Is it Possible to Close the “Skills Gap” if Focused on the Symptom, Not The Cause?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

There is nothing like the futility of trying to solve a specific problem with a general solution…or treating the symptoms with methods that do not address the underlying problem. No one would use a screwdriver to tighten a nut or bolt. However, in an environment surrounded by a loud, unrelenting and self-interested screwdriver industry “expert” voices there may well be many who try – even those who should know better. Especially if given a “free” screwdriver.

According to the Center for Economic Research, “US Businesses lose approximately $160 billion total every year as the result of the skills gap.” According to a 2017 Training Magazine report, the “Total 2017 U.S. training expenditures [employer] rose significantly, increasing 32.5 percent to $90.6 billion. This dropped slightly to an estimated at 87.6 billion in 2018.” On top of this, in 2018 the US spent $50 million on STEM education (simply putting back what was taken out of education after reforms started in the 1980’s) to “address the skill gap of future employees.” While education and training throughout 2020 -2022 was upended by the Covid-19 pandemic, employers seem to be slowly returning to the informal forms of training. Predominant prior to the crisis, informal on-the-job training is a familiarly better alternative (to the online tools and programs they tried during the Covid slowdowns and shutdowns) for their practicality in developing the employer’s unique task-based skills.

Considering the U.S. has been warning about the “skills gap” for over 40 years, the amount of money lost – spent on accommodating, or wrongly addressing, the symptom – the total cumulative loss could be in the significant trillions of dollars…not to mention the resources misapplied. And millions of workers who want, and wanted, to work in a career and employers that could/could have employed them were, both, left empty.

This history has led some to suggest the skills gap is a farce. Even if your concerns aren’t that extreme, one has to wonder why with all of the money spent, the resources applied and the employers and trainees impacted, we seem to still be struggling with a skills gap that started to reveal itself in the 1980’s.

The fact of the matter is that employers have been just as unfocused and ambivalent about defining the problem as government has been zealous about having the only “solution.” While employers say they need and expect workers that can “hit the ground running,” “think outside the box,” “have skills for the jobs of tomorrow” and all of the other buzzwords and phrases circulating, what they really need is workers that can perform their unique tasks and processes, on their unique equipment, in their unique environment within their unique pay structure in a world of change. Not only do employers lack a clear definition of the job as it exists today, internal and external forces never allow a job to fully materialize before it is significantly changed by design or by changes in technology, or relocated out of the education system’s service area.

---

“We, as a nation, have been in sort of a “skills gap limbo” for years because even though employers typically have no structured, measurable, improvable and documented method of training workers once hired, miraculously workers appear to master enough of a job for work to get done. Yet if asked, many employers have a difficult time explaining how it happened, which employees can do which tasks and, when the tasks change, which employees on which shifts mastered the new procedure – that is, until something bad happens. They admit frustration in trying to improve performance, but also admit that they do not know which employees are capable of improving or how they would know. This condition deserves swift action to resolve it, not repackaged and rebranded failures of the past.”

---

Employees and workforce developers, relying on this input, always see the institution’s products first as the solution. Classroom education is familiar to everyone, and the institutions have built themselves stronger with every prolonged fear of the incessant skills gap and the funding that flows from it. Still, graduates too often find themselves unemployable and burdened with debt. Employers continue to complain that they just cannot find skilled workers. For now the focus is on apprenticeships, but community colleges quickly moved to repackage existing credit programs to attract the additional funding that Washington funnels to them; how anyone can think this will fill the void that is costing employers hundreds of billions of dollars annually is a mystery.

So we continue to drift. Workers who could be skilled workers often do not get the chance. Employers who need workers struggle to expand. And the economy that appears to be cruising along by Federal Reserve estimates recently clarified itself; the Government Shutdown of 2019 revealed most workers cannot sustain even a month of unpaid work, and have few alternatives.

We, as a nation, have been in sort of a “skills gap limbo” for years because even though employers typically have no structured, measurable, improvable and documented method of training workers once hired, miraculously workers appear to master enough of a job for work to get done. Yet if asked, many employers have a difficult time explaining how it happened, which employees can do which tasks and, when the tasks change, which employees on which shifts mastered the new procedure – that is, until something bad happens. They admit frustration in trying to improve performance, but also admit that they do not know which employees are capable of improving or how they would know.

There is a better, more effective way (for all stakeholders), requiring a much lower-investment and is a sustainable solution that zeros in on the problem. Yet, employers who are bombarded by panaceas and placebos from “experts” who have an interest in maintaining the status quo are often reluctant to spend an hour considering it – even though they know in their hearts that what their firm has been doing doesn’t work and there is scare evidence that it does.

Every employer should understand that structuring any system in the firm that is unstructured is a “no-brainer.” It is not normal for this to exist in an operation that strives to identify and implement efficiencies everywhere BUT worker development, worker performance improvement and capacity management. Yet it exists.

The solution to this lingering condition isn’t that illusive or mysterious. It requires an honest evaluation of “what is” to reveal “what can be.”The employer needs only to:

1. Take a critical, unbiased look at the way they develop their workers.
   a. Is there a process? Can it be explained, documented, measured and improved?
   b. Are the employer’s interests being served best? Considering direct and opportunity costs, is the investment being managed well?
2. Determine if there is a group perception that training is in place. Determine if there is an identifiable, direct correlation between training and performance improvement and management?
   a. Classes develop general skills; who is helping the worker quickly learn to apply them before the new information evaporates?
   b. When changes in the job-tasks are made due to technology, new processes, new technology or process improvement, can changes be tracked down to the employees impacted?
   c. If it cannot be explained, worker development isn’t happening as perceived.
3. Not be afraid to challenge the “wisdom of the masses.” There are many cases when the herd was wrong…including the “skills gap.”
   a. Explore new ideas, even old ideas that were passed over because they weren’t as “sexy” as the ones backed by big money, the movement of the herd and institutional interests.
   b. Sometimes the simplest solution IS the right solution. Sometimes following the herd can lead you off a cliff.
4. Determine if the firm is currently involved in apprenticeships and, if so, what are the chances of real success. Since apprenticeships last 3 – 8 years, ensuring a solid outcome is in everyone’s interest. If documentation of employer-specific skills comes down to hours on a time card with no explanation, does that satisfy you? If structured on-the-job training(designed to the employers tasks, equipment and processes) isn’t part of the apprenticeship, move quickly to include it for the accelerated transfer of expertise, to control progress and the ensure the right outcome.
5. Determine how the firm’s current state of worker training helps the company comply with ISO 9001-2015, IATF 16949, AS9100 reg D, OSHA safety requirements. Does it prepare the firm for ISO 30414 standards for human capital metrics for when pressure from investors comes?
6. Determine if the firm’s way of training adds value or diminishes value. Determine if it is window dressing or an illusion – doing little to develop worker, and organizational, capacity. Is the firm’s training approach the key, or barrier, to growth?

Albert Einstein is often credited with the popular, but often overused, quote, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” Regardless of who actually said it, this country’s attempts at solving the dreaded skills gap may qualify for the reasons stated. It doesn’t hurt to question the “conventional wisdom” if it doesn’t seem to solve the problem. In fact, it may be in everyone’s interest.

If you recognize these challenges and have shed your fear of even looking at other solutions, check out Proactive Technologies’ structured on-the-job training system approach to see how it might work at your firm, your firm’s family of facilities or your region. Contact a Proactive Technologies representative today to schedule a GoToMeeting videoconference briefing to your computer. This can be followed up with an onsite presentation for you and your colleagues. A 13-minute promo briefing is available at the Proactive Technologies website and provides an overview to get you started and to help you explain it to your staff. As always, onsite presentations are available as well as a first choice.