How ‘Workforce Development’ Became a Prevalent and Relevant Term

By George Lorenzo – originally published at Workforce Monitor

For some historical context on the use of the term “workforce development,” WFM reviewed?The Emergence of ‘Workforce Development’: Definition, Conceptual Boundaries and Implications, an interesting?paper?published more than 13 years ago in January 2009, co-authored by Ronald L. Jacobs, professor of human resource development at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Joshua D. Hawley, professor and director of the Ohio Education Research Center at The Ohio State University. Within this review, we also looked back at some of WFM’s other research on the general use and definition of the term workforce development to not only see how the term developed but to also see how the essence of workforce development has been progressing since publication of the Jacobs and Hawley paper.

Jacobs and Hawley explained in the paper’s first sentence that their research “begins a much-needed discourse about workforce development, a term used with increasing frequency among education practitioners, policy makers, and scholars alike.” They also point out that the term began its path toward more usage in 1998 when the Workforce Investment Act was first signed into law. From there, the term workforce development started appearing more frequently via state agencies when naming and defining a variety of state-based governmental coordinating boards, initiatives, and task forces.

Five Streams - Jacobs and Hawley posited that in 2009 workforce development encompassed five “historical streams”: 1) globalization, 2) technology, 3) new economy, 4) political change, and 5) demographic shifts. “These five factors are interrelated, and each provide challenges for adult education specifically, and workforce development more broadly,” they wrote.

Surely, adult education and workforce development go hand in hand today as we see the proliferation of jobs-oriented initiatives happening at local, state, and federal levels, along with the ongoing expansion of?workforce intermediaries?across the country and the world. Additionally, millions of dollars in funds are starting to pour in for a wide variety of workforce development projects in the U.S. through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) passed November 15, 2021.?

Globalization - On the globalization front, Jacobs and Hawley noted that the terminology in Europe, which customarily focused on vocational education and training through the “DaVinci” initiative, also started to increasingly utilize the term workforce development, as did the national governments in Asia, Southeast Asia, Canada and Australia. “There seems no single reason to explain why workforce development should be used to describe such a range of activities,” they said. Additionally, Jacobs and Hawley remarked that “individuals from differing perspectives have realized a similar basic conclusion: the success of any one program or initiative depends on the connections to other programs that otherwise would have been considered in isolation from each other.” Today, we see this happening throughout the workforce development world on numerous fronts as institutions, intermediaries, and employers increasingly collaborate on building educational pathways that lead to jobs and career advancement. The?Education Design Lab, for instance, is a major hatchery of these kinds of connective efforts, among many other similar efforts across the country.?

Technology - On the technology front in relation to workforce development, Jacobs and Hawley noted that technology affects the rate of globalization and further development of human capital and worker productivity in all industries.

We are obviously seeing a great deal of varied technological advancements happening within the world of workforce development. Over the last two and a half years since the pandemic, this aspect of workforce development seems to have grown tremendously, as outlined in the recent WFM?special report?titled?A Review of Workforce Education, 2020 to 2022: Two Years of Enormous Change. For instance, we touched on skills shifting in the workplace and how “investments in recruitment, upskilling, and reskilling must accompany technology investments.”

In addition, we reported on the technology developments happening in data collection and analysis, as well as the increased interest in further developing technology-heavy projects related to Learner Employment Records, Comprehensive Learner Records, and the challenges for technology innovators to create a comprehensive workforce education navigation system. And, of course, the fast, pandemic-oriented growth and expansion of fully online learning takes a great deal of effective technology to produce meaningful learning environments that are tied to workforce development initiatives. The creation of numerous digital badges is another interesting advance in workforce development that requires sound technology to implement effectively.

New Economy - On the new economy front, Jacobs and Hawley professed that it’s “generally defined by the attributes of free-market capitalism. Global competition will presumably maintain cost pressures on products and services, thus ensuring a sustainable cycle of high efficiency, high quality, and low inflation.” Key word: “presumably.” They also mentioned the proliferation of retirements increasing over the next 30 years – something we cover extensively in our?older adults?category.?

Jacobs and Hawley added that “the new economy presents important challenges to adult education specifically, and workforce development more broadly. The economic shifts have resulted in many new job classifications which increase the need for training and adult education in specific fields.” (Hello?O*Net?– next database update is scheduled for August 2022.) We are seeing this happen at a rapid pace since the pandemic hit education hard in 2020. Two WFM report summaries worth noting under the new economy theme include Emsi’s?Skills Required:?How Higher Ed Can Meet the Needs of Learners and Employers in a Skill-Based Economy,?and Education Strategy Group’s?The Shifting American Economy.

Political Change - On the political change front, we are kind of at a loss for words. It’s a topic not covered in WFM.?Nonetheless, how politics relates to workforce development in the 21st?century is difficult to predict. The passage of the IIJA is certainly a political item that deserves repeating because it is having an enormous impact on workforce development. Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) has its own set of hopefully more positive political implications as states are mandated by federal funding processes to include equity hiring decisions with a focus on supplying the underrepresented without degrees with real opportunities for family sustaining jobs.?

Jacobs and Hawley noted that “the current national training system in the United States is shifting, incorporating more of the specific relationships between key political agents like business and government, although union influence has continued to slip as the proportion of workers represented by unions declines.” Union influence looks to be changing dramatically, however, as it seems to be experiencing a resurgence. Stay tuned on this issue as WFM recently interviewed representatives from North America’s Building Trade Unions (NABTU) for an upcoming story slated for early- to mid-August that focuses on how NABTU’s?apprenticeship programs?are making some serious headway in getting individuals into high-paying construction jobs.

Demographic Shifting - On the demographic shifts front, there’s plenty of work coming out of?Emsi?(now Lightcast) for a view on what’s happening in the world of demographics and its connection to workforce development and the labor market overall. The federal government, especially the?Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the?National Student Clearing House, particularly for higher education enrollment trends, also publish plenty of solid resources related to demographics.

Jacobs and Hawley wrote about two demographic shifts in their 2009 paper, citing a 2001 report co-authored by?Anthony Carnevale?from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce, and?Richard Fry?from the Pew Research Center, titled?The economic and demographic roots of education and?training. The two shifts stated by Jacobs and Hawley from that research were the retirement of the baby boom generation and “the movement from the smaller Generation X cohort to the much larger Generation Y cohort. As a result, the larger Generation Y cohort will likely find problems in finding adequate training and educational opportunities. See WFM’s college and career planning?category?for several report summaries and feature articles related to demographic shifting.