe conditions for the most competitive workers and firms, are often frustrated by descriptions of employability for lower skilled workers. (This sentiment is typically shared by these workers.) A graduate from a top-tier university, with all the cultural capital that entails, who learns the latest programming language, may see that skill directly translate into job offers or advancement.  For a convenience store clerk who is competing with five others, three of whom also have received basic computer training, a course that introduces word processing or spreadsheets usually does not tip the balance. The contribution of single inputs is murky lower on the pyramid.

The need to communicate outcomes is complicated by the contextual awareness that employability requires. \”Yes, but will people that receive training get jobs?\” That is a question of employment, not employability, and the answer will most likely be \”it depends.\”

Beyond an individual\’s assets

A common critique of ‘employability\’ argues that the supply-side emphasis on an individual\’s assets obscures the demand-side of employment and other social factors. The capability to secure employment depends on the relationship between an employee and an employer; the individual\’s assets are only part of the story [15]. Context matters.  This includes the local social and economic landscape and the individual\’s position within it. If a worker in a depressed mining community, for example, receives computer training but no jobs exist, has employability actually increased? Or if she is not hired or does not succeed in the workplace because of gender discrimination or because she does not \”fit in\” socially, has employability increased?

Beyond the availability of jobs and an individual\’s qualities, the pool of competitors matters. The individual\’s position among competitors is important.  Brown, Hesketh and Williams argue that employability requires consideration of \”positional\” issues [14]:

As Fred Hirsch (1977) suggests, ‘If everyone stands on tiptoe, no one sees better\’ (p. 5) [16]. But if one does not stand on tiptoe one has no chance of seeing.\’ Employability cannot be properly understood outside of this duality. Therefore, employability can be defined as the relative chances of acquiring and maintaining different kinds of employment.

Especially when employability is being used to frame philanthropic and development efforts designed to \”go to scale,\” positional aspects are an important part of the story.

The variety of factors that influence employment beyond an individual\’s knowledge, skills and attitudes must be accounted for. Formal education, social networks, a region or community\’s economic viability, social class, caste, gender stereotypes, learning styles, available jobs, the skills of others in the labor pool and many other factors combine to influence employability. A community\’s social and cultural fabric also plays a decisive role in attracting and retaining the most competitive workers in the global economy [17]. The way that these dynamics operate in \”less competitive\” settings with different types of workers require scrutiny to draw employability conclusions.

Implications for basic computer skills training

The purpose of this discussion is not to philosophize about employability. The employability frame is useful because it pinpoints one of the most important aspects of sustainable economic development: a person\’s ability to work.  As long as the frame retains an emphasis on the individual\’s assets as well as the larger, relevant social and economic contextual factors, it can contribute to development efforts.

Across economic sectors (retail, IT, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.), 21^st century workplaces increasingly require basic technology fluency [18, 19]. Understanding the connection between computer training programs and employability is important for promoting employment and sustainable development in communities around the world. This analysis is derived from work by the University of Washington\’s Center for Information & Society that investigates community-based computer skills training programs and the social, economic and political systems in which they are embedded.

For more than two years, this research has examined technology training across a wide variety of contexts: from urban teens in New York City to farmers in villages in Colombia, from illiterate migrant Filipina women that have survived human trafficking to professional accountants in Russia whose jobs depend on learning to use spreadsheets.  Training programs that promote employability among these sorts of vulnerable populations typically are customized around local needs [20].  Some deliver industry specific training, others \”introduce\” computers as part of a wider social agenda.  The examples of diversity are myriad and have provided texture and nuance for our thinking about employability.

The broad CIS employability agenda is to study the relationship between ICT skills and employability. However, isolating the impact of ICT skills training is plagued by necessary/sufficiency problems. Technology may be one of many necessary workplace competencies, but there are others. Since employability is influenced by many factors that interact in different ways, it should be thought of as an interdependent system, where isolating one variable, such as ICT skills, risks misunderstanding the system as a whole.

Bearing these risks in mind, we have highlighted four themes from our fieldwork that characterize the relationship between ICT skills training and employability that should be factored into the previous analysis in this paper to help construct \”employability.\” Thus far, CIS has employed highly contextual methods and storytelling to capture the unique characteristics of particular settings [21]. These themes stretch beyond the computer skills themselves and consider the broader context in which training is delivered as well as the social and economic context in which people seek and sustain employment.

1. Gateway skills. Absent computer skills, or assistance by infomediaries, for resume writing, job search, and online applications, workers can be excluded from competition for employment before it begins.  ICT skills are often a gateway that enables the possibility of employment.
2. One among many necessary skills. ICT skills can be a necessary element of the set of requisite skills. Communication, critical thinking, and teamwork are examples of others that are frequently cited [22]. Many organizations that promote employability weave ICT skills into a larger curriculum of baseline skills.  Depending on available jobs and the pool of applicants, ICT skills may tip the balance, or they may \”keep the applicant in the running\” so that some other variable tips the balance.
3. Catalyst for key skill development. In some settings basic ICT skills have become so prevalent that once the gateway function is satisfied, ICT skills are never referenced again. They are taken for granted, like reading and numeracy, particularly in settings saturated by training opportunities and exposure to technology. In these settings domain expertise or some other differentiating characteristic is the key.  Computer training sometimes attracts students, catalyzing the pursuit of other skills and services.  For example, someone enrolls in a computer class because it\’s modern and attractive. They have a positive learning experience and decide to pursue advanced education at a trade school or community college.  In instances like these, the computer skills per se did not tip the balance, but the computer training program catalyzed a series of events that did.
4. ICT skills may not be that important. Many factors described above influence employability: social networks, status, personal assets, assets of competing workers, available jobs, etc.  The list is long.  It is tempting to assume that the so-called \”information age\” dictates that every worker needs computer fluency. Little evidence supports that assumption. Older, non-technological forces are at work. Between the hyper-local realities of social relationships, labor markets, educational systems and personal characteristics, a particular individual asset may not play a decisive role.

Conclusion

The concept of employability has risen as the global economy has shifted toward a more flexible workforce built on short-term demand for skills versus long-term demand for loyalty.  It describes a combination of factors, such as an individual\’s knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable a worker to advance their employment prospects in a specific social and economic environment. For employability to have some connection to actual employment, the social and economic context, particularly the availability of jobs and the skills of other competitors, is as important as an individual\’s assets.

Employability is a useful lens for examining development interventions and technology skills are central to 21^st century workplaces. Four themes characterize the relationship between ICT skills training and employability:

1. ICT training promotes gateway skills that enable workers to compete for jobs.
2. ICT skills are one among a necessary set of skills that makes a worker more competitive.
3. ICT skills catalyze other determinative skills that make a worker more competitive.
4. ICT skills may not be that important.

References

1. Castells, M. (2000). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
2. Smith, V. (1997). New Forms of Work Organization. Annual Review of Sociology. 23, 315.
3. Waterman, R. (1994). Toward a Career-Resilient Workforce. Harvard Business Review. 72 (4), 87-95.
4. Sullivan, S., Carden, W., & Martin, D. (1998). Careers in the Next Millennium: Directions for Future Research. Human Resource Management Review. 8 (2), 165-185.
5. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2000). Beyond \’employability\’. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 24 (6), 729.
6. Philpott, J. (1999). Behind the buzzword: Employability. London: Employment Policy Institute.
7. Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and Measuring Employability. Quality in Higher Education. 7, 97-110.
8. Campbell, M. (2001). Reconnecting the long term unemployed to labour market opportunity: the case for a \”local active labour market policy.\” Human Resources Abstracts. 36 (1).
9. Bricout, J., & Bentley, K. (2000). Disability status and perceptions of employability by employers. Social Work Research-New York. 24, 87-95.
10. West, M., & Garrido, M. (2007). Bridging the e-skills gap in central and eastern Europe: The growth of e-skills and employability initiatives in the newly expanded European Union. Seattle: University of Washington Center for Information & Society.
11. Neff, P., & Pal, J. (forthcoming). The Infinite Window: Disability, Technology, and Empowerment. Seattle: Center for Information & Society.
12. Sullivan, J., Vander Leest, T., and Gordon, A. (2009). Work and Play in the Information Age: Technology Usage in Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA). Seattle: University of Washington Center for Information & Society (CIS).
13. Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a framework for policy analysis. Suffolk: DfEE.
14. Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Williams, S. (2003). Employability in a Knowledge-Driven Economy. Journal of Education and Work. 16, 107-126.
15. Berntson, E., Sverke, M., & Marklund, S. (2006). Predicting Perceived Employability: Human Capital or Labour Market Opportunities? Economic and Industrial Democracy. 27 (2), 223-244.
16. Hirsch, F. (1977). Social limits to growth. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
17. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it\’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
18. Hall, G. (2006). Teens and technology: Preparing for the future. New Directions for Youth Development. (111): 41-52.
19. Schwarz, E., & Stolow, D. (2006). Twenty-first century learning in afterschool. New Directions for Youth Development (110): 81-100.
20. Sullivan, J., Garrido, M., Dridi, K., Coward, C., and Gordon, A. (2007). ICT training and employability: Integrated service delivery in United States workforce development networks. Seattle: University of Washington Center for Information & Society.
21. Gordon, A., & Sullivan, J. (2008) Evidence Narratives: Storytelling from Anecdote to Evidence. Seattle: University of Washington Center for Information & Society.
22. Conference Board, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers\’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce. Tucson, AZ: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf