Do U.S. Productivity Measures Measure Productivity?
A disturbing emerging trend, particularly in the last three decades, concerns the accuracy and quality of the economic statistics reported to the public. You probably have noticed lately that monthly statistics such as Gross Domestic Product, U.S. International Transactions, Unemployment and Job Creation have been issued with encouraging numbers one month only to be quietly revised downward a few months later. Businesses, consumers and policy makers can only implement effective strategies and correct potential dangerous courses if working with accurate data. One of those measures concerning worker relevance, development and effectiveness is “productivity.”
Think tanks have sprung up in Washington issuing reports and policy statements, and some put a cloak of perceived “credibility” around statements they release meant to support a policy direction or change its course – both to the benefit of a segment of subsidizing interests. Confusing us even more is the media’s propensity to report, as “news,” press releases emanating from these think tanks as if accurate, unbiased and inherently factual. Some may be, but when they are reported through the same careless filter, it throws them all into suspicion. The decrease in the number of accurate, readily available sources of news and facts can derail a life or business strategy.
click here to expandTake for example the daily explanations by news and business show anchors of why the stock market gyrates up or down, as if the collective market can always be explained simply as, “the stock market reacted to the federal reserve’s decision to not act,” or “the stock market tumbled because of the results of the presidential election” – only to recover fully the next day. Could another simple explanation be that the market moved one way or another because groups with large holdings decided to move them?
Another example is the preoccupation with what is referred to as “inflation,” which is based on the consumer price index (“CPI”). A “basket of consumer goods” was selected and periodic measurements of their retail prices are taken to see, primarily, if any inflationary forces exerted pressure on prices upward or downward during the period that might require an adjustment in central bank monetary policy. First, it is important to know which goods make up the basket.
Many years ago an effort was made to take out the goods prone to price pressures. This explains the stares at price labels by the shopper who heard on the news in the morning that inflation has not risen but is looking at prices in the afternoon that seem to continually rise. The decision was made that some goods didn’t need to be in the basket because consumers could substitute them with other, less-expensive goods and still be happy with the experience. For example, substitute mac and cheese for chicken. The trouble being in that even those prices rise.
According to Wikipedia, ”Core inflation represents the long run trend in the price level.” Read More
The “Imposter Syndrome:” How Employers Unwittingly Nurture It
by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.
Everyone is familiar with the imposter syndrome, even if unaware of the formal title. If left unmitigated, it can severely impact a worker’s self-esteem, productivity, ability to innovate, and boldness in solving problems. It can affect those around them, including family relationships, working relationships and a group’s unity of purpose. It may be a lot more prevalent today than it was decades ago.
Introduced in 1978 in the article “The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention” by Dr. Pauline R. Clance and Dr. Suzanne A. Imes.Clance and Imes defined impostor phenomenon as “an individual experience of self-perceived intellectual phoniness (fraud).” According to the study, ”… researchers investigated the prevalence of this internal experience by interviewing a sample of 150 high-achieving women. All of the participants had been formally recognized for their professional excellence by colleagues, and had displayed academic achievement through degrees earned and standardized testing scores. Despite the consistent evidence of external validation, these women lacked the internal acknowledgement of their accomplishments. The participants explained how their success was a result of luck, and others simply overestimating their intelligence and abilities.” …this mental framework for impostor phenomenon developed from factors such as: gender stereotypes, early family dynamics, culture, and attribution style. The researchers determined that the women who experienced impostor phenomenon showcased symptoms related to depression, generalized anxiety, and low self-confidence.”
click here to expandAlthough this study focused on women, the phenomenon is not confined to women whose insecurity might have been more “programmed by culture.” For example, the imposter syndrome, coincided with the emergence of a rapidly changing work environment moving towards – yet to be designed – automation, yielding an increasingly unstable work environment and rate of change. Many perceived their skill base relative to the evolving job requirements eroding, but could not understand it or explain it since the future was yet to take shape. In the 1980s, we saw the introduction of more computer processing power that reached the desktop, changing the nature of work employees were expected to perform and changing the target jobs for which career, technical, and four-year models of education were preparing workers. Without knowing the direction and depth of the change, even those employees solid in their careers of 20 -30 years began doubting their future and the future security of their families. Today, the rate of introduction of newer technologies makes even the most savvy “techy” feel vulnerable to obsolete.
Contributing to this growing self-doubt were a crumbling safety net as companies discharged their pension obligations, employers chose, or were driven, to off-shore first hourly jobs, then salary jobs such as legal, accounting, customer service and medical. Wages were driven down as some employers, whose operations remained in the U.S., imported technical labor who were willing to work for less pay and benefits, often requiring the incumbent worker to train their replacement.
Academics threw fuel on the fire promoting “gig economy jobs” as if these were comparable to jobs one could spend a career in and retire from. They said “no one should expect to be in a job forever,” trying to shame a worker into believing they were not worth the consideration while they themselves celebrated tenure and could count on a secure pension. Many recently found out just how supportive the government was about these jobs when gig workers and contract workers were denied unemployment benefits and stimulus help during the COVID-19 crisis.
Employers and industry will realize the undoing of the American worker psyche for decades and generations. Read More
The Skills Gap Solution; Employers Still Reluctant to Commit to Role Only They Can Fill
by Staff
Education cannot, and should not be asked to, close the “skills gap” on their own. Employers have been concerned about the “skills gap” since the 1980’s, and the nature and location of the job has continued to change…at an accelerating rate. Employers have convinced themselves to wait for education to close the gap. In the meantime, tremendous resources continue to be expended, but the gap continues to grow.
Educational institutions are not suited, staffed, funded and equipped to train workers for every job, for every employer, nor should they be. Educational institutions do their best work when they build the labor supply with strong, relevant basic and core skills (including STEM), and industry-general skills. Whether those efforts are worthwhile and the resources well-spent depend on two important things: 1) does an employer see value in hiring a graduate, and 2) is there a method in place to ensure those skills are integrated into mastery of the job-tasks the employer needs performed; the value that will influence the employer to retain them.
Only employers can train the worker on tasks they need performed and that affect their bottom line. They have the need, the facilities, the most current equipment for their operation and the personnel with current expertise. Yet, in reality most employer’s methods amount to hardly more than pairing two people and hoping for the best. This is where the gap is most profound and continues to grow.
The proprietary PROTECH© software system allows Proactive Technologies to provide a wide range of normally labor-intensive workforce development services in a fraction of the time and cost – with the savings passed to the client.
For decades, Proactive Technologies, Inc.™ has partnered with technical colleges, universities, community colleges, career centers, workforce development agencies, non-profit work centers and economic development offices. Proactive Technologies and its “accelerated transfer of expertise™” ensures each worker is developed to “full job mastery” quickly, efficiently and completely. Proactive Technologies sets-up the structured on-the-job training programs and provides technical implementation support so the employer can focus on business! This approach accelerates the effort to ensure the core skills achieved prior to employment are applied and reinforced before they have a chance to dissipate.
Proactive Technologies has partnered with many economic development agencies to ensure employers moving, or expanding, to the region – from within the U.S. and internationally – have the workers they need when they open their doors, not years later. Proactive Technologies’ approach helps with the growth of local businesses when they need to scale-up as the opportunity arises, not miss opportunities due to insufficient worker capacity. Read More
Apprenticeships – An Alternative to the “400 Hours For Drill Press” Training Model
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
“Time-in-Job” Does Not Equal ”Tasks Mastered.” It does not reveal much about the level, quality, relevancy and transferability of the “on-the-job experience.” It is akin to students tests being graded on how long they sat in the classroom. But yet this approach endures. Don’ get me wrong, it is better than no on-the-job training effort. However, I think we all agree that it leaves a lot of opportunity on the table.
An unfortunate hold-over from the traditional U.S. apprenticeship is the standard practice of defining the on-the-job training requirement in terms of “number of hours.” General work areas that are thought of as representative of the job are selected, a number of total hours for each area totaling the on-the-job training requirement are prescribed, and this with the required related technical instruction are registered.
click here to expandWe all know that we have worked, or are now working, next to co-workers who have been in the job classification for many years but for one reason or another seemed to not be able to perform all of the required tasks of the job. Some are called “area specialists,” but may have specialized in only the tasks they like to perform. Some might not have had an opportunity to learn and master certain tasks. When they are asked to train the next worker, their scope is limited to the tasks for which they specialized, and the pattern continues when that new person becomes a trainer later on. When Proactive Technologies sets-up a structured, task-based on-the-job training program and assesses incumbent workers to discover any gaps that might exist so that the on-the-job training can close them, it is common to find some long-time workers in the job classification that may have only mastered 20 or 30% of the total tasks that make up the job classification.
So what does the number of hours spent in a job area tell a person about the skills attained by the apprentice? How is this seemingly subjective metric measured and how is it tracked? Does it matter?
Wikipedia describes apprenticeships as “The system of apprenticeship first developed in the later Middle Ages and came to be supervised by craft guilds and town governments. A master craftsman was entitled to employ young people as an inexpensive form of labour in exchange for providing food, lodging and formal training in the craft. Most apprentices were males, but female apprentices were found in crafts such as seamstress,[1] tailor, cordwainer, baker and stationer.[2] Apprentices usually began at ten to fifteen years of age, and would live in the master craftsman’s household. Most apprentices aspired to becoming master craftsmen themselves on completion of their contract (usually a term of seven years), but some would spend time as a journeyman and a significant proportion would never acquire their own workshop.”
Since the number of apprentices was limited to one or two at a time, the master craftsman spent enough direct-contact time with each to drive the skill development and recognize proficiency when the required tasks were mastered. The quality of the apprenticeship was measured in terms of time in the craft, and somewhat by the quality of the skills developed. The master craftsman had a lot of latitude in determining who became a master craftsman out of those who completed the program.
Efforts were occasionally made to modernize this apprenticeship model. However, unlike European models of apprenticeship that were established, perfected and engrained into the social fabric of the country, the models in the United States always seemed like an afterthought. For the few people who have heard of an apprenticeship, more people knew someone who started an apprenticeship than completed one. Read More
Read the full November, 2020 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.
Proactive Technologies, Inc.®; PROTECH; Human Resource Management for Tomorrow...Today!® and logo;