The Death of "Transferable Skills"

I will start this post like all good stories should start.

Once upon a time, way back in the 20th Century, your grandfather (and his father before that and so on and so on) searched for a job when he (a) got out of the "service" (which is what they called the armed forces) or (b) completed his education (which might have been college or even just high school). Granddad would hear about a job that he might be interested in and by that I mean that the job paid a salary that his burgeoning family could live on. Your Grandfather might have read about it at his school, heard about it around town, or might have read about it in the newspaper (yes, in those days they actually read a physical "paper"). Rudimentary"networking" existed but nobody called it that. It was just called "knowing somebody." After all, the most people that a person actually "knows" is only about 150 (it's called Dunbar's number - you can look it up). Granddad would actually know the person he networked with.

Anyway, your Grandfather went down the hiring company and filled out an application. Applicants might get to see the hiring manager and who'd assess their background and such and decide whether or not this person would be a good employee. The "and such" was pretty important - did this person seem clean, honest, trustworthy, intelligent, and hard-working? If so, they'd get hired and most companies would give you "on the job training" [OJT] whereby Grandpa learned how to do his job because his boss and co-workers helped him acquire the skills needed to do it. Your Grandfather might have had a long career at this one company even if it didn't "personally fulfill" him. (In fact, most people didn't worry about such things - they had to put food on the table. Living through the Depression or WWII undoubtedly bestowed upon one the purpose of a job. Work hard and get your "fulfillment" somewhere else).

In 1970, Richard Bolles wrote a book entitled "What Color is Your Parachute." This book focused on presenting the job hunter with a process to help them focus on the "emotional and psychological side" of job hunting and helped the hunter determine what they'd like to do with their life. This was a revelation because as mentioned above, work was something that someone did because they needed the money and personal fulfillment was gained elsewhere. Back in the 1960's the power of individual freedom was unleashed and the release of "Parachute" was perfect. Job seekers and employers went through a radical change - potential employees were not adjudged only on what they were, but instead, what they could be. Hiring companies would maximize their employees ability by formal training programs. According to a 2014 Washington Post article by Peter Cappelli, the average worker in 1979 received 2 1/2 weeks of training annually. Even I, your humble story teller, was hired by AT&T in 1982 and received at least six weeks of formal training and a number of months of in-house education before really be expected to do the job I was hired for.

Remember also that people did not change jobs often because "job jumping" was frowned upon and both employers and employees had a sense of loyalty to each other. Nevertheless, because you could be trained, a lot of the attributes and abilities of a job candidate could be employed at other jobs and in other capacities. These were called "transferable skills." These skills were not only the personal attributes that make you "you" but also job capabilities that would come in handy in your new post. If you were good in operations at a paper company, you'd probably be good in operations in a medical supply company. If you were salesperson for a greeting card company, you might be good in sales at a telecom. Furthermore, if you were a good operational employee at the paper company, you might be "cross-trained" to be a sales manger there. Employers had the attitude that these transferable skills were of great value and they felt that if "you bring who you are, then we'll train you on what you need to know to succeed."

Bottom line, employers hired people not just for what they were, but for what they thought they could become.

Today, that is all gone - washed away in a technological tsunami.

Mr. Cappelli's article notes that in today's employment world, employees get about 11 hours of training annually and most of that is on workplace safety. In 2011, an Accenture study showed that the only training given to employees was OJT and only 20% of all employees received even that meager amount. As Mr. Cappelli writes "The real challenge we face is that if everyone is hiring for the ability to do a job, rather than for the potential to do it well, how does anyone get that initial experience?"

Today's technology is a blessing and a curse for both the employer and the employee. Jobs can be posted and applied to in minutes and an employer can be deluged with resumes within the hour. To winnow these resumes into a manageable pile, software is used to look for keywords. Then that pile is massaged further and so on and so on. Finally, the candidate list is deduced, rendering candidates that all look a lot like the people who already work for the employer. In fact, I've confronted prospective employers with this conundrum: if you truly only want to hire folks who have the exact experience of selling a product like yours in your industry, then the only possible candidates are (a) the people who already work for you or (b) the people who work for your competition. To attract your competitor's best folks, you're going to have to offer a whole bunch of money otherwise why would they come? Not only that, but this behavior becomes a closed cycle: I'll steal your employees and then you'll steal mine. Mr. Cappelli might reach the same conclusion.

Today's employers want candidates that can hit the ground running immediately. There's no time to learn anything - you have to produce now! The new hire must be able to be seamlessly assimilated. The fact that you are clean, honest, intelligent, and hard-working like old Granddad means nothing. There is also little time for training. If you've been selling red widgets and they want someone who has sold blue widgets well then you have to face it - you're not qualified.

Not too long ago, I was told by an employer that the candidate they sought "must have a thick Rolodex" of contacts. (I literally asked the manager if he knew what a 'Rolodex' was. He did not. Such is a product that loses its usefulness but retains its mere identity in a figure of speech). Anyway, I submit that while contacts are nice, any contacts you have are not automatically inclined to change their acquisition methodology just because you changed logos. The employee's contacts are secondary to the company possessing and articulating a valid product value strategy. How many companies get this wrong?

The transferable skill is dead and the era of exact and contemporaneous specialization has dawned. You are now only what your potential employer can extract from you. Today.