In Skills We Trust but its Qualifications We Count: Developments and Consequences for Graduate Labour

Chris Warhurst

INTRODUCTION: GRADUATE SKILLS

2

› Skills an economic and social panacea – once ‘a key driver’, now ‘the key driver’ of prosperity and fairness (Leitch; also Scottish Government).

› In Scotland, narrow aim – to be more productive; broader aim – to become a smarter, knowledge-driven economy.

› Leads to policy interventions in supply and now demand with emphasis on skills utilisation.

› Yet ‘paucity of data’ (Buchanan et al.) on skills utilisation generally and that of graduates specifically.

› Want to discuss the reasons and the way forward.

CONTEXT: SCER RESEARCH

Top

Intermediate

Routine

Unemployed

S

kill

level

Shiona Chillas

Pauline Anderson

Scott Hurrell

Anne Marie Cullen

CONTEXT: HIGH SKILL ECONOMY

CONTEXT: EMPIRICAL OUTCOMES

CONTEXT: HIDDEN DEVELOPMENTS...

POLICY PUSH FOR GRADUATES

7

› 1990s focus on supply side and boosting education and training → >50% of young in HE in early 2000s.

› Intervention free intervention (Keep), leaving the ‘black box’ alone.

› Pressure on universities to align courses to jobs and integrate skills into courses (Willets; CBI)

› Had academic support (Finegold and Soskice): WD → OD → BD.

› No impact on competitiveness in Scotland, just created over-qualified workforce and under-employment in work (30-40% employees) (Strathclyde Careers Service; Felstead et al.; Skills Australia).

› From mid-2000s policy shift to demand; jobs must exist that need these skills – skills a ‘derived demand’ (Scottish Government; UKCES).

› Recognise now that BD → OD → WD. How to trigger is now the policy concern.

DEMAND FOR GRADUATE SKILLS

› Some gradates still entering ‘graduate jobs’ (i.e. SOC2 requiring L4 qualifications); some cascading down SOC into previously non-graduate jobs – ‘the jobs graduates do’ (Elias and Purcell)..

› But what’s happening? Differing accounts:

- Skills mismatch as supply outstrips demand (Felstead et al.). Too much supply, not enough demand.

- However graduatisation can be a professionalisation strategy (Anderson). Leads to spiralling credentialism.

- Multiple matching as different pathways into different jobs (Chillas). Maintains tight coupling of university and jobs but labour market not process focused.

- Degree as a signal of ability and employers being rational; unaware of actual skills possessed. Qualification a labour market ticket rather than reflective of labour process skill demands (Warhurst and Thompson).

- The skills required to do the job can be ‘soft’ or at least unaccredited (Warhurst and Nickson).

KEY ISSUES IN GRADUATE LABOUR

9

› Need to distinguish between skills that:

1. Are possessed prior to entering higher education.

2. Are acquired through higher education

3. Are required to obtain employment.

4. Are required to be deployed in work.

› Means going upstream, examining family and school, and downstream, inside firms, entering the ‘black box’.

PROBLEM 1: POLICY TO PRACTICE GAP

› Evidence base about skills utilisation ‘patchy and disparate’ (Buchanan et al.)

› Firm-level practice is weak and need to engage employers.

› The incentive is the need to change business strategy – most usually market pressures (Jung et al.).

- Management not good at reading market signals (cf. Bosworth).

- Understand government’s aim but have little incentive to open black box.

› For workers more and better skills a private good, beneficial to:

- Employability, pay and prospects.

› For government, more and better skills delivers public good:

- Reduced unemployment and poverty, and improved social mobility (Scottish Government).

10

PROBLEM 2: MEASUREMENT GAP

› Not clear what employers are being exhorted to do.

› Lack of conceptual clarity about skills utilisation; two issues:

- 1. Failure to distinguish skills as P and J:

- P=J equates to effective skills utilisation

- J>P equates to workers’ lack of skills to do the job

- P>J equates to workers’ skills under-utilisation.

- 2. Remedial action:

- J>P → use of better skills – or upskilling and doing a better job

- P>J → better use of skills – or exploit existing skills to do a job better

- The first is the goal of government – high skill economy; the latter addresses untapped potential of workers.

11

PROXIES ARE UNHELPFUL

› Proxy is HPWS; provides seemingly neat aspirational and inspirational benchmark but unhelpful:

- Take up of HPWS not high in Scotland, the UK and elsewhere e.g. Australia (WERS, Martin and Healy).

- What is ‘high’ in the US is standard practice elsewhere (Boxall and Mackay). So doesn’t necessarily deliver.

- Links between HPWS and firm performance ambiguous and difficult to evaluate (Payne).

- Skill utilisation not measured, instead proxied e.g. QCs (Huselid) but QCs can lead to work intensification (Tuckman).

- Little consensus on what constitutes HPWS or their most effective combination (Huselid; Ramsey et al.).

12

MOVING FORWARD

› So definition weak and as a new policy push, not surprising that not recognised or understood by employers; if can’t understand it, can’t implement it.

› Need better understanding amongst stakeholders (but not another label cf. CfE).

› Don’t need to reinvent the wheel with skills utilisation. Lessons exist e.g. AMO (Appelbaum and Batt)

› The use of better skills approach is important but limited:

- The number of high skill jobs is constrained.

- Can’t magic high skills from soft skills (cf. ies).

› Better to focus on better use of skills – more realistic (and needed?).

- Addresses over-qualification, under-employment and untapped potential.

› But need to understand what skills in P and J; and context of the relationship.

13

BETTER UNDERSTANDING GRADUATE SKILLS

› There are five obstacles to be overcome:

1 The type of analysis

- Stop ‘occupational label-gazing’; need labour process, not just labour market research

2 The focus of analysis is myopic

- Need to disentangle qualifications and skills

3 The focus of analysis is undifferentiating

- There are different types of skill and knowledge

4 The conceptual scope of analysis is limited

- Beyond skill supply still need to take skill utilisation seriously

5 The empirical scope of the analysis is limited

- Need to analyse graduate and non-graduate labour; research needs to focus on where it is most applicable – services.

MOVING FORWARD GENERALLY

› Need inductive research through qualitative organisational case studies, preferably action research and longitudinal to evaluate outcomes (Payne).

› But researchers who best understand skills wary of policy engagement and inexperienced of action research. Need to develop the critical mass of willing and able researchers

› But in context of partnership and with protocols for the research and stakeholder involvement (Ramstad; cf. Better not Cheaper campaign).

› Concept agreement, systemic tools, project funding and political and social partners’ support. Must also involve a co-ordinated network of colleges and universities, research institutes, consultancies, firms, labour market organisations and policy bodies (cf. SCER IAS bid).

15

CONCLUDING REMARKS

› Skills policy thinking still evolving but skills utilisation push, whilst logical, is in danger of running into the sand: policy to practice and measurement gaps.

› Know too little about skills utilisation generally and in relation to graduates.

› Need broader focus in analysing graduate skills: development, supply, demand, deployment.

› Need to disentangle skills and qualifications before re-assembling through education and training.

› To do so useful to develop ‘collective interests’ (all stakeholders, bridging private/public good); develop ‘innovation ecosystem’?

› Within this system need better research informed by protocols and partners.

16