Your Skills Are Obsolete and Now We Cannot Hire You: A Proposed Solution

A New York Times article published Friday July 2nd, entitled Factory Jobs Return, but Employers Find Skills Shortage, it was pointed out that many factories are in a hiring mode again. They are ready to restaff and get production cranked up. So what is the problem? Just call back those folks laid off a year or two ago and put them to work! Well, unfortunately that is not the solution. During the intervening time between layoff and current need these factories have retooled. They are now more automated and computer controlled and the people that used to work in the factories DO NOT HAVE THE SKILLS to do the work as currently needed. And the employers who spent all their money to retool probably are not able to spend the money to retrain people. Employers expect workers to get their skills up-to-date using available programs, such as the Workforce Investment Act, which provides money for retraining. Unfortunately it is not working. Perhaps for a couple of reasons.

Many of the job cuts that were made involved unskilled labor. Many of the workers in such jobs may not have the education, or the "smarts" or the desire to learn a new skill that requires a higher level of education, or math skills, or computer skills, etc. Many of these workers, and even some semi-skilled workers, continue to look for the type of work they have always done, not realizing or refusing to realize, that the work they have done in the past has gone forever. Kind of reminds me of Einstein's quote on Insanity. "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Some of the people I know refuse to get education or to change fields. This attitude has been listed as one of the root causes of male unemployment being higher than female unemployment. (See my post on the Great Sex Divide in Unemployment and Retraining.) They get frustrated, discouraged, or lazy and never start or quit quickly. So for these folks unemployment will be long. And the bad news is the benefits have dried up. So what is the solution? Unfortunately the voluntary programs are not working, at least not as well as they should.

I offer this solution as an alternative. Congress needs to get their act together and decide how they can pay for unemployment benefits. Once they do, offer unemployment benefits under the following condition, MANDATORY TRAINING. You only get the benefits if you get into programs that will give you the skill sets you will need to work in an industry that is looking for workers. Everyone gets math, science, language and computer skills. You don't want to spend time in a classroom? Fine, your choice. But you don't get money from the taxpayers to finance your sloth.

For some people this is going to require a MAJOR ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT. Many employers are reporting that part of the reason they are having a hard time finding the right workers is ATTITUDE. People who don't want to learn are not going to get hired. I know you may have spent the last 20 years doing (fill in the blank) but it is not working and you have to decide it is time to move on.

I know my solution is much more complex than what I stated. There would be alot of logistics involved in such an educational movement. But it needs to start, sooner rather than later. And if it doesn't we will be in a world of hurt as a country. Making "shovel ready" jobs is not a long term solution. I think politicians and many unemployed workers need a good swift kick in the pants, especially the politicians.

So how do we get this started? "Buhler?"

The Great Sex Divide in Unemployment and Retraining

The current unemployment situation, 10% or more of the population being unemployed, has made apparent a divide between genders. The Department of Labor for Georgia reports that 58% of the people collecting unemployment are men. Part of the reason for this is that much of the job loss has occurred in manufacturing and construction where typically you will have a higher proportion of men. These are jobs which have become obsolete, so we may never see employment numbers again to reemploy all these men. People who have been in these positions need to be trained.

And that is where the great sex divide becomes apparent. According to Michael Thurmond, Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Labor, men only make up 37% of the people in the labor department's training programs, only 37% of the students in the technical college programs and only 43% of the student populations at the two year and four year college and universities in the state. I think I would be safe in extrapolating those number to the nation as a whole.

So why do we have this great divide in the sexes? Here is my take:

• Men view themselves as being more self-reliant. "Cowboy" mentality. We don't need to ask for directions, we don't need to read directions, and we don't need to go to the doctor. Therefore, why should I need any help in finding a job.
• Women generally have a greater "support" group system in their lifes and as a result are more accepting of receiving help and are more likely to seek it out.
• Men tend to be more stubborn, or "pig-headed" if you will. I think men are more subject to the "inertia" of doing nothing. Hard to get back to doing something once you have been doing nothing.

I don't have numbers on this, but I believe age is a big factor in this divide as well. I think "older" men may have a harder time. Older men have had more of their identities wrapped up in their work and have a harder time letting go of that. Working women have been multi-taskers probably the majority of their careers. Their ego is less tied up in what the career field is and thus accept training more easily.

Well I could play amateur psychologist for awhile, but I would rather ask you. Why is there such a divide between the sexes in unemployment and retraining?

Note: Inspiration for this post came from Henry Ungar's blog in the AJC entitled Wanted: Ideas to create more jobs in Georgia

Is Lack of Training Going to Cost Your Company?

The Wall Street Journal Online today had a report on the Buffalo crash of the Colgan commuter plane that killed 50 people. The article, "Captain's Training Faulted In Air Crash That Killed 50" , indicated the pilot had been poorly trained, had failed many tests, yet the company put him back in the air. A very costly mistake. You would not think that companies would do this, yet it probably happens more often than we think.

In fact most companies make this mistake. We put supervisors and managers in positions of responsibility often with little or no training. Few have training in employment law, or labor law, or safety law, or proper interviewing or how to conduct a legal termination. We let them rely on their HR "co-pilot" to keep them out of trouble. Well that is a big mistake. They need to have a much better understanding of their duties and responsibilities in case HR is not around. Sometimes HR cannot correct a mistake that could have been prevented.

So train your supervisor and managers. Although the mistakes they make may not cost lifes they will cost money and time and possibly livelihoods. Ongoing training will often prevent a "crash and burn" incident.

BTW, the co-pilot in this deadly crash was sick and should not have been at work. Another reason to enforce rules about staying home when you cannot perform, e.g., when you have the flu.

Management Middle Ground: The Mythical Unicorn of Business

I have seen, over my consulting career, a lot of managers, owners and supervisors. I have watched their decision making and I have watched them steer their "ships of commerce" both large and small. Many have had to make tough decisions and most make decisive, yet measured business decisions. EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE.

When it comes to people you get two camps. One camp makes quick decisions, regardless of the situation.

• Hire immediately and on "gut."


• Promote or give a raise at the drop of a hat.


• Fire on the spot.

The second camp takes FOREVER to make a decision.

• Can't decide to hire, because they are not sure what or whom they are looking for.


• Don't ever discipline or they issue warning after warning with no consequences. Don't want to upset someone, don't want to face the employee, afraid of them, etc. You pick the reason.


• Won't EVER fire anyone despite that the person drags down morale, lowers productivity, drives off the good employees.

Both camps of managers are bad for the company. The "hair trigger" types make decisions that result in turnover, incompetent management and run the risk of discrimination lawsuits. The "drag-on forever" types don't make decisions and this results in lower quality candidates, poor performing employees, lowered morale, turnover, and the threat of lawsuits. Both types result in dragging down the reputation of the company.

Why is there no middle ground? Probably lack of training. Bigger companies may train managers, but most small and middle size companies don't. Having a well trained HR person may help this situation, but only if they have credibility within their organizations, and many HR folks in small companies don't.

So what do we do? Well we can point out the financial consequences of their behavior. That means HR has to be on the ball. You have to be able to put the need for a change of behavior in financial terms. Hopefully that will catch their attention.

Anyone have another suggestion. Let us know. Leave a comment on this blog page and educate us in what we might be able to do. Your HR brethren will appreciate it.

Olympian Workers: What Does It Take?

As we see images of the athletes competing at Bejing in the Summer Olympics we marvel at their physical prowess, mental toughness and dedication to their sport. Wouldn't it be nice to have this kind of dedication and ability in the workplace? What does it take and how can we translate this into human resources terms?

1. Talent. Most of these athletes show a natural talent for the sport they participate in. So if you are looking for someone with natural talent you have to have the proper screening tools. If you want someone to do something for you it is important that they have done it before. How do you find this? Behavioral interviewing is a good start. The best predictor of future behavior/success is past behavior/success.


2. Allow the failures. Athletes are not instantly great at what they do. They have to practice. So train your employees. Athletes are allowed to fail and to show improvement. Do you have a culture that allows failure as long as people improve from it?


3. Recognition. Standing on the podium to hear the anthem. The public recognition of your success. What public acknowledgement do you have of a job well done?


4. The Gold Medal. The reward, the acknowledgement of success. What reward do you have for people who achieve? Compensation of some sort? A bonus, a pay increase, a promotion? Depends on the achievement and the culture. But the reward needs to be there.

Think about how you can make your employees Olympians and reap the rewards of having great employees dedicated to achieving their best. It would be interesting to know how all the Home Depot athletes measure up as employees.

Communication - A Symptom Not The Problem

There is an excellent post in Slow Leadership on Why Most Communication Problems Aren't. Carmine Coyote states that "Sometimes it feels as if nearly every difficulty or source of discontent is labeled a “communication issue” as a matter of routine. On the surface, it may even look as if this is correct. Bosses and their subordinates routinely misunderstand and miscommunicate with each other. Information becomes garbled as it is passed through the organization. Customer queries are mishandled because what the customer wanted wasn’t clearly understood or communicated internally. Projects falter in a morass of poorly-communicated data and inadequate reports. Is it any wonder that trainers and coaches spend probably more time trying to help people with their communications that any other single topic?" And this is where HR often jumps in. We try to fix the communication problems. We have training sessions or one-on-one sessions to improve communication. However, as Coyote points out "When communications are bad, the real cause is likely to be something else."

The blog points out that poor communication is often the symptom of other problems, such as pressure, haste, aggression, mistrust and fear. Communication gets seen as the problem because it is visible. The lesson in this for the Human Resources Manager is to look beyond the surface. If your organization is having communication problems ask yourself the question "What is causing this?" Then treat the disease and not the symptom.

For further discussion click the link above to go to Slow Leadership.