Hard Unemployment Truths About "Soft" Skills

[IIOY]

The writer loses me a bit at the very end, but overall food for thought. From the WSJ:

At a recent dinner in Washington, D.C., with representatives from major American manufacturing companies, I listened as the talk turned to how hard it is to find qualified applicants for jobs.

"What exactly are the skills you can't find?" I asked, imagining that openings for high-tech positions went begging because, as we hear so often, the training of the U.S. workforce doesn't match up well with current corporate needs.

One of the representatives looked sheepishly around the room and responded: "To be perfectly honest . . . we have a hard time finding people who can pass the drug test." Several other reps gave a knowing nod. Applicants were often so underqualified, they said, that simply finding someone who could properly answer the telephone was sometimes a challenge.

More than 600,000 jobs in manufacturing went unfilled in 2011 due to a skills shortage, according to a survey conducted by the consultancy Deloitte.

The problem seems soluble: Equip workers with the skills they need to match them with employers who are hiring. That explains the emphasis that policy makers of both parties place on science, technology, engineering and math degrees—it is such a mantra that they're known by shorthand as STEM degrees.

American manufacturing has become more advanced, we're told, and requires computer aptitude, intricate problem solving, and greater dexterity with complex tasks. Surely if Americans were getting STEM education, they would have the skills they need to get jobs in our modern, high-tech economy.

But considerable evidence suggests that many employers would be happy just to find job applicants who have the sort of "soft" skills that used to be almost taken for granted. In the Manpower Group's 2012 Talent Shortage Survey, nearly 20% of employers cited a lack of soft skills as a key reason they couldn't hire needed employees. "Interpersonal skills and enthusiasm/motivation" were among the most commonly identified soft skills that employers found lacking.

Employers also mention a lack of elementary command of the English language. A survey in April of human-resources professionals conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management and the AARP compared the skills gap between older workers who were nearing retirement and younger workers coming into the labor pool. More than half of the organizations surveyed reported that simple grammar and spelling were the top "basic" skills among older workers that are not readily present among younger workers.

The SHRM/AARP survey also found that "professionalism" or "work ethic" is the top "applied" skill that younger workers lack. This finding is bolstered by the Empire Manufacturing Survey for April, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It said that manufacturers were finding it harder to find punctual, reliable workers today than in 2007, "an interesting result given that New York State's unemployment rate was more than 4 percentage points lower in early 2007 than in early 2012."

The skills shortage is not just an absence of workers who can write computer code, operate complex graphics software or manipulate cultures in a biotech lab—as real as that scarcity is. Many people lack what the writer R.R. Reno has called "forms of social discipline" that are indispensable components of a person's human capital and that are needed for economic success.

This is not an exercise in blaming the victim. There's plenty of fault to go around, from America's inadequate K-12 education system to the collapse of intact families and the resultant erosion of human and social capital in many communities. But we shouldn't delude ourselves about the nature of the problem facing many of the millions of Americans who can't find work.

[smock]

i kant spell becuz my parents got divorced.

[Deleted]

I would totally believe this. I also think about an article posted on MM recently about 21 ways the rich think differently. Which was mostly a stupid article, but had a good point that being rich (or employed in this case) is not getting a formal degree, but what you know.

I hire for early career professional positions. I get a lot of candidates who have basically demotivated themselves by getting an MPH--they think they are now worth 60k, but they don't know how to do anything. Do they know how to use Excel? No? Then I can't hire them for $35k, not that they would be happy or motivated then anyway.

I don't think schools are very looped into what skills employers need and definitely don't provide training on how industry really works.

My poor BIL worked really hard and got a PhD in engineering and then his top university didn't have much advice for how to get a job in industry. He got a good job he likes, but was it the best fit or use of his skills? Who knows.

I feel like any more people may as well have an art history degree as opposed to chemistry because neither will teach them anything practical, so at least the person will be interesting and have spent time studying something they are passionate about.

[terpsfan]

well I am currently dealing with placing a new college hire who can't get a low level clearance or MBI due to "illegal drug use in the past year" so I agree. COME ON PEOPLE

[IIOY]

Sept 20, 2012 7:47:20 GMT -5 @kcpokergal said:

I don't think schools are very looped into what skills employers need and definitely don't provide training on how industry really works.

I totally agree with this.

[livinitup]

This is going to sound really boring. Really, really boring. But being on-time has a lot to do with transportation. 80 yearsa ago, when my great grandfather got injured and my grandmother left school to go to work in R.H. Macy's, it was easy and affordable for her to get on a subway from Brokklyn to Manhattan to work as a "girl" in the accounts department.

If you move your plant or base of operations to the middle of nowhere because land is cheap and taxes are low, and there is no infrastructure for entering workers to get there - you can't be that surprised that people who can't afford reliable cars, insurance and gas can't get there with any sort of regularity.

[cookiemdough]

Some of this I think is also the employers fault. The unwillingness to train or work with people who have great soft skills but don't fit every technical criteria is just as short sighted IMO.

[pamela]

Sept 20, 2012 7:50:50 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Sept 20, 2012 7:47:20 GMT -5 @kcpokergal said:

I don't think schools are very looped into what skills employers need and definitely don't provide training on how industry really works.

I totally agree with this.

I also don't think students do enough research on their own about what they actually need to get a job and expect that just going with the flow will get them there.

But really, the skills this article talks about potential employees missing aren't things that are taught in school. They are taught at home or in your part-time jobs in high school or college.

[ladybrettashley]

Sept 20, 2012 7:55:10 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Some of this I think is also the employers fault. The unwillingness to train or work with people who have great soft skills but don't fit every technical criteria is just as short sighted IMO.

I agree with this. I'm in HR and it has been a real struggle trying to get management to understand that not everyone (especially early career candidates) is going to have all the technical skills right off the bat. There will still be training required. But with how lean our workforce is, there is no budget or time for training, so management gets frustrated because they think there are no qualified candidates. The reality is there are plenty of qualified candidates, but they are not perfect and they require training.

I feel like this article lays all the blame on the workers, but companies share the blame. It is not just my company that has basically tried to avoid training their workers.

[IIOY]

Sept 20, 2012 7:55:52 GMT -5 pamela said:

Sept 20, 2012 7:50:50 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I totally agree with this.

But really, the skills this article talks about potential employees missing aren't things that are taught in school. They are taught at home or in your part-time jobs in high school or college.

Yes and no. I agree that certain things, like not using drugs, are obviously not a school's responsibility to teach. However, I think schools do their students a disservice when they provide only classroom instruction and no guidance as to what to expect in the real world vis a vis what they are learning in that classroom. My personal experience has lead me to believe that apprenticeships-for-credit as part of advanced study would do a lot more for some students than another semester full of lectures.

[emilyj]

Sept 20, 2012 7:47:20 GMT -5 @kcpokergal said:

I don't think schools are very looped into what skills employers need and definitely don't provide training on how industry really works.

One thing I love about the degree program I teach in is that we have an advisory council made up of alumnus who come back twice a year for a full day meeting with us and talk about exactly this - how is the field changing, what can they do to help us prepare our students, and what do we need to be aware of.

But there's also only so much I can do in the classroom. That kid that's slumped over in the back row, sleeping through half of the class that thinks he's going to graduate and get an awesome job working on the next presidential PR campaign? Yeah. Probably not going to happen.

[racegrrl714]

Sept 20, 2012 7:47:20 GMT -5 @kcpokergal said:

I would totally believe this. I also think about an article posted on MM recently about 21 ways the rich think differently. Which was mostly a stupid article, but had a good point that being rich (or employed in this case) is not getting a formal degree, but what you know.

I hire for early career professional positions. I get a lot of candidates who have basically demotivated themselves by getting an MPH--they think they are now worth 60k, but they don't know how to do anything. Do they know how to use Excel? No? Then I can't hire them for $35k, not that they would be happy or motivated then anyway.

I don't think schools are very looped into what skills employers need and definitely don't provide training on how industry really works.

My poor BIL worked really hard and got a PhD in engineering and then his top university didn't have much advice for how to get a job in industry. He got a good job he likes, but was it the best fit or use of his skills? Who knows.

I feel like any more people may as well have an art history degree as opposed to chemistry because neither will teach them anything practical, so at least the person will be interesting and have spent time studying something they are passionate about.

I agree. I think most colleges/universities these days are so focused on churning out "well-rounded" individuals with their requirements that students take a certain number of classes in so many different areas, that they forget that for most people, we don't go to college to become more well-rounded (at least that's not our first goal), it's to be able to have a career after we graduate. Honestly, I think they should be focusing more on classes like computer science, rather than social science; interpersonal communications rather than public speaking (because seriously, if you can't even hold a meaningful conversation with one person, how are you supposed to be able to write a speech and give it in front of a bunch of people); mock interviews rather than musical history as required courses. A lot of the "general education" classes that they are now requiring to graduate should actually be electives, with more career focused classes taking their place.

[cookiemdough]

Sept 20, 2012 7:47:20 GMT -5 @kcpokergal said:

I hire for early career professional positions. I get a lot of candidates who have basically demotivated themselves by getting an MPH--they think they are now worth 60k, but they don't know how to do anything. Do they know how to use Excel? No? Then I can't hire them for $35k, not that they would be happy or motivated then anyway.

This is kind of what I talking about though. Excel isn't that hard. You can do a self study in a couple of hours, not to mention there is a help function. Why toss out a candidate because of this?

[LoveTrains]

And this is another reason why the drug policy in this country is so effed up. Who cares if someone smokes a joint on the weekend?!

[Daria Morgandorffer]

I hire admins. The last few times I've done it, it's been exceedingly difficult to find someone that is both professional and enthusiastic for the position. When you can't even feign enthusiasm in an interview, why would I want to hire your ass when I know you'll be the one eye-rolling when you get a tough assignment? Drives me batty.

[shopgirl07]

I didn't read the whole article but as an employer, I have a really hard time finding people with the soft skills as well.

I own hair salons and I am dismayed on a regular basis when dealing with applicants. Just yesterday, I interviewed someone who showed up in jeans, chewed gum the whole time, spoke negatively about her current employer and used the word bitch in the interview.

Then I got a resume where the spelling and grammar was just horrific. She listed one of her jobs as "clean disable lady's house". And she led off in her email with "well, I'm not working right now so I thought I'd apply". Great.

[ttt]

Sept 20, 2012 7:54:32 GMT -5 livinitup said:

This is going to sound really boring. Really, really boring. But being on-time has a lot to do with transportation. 80 yearsa ago, when my great grandfather got injured and my grandmother left school to go to work in R.H. Macy's, it was easy and affordable for her to get on a subway from Brokklyn to Manhattan to work as a "girl" in the accounts department.

If you move your plant or base of operations to the middle of nowhere because land is cheap and taxes are low, and there is no infrastructure for entering workers to get there - you can't be that surprised that people who can't afford reliable cars, insurance and gas can't get there with any sort of regularity.

Actually this is a great point, one that I almost never see mentioned. Plus, traffic is far worse in most major cities than it was a generation ago, and since housing is far more expensive than it was a generation ago, most workers have to live farther from their workplaces.

[pescalita]

Sept 20, 2012 8:25:24 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Sept 20, 2012 7:47:20 GMT -5 @kcpokergal said:

I hire for early career professional positions. I get a lot of candidates who have basically demotivated themselves by getting an MPH--they think they are now worth 60k, but they don't know how to do anything. Do they know how to use Excel? No? Then I can't hire them for $35k, not that they would be happy or motivated then anyway.

This is kind of what I talking about though. Excel isn't that hard. You can do a self study in a couple of hours, not to mention there is a help function. Why toss out a candidate because of this?

This is kind of a soft skill and a hard skill though. I'm mostly self-taught on excel, so I agree that it can be picked up. But it's about finding someone who CAN pick it up. I have a gal I've tried to hand a report over to several times in the last year. It's not that complicated - pasting together several files and summing. She can't grasp it. And that doesn't touch the disaster when I tried to broach vlookup. (this is not a young woman btw)

All this article is doing is giving me a headache since I need to hire someone in like a week (who I have no time to train).

[ttt]

Sept 20, 2012 8:17:27 GMT -5 racegrrl714 said:

Sept 20, 2012 7:47:20 GMT -5 @kcpokergal said:

I would totally believe this. I also think about an article posted on MM recently about 21 ways the rich think differently. Which was mostly a stupid article, but had a good point that being rich (or employed in this case) is not getting a formal degree, but what you know.

I hire for early career professional positions. I get a lot of candidates who have basically demotivated themselves by getting an MPH--they think they are now worth 60k, but they don't know how to do anything. Do they know how to use Excel? No? Then I can't hire them for $35k, not that they would be happy or motivated then anyway.

I don't think schools are very looped into what skills employers need and definitely don't provide training on how industry really works.

My poor BIL worked really hard and got a PhD in engineering and then his top university didn't have much advice for how to get a job in industry. He got a good job he likes, but was it the best fit or use of his skills? Who knows.

I feel like any more people may as well have an art history degree as opposed to chemistry because neither will teach them anything practical, so at least the person will be interesting and have spent time studying something they are passionate about.

I agree. I think most colleges/universities these days are so focused on churning out "well-rounded" individuals with their requirements that students take a certain number of classes in so many different areas, that they forget that for most people, we don't go to college to become more well-rounded (at least that's not our first goal), it's to be able to have a career after we graduate. Honestly, I think they should be focusing more on classes like computer science, rather than social science; interpersonal communications rather than public speaking (because seriously, if you can't even hold a meaningful conversation with one person, how are you supposed to be able to write a speech and give it in front of a bunch of people); mock interviews rather than musical history as required courses. A lot of the "general education" classes that they are now requiring to graduate should actually be electives, with more career focused classes taking their place.

That's part of the problem, though - college isn't supposed to be career training. It's supposed to be about education.

[terpsfan]

Maybe it's because I'm coming to the end of my new college hire placement season and I'm old and cranky but I don't have tolerance for the "oh they are kids and EVERYONE uses drugs in college" reason. I (and friends in college almost 20 years ago) who knew that there was a potential that they wanted to work for the govt, or become a judge, or hell, work in politics (remember the Clinton "I didn't inhale" stuff was going on at the time) and made a decision to not do drugs based on their future. I don't give college students a free pass on this because in my mind, yes they should know better and act better.

[ttt]

Also can we talk about the study that found older workers are awesome and younger worker suck....sponsored by the AARP? ^o)

[kadams767]

Sept 20, 2012 8:35:05 GMT -5 mr+ms said:

Sept 20, 2012 8:05:16 GMT -5 ladybrettashley said:

I feel like this article lays all the blame on the workers, but companies share the blame. It is not just my company that has basically tried to avoid training their workers.

I agree. Plus they want professionalism, motivation and work ethic? I think that's more appropriate for an era long gone - where you stayed at a company for life and not these days where the rug is pulled from under your feet at any time.

I hope I am misinterpreting your statement, but do you really think professionalism, motivation and work ethich is inappropriate for today's incoming workers? Even if you don't plan on staying at a company for 25 years, you need to work hard and be professional.

[pamela]

Sept 20, 2012 7:54:32 GMT -5 livinitup said:

This is going to sound really boring. Really, really boring. But being on-time has a lot to do with transportation. 80 yearsa ago, when my great grandfather got injured and my grandmother left school to go to work in R.H. Macy's, it was easy and affordable for her to get on a subway from Brokklyn to Manhattan to work as a "girl" in the accounts department.

If you move your plant or base of operations to the middle of nowhere because land is cheap and taxes are low, and there is no infrastructure for entering workers to get there - you can't be that surprised that people who can't afford reliable cars, insurance and gas can't get there with any sort of regularity.

No one wants any sort of plant near where they live so they have to be built in the middle of nowhere.

I don't care where your job is, that's no excuse for not being there on time the vast majority of the time.

And to the other poster, work ethic and professionalism are absolutely still important even in today's more mobile workforce situation. Work ethic is that you work while at work, not just dedicating your life to your company expecting them to reciprocate when you retire after 30y there.

[cookiemdough]

Sept 20, 2012 9:18:11 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Sept 20, 2012 8:35:05 GMT -5 mr+ms said:

I agree. Plus they want professionalism, motivation and work ethic? I think that's more appropriate for an era long gone - where you stayed at a company for life and not these days where the rug is pulled from under your feet at any time.

I hope I am misinterpreting your statement, but do you really think professionalism, motivation and work ethich is inappropriate for today's incoming workers? Even if you don't plan on staying at a company for 25 years, you need to work hard and be professional.

Of course it is important, but a big motivator is promotion potential. If the only way to get a promotion is to leave and go to another company where you will have to build new all new relationships, I think it probably does impact the effort younger people devote to their current positions.

[ttt]

Sept 20, 2012 9:28:17 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

American manufacturing has become more advanced, we're told, and requires computer aptitude, intricate problem solving, and greater dexterity with complex tasks. Surely if Americans were getting STEM education, they would have the skills they need to get jobs in our modern, high-tech economy.

This is just another way of saying that the American worker today does not know how to multi-task or innovate, which is utterly unsurprising to me in a country where thinking and learning have been replaced with memorizing and drilling.


Okay, hear me out here. I think this is what happens when you have an entire system that is driven by "skills" training rather than actual learning. They don't learn how to be intuitive; they don't learn how to think independently. Everything ends up being "Is this going to be on the test?" So you get an entire population of people who lack that real fundamental basic knowledge that combines sociology with history with literature (i.e. This is how people interact with each other and this is what happens in certain interaction) and instead you have a population of workers who are like, "So... I don't get it. What if the caller asks a question that isn't on the script?"

As for enthusiasm and "soft skills", I have a hard time necessarily blaming that on education. I think we have a typical French Revolution problem here. If you are a blue collar worker in the US, you are surrounded by enormous wealth, but you can afford none of it. That might be kind of a wet blanket on my enthusiasm too.

:Y: :Y: :Y: :Y: :Y: So well said.

It even extends to our entertainment - I was making this point yesterday in the thread about kids on the playground. Kids don't know how to be creative even when they play. Everything has to have a 'right' way of doing it. Video games are the worst offender with this - there's only one way to win the game and there's no creativity necessary or possible.

[pescalita]

Sept 20, 2012 9:25:27 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Sept 20, 2012 9:18:11 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

I hope I am misinterpreting your statement, but do you really think professionalism, motivation and work ethich is inappropriate for today's incoming workers? Even if you don't plan on staying at a company for 25 years, you need to work hard and be professional.

Of course it is important, but a big motivator is promotion potential. If the only way to get a promotion is to leave and go to another company where you will have to build new all new relationships, I think it probably does impact the effort younger people devote to their current positions.

(I'm not picking on you promise

I think the shorter stints makes professionalism and work ethic MORE important. You don't know where your paycheck is going to be coming from in 5 or 10 years, so you better impress the people you work with now.

I was just talking about this with a coworker, our boss thinks I have loyalty to the company because I've been here going on 7 years. No. I have loyalty to myself. And I know the better I do here, the more skills I learn, the higher I can bump my position and salary, and the better I can foster connections with my coworkers who will be working in the valley with me for decades to come, the better off I am when this place eventually goes down in a ball of flames.

[pt716]

Well I am screwed. How do you learn interpersonal communication skills?

[ttt]

Sept 20, 2012 9:42:36 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Sept 20, 2012 9:32:14 GMT -5 ttt said:

So well said.

It even extends to our entertainment - I was making this point yesterday in the thread about kids on the playground. Kids don't know how to be creative even when they play. Everything has to have a 'right' way of doing it. Video games are the worst offender with this - there's only one way to win the game and there's no creativity necessary or possible.

Total aside: this isn't true of all video games. Back when I had time for video games, I was a big fan of the "choose your own adventure" type games. Civilization, simcity, Fable... that stuff.

But in general, I completely agree with your point. My daughter's school has a whole play-based curriculum, which I had learned about from a friend of mine who works in education and when we were looking for schools she said that a "play-based curriculum" should be on the "must have" list. But I attended the curriculum night the other night and the teacher had to explain the whole thing of "playing is important; it is a child's 'work'" and you could tell she'd had not just a few conversations with parents who were like, "I'm not paying thousands of dollars a year for little Johnny to 'play' all day. I want him to learn."

I weep for humanity.

No, that's true. But do you know what kids do now when they play video games that have puzzles or problems? My SS would play Lara Croft, where you have to solve puzzles, and if he couldn't figure it out within five seconds, he'd just go online and find a cheat or walkthrough on YouTube. He said he didn't want "waste time" with the puzzles. Sigh...

[kadams767]

Sept 20, 2012 9:25:27 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Sept 20, 2012 9:18:11 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

I hope I am misinterpreting your statement, but do you really think professionalism, motivation and work ethich is inappropriate for today's incoming workers? Even if you don't plan on staying at a company for 25 years, you need to work hard and be professional.

Of course it is important, but a big motivator is promotion potential. If the only way to get a promotion is to leave and go to another company where you will have to build new all new relationships, I think it probably does impact the effort younger people devote to their current positions.

See, I think this makes it more important. Getting your foot in the door or getting a better position is increasingly about who you know and your reputation, not necessarily your hard skill set. With increased mobility amongst workers, you never know who you're going to be asking for a job later on. That's why I bust my tail to work hard and get along with everyone - if someone leaves my company today for a better opportunity, when there is another opening at their new place, who are they going to think of first? The dedicated hard worker or the person who was totally indifferent?

[iammalcolmx]

I disagree with Plants having to be built in the middle of nowhere. We have quite a few CLOSED car plants in there Atlanta area and I am sure the community would welcome any company who wanted occupy those spaces.