A Response to KPMG: The Skills City Report

The ability for a company to get upskilling right is business critical. We are seeing massive shifts in workforces. Everything from “The Great Resignation”, to the shrinking shelf-life of skills, to the fourth industrial revolution, requires astute agility in how we nurture talent. This is why I was so keen to read the latest KPMG Voices of Place: The Skills City: Building tomorrow’s workforce.

It is a solid piece of research, and worth reading from that standpoint. The consolidation of many conversations and interviews with leaders in the UK metropolis regions sheds insight on the acute challenges being faced both locally and, from my perspective, is also reflective of the situations our own global clients are contending with. That said, the advice offered on the path forward was inadequate. ?

Full disclosure: I worked at KPMG for a few years and resigned to go independent in 2016. For this particular report, I have no affiliation with any of the authors and have no idea how this particular sausage got made. However, since KPMG is a behemoth of 220,000+ employees and NilesNolen is a boutique agency, I am comfortable it is not punching down to put out my alternative perspective. Leaders lean on this type of research to make decisions that impact millions of employees. There is a responsibility to get it right.

So, why did this report make me twitch? On the surface, it has fairly milquetoast recommendations. The report advises companies to invest in hiring people with strong soft skills (curiously rebranded as “meta skills”) and provide a lot of bite-sized learning opportunities. The idea is adaptable people will be able to manage their own upskilling opportunities and become an agile workforce. In theory, perhaps, but in practice, this is a lot of magical thinking.

For example, the first “meta skill” listed by KPMG for employers to seek out is confidence. Yes, this is a great skill to have. However, huge percentages of our population have not been afforded the experiences and feedback loops to have acquired said confidence. Likewise, we are in the midst of a mental health crisis never seen before in this generation. This hiring criteria leaves a lot of potential talent needlessly failing at the first hurdle. It also has the potential for a lot of bias which does not help address the DEI aspirations, also noted in the report.

Other “meta skills” cited were agility, entrepreneurialism, and critical thinking. Again, all essential to a thriving workforce, but to expect to just find these on CVs in the marketplace is short-sighted. Candidates with these strong skills are getting highly competitive offers and with location no longer a barrier, it will be extremely difficult to both attract and retain this talent pool. KPMG advises companies to track and rate these meta-skills, but to what end? Do you quibble over the difference between a level 3 or 4 in critical thinking on some HRIS, or do you think about how you build that skill and a work environment that fosters it?

This, to me, where the report is lacking. It is not realistically addressing how companies can develop these “meta-skills”, or any other skills. For “meta skills”, these may not be readily available in the workforce or will be in fierce competition. No matter the premium and flexibility of the job offer, these individuals will be at risk of attrition. So, it is critical to have the scaffolding to develop these skills. This is barely covered in the report, but my strong recommendations would be: mechanisms for continuous feedback, learning experiences rather than instructional design focused curricula, as well as reflection and knowledge sharing. These rarely happen organically.

When it comes to upskilling, the primary suggestion by KPMG is to leverage to bite-size learning and microcredentials. The latter is absolutely an excellent steer. Companies should be looking long past the traditional degrees and more about targeted in-demand certifications. As for bite-size, this is not a feasible learning strategy. Job aids, guides, and performance tools do not upskill. They can potentially close an immediate knowledge gap, but if you are a company switching to cloud, a bunch of how-to videos is not going to get you through, no matter the confidence level of your employee.

Likewise, if you are going to rely on microlearning, you need a solid plan as to how this content is managed and surfaced at the point of need. Very few, if any, EdTech can deliver against the real complexities of AI/ML curation at scale (yes, I have seen the many who claim to – IMHO, there is still a lot of work to do in this space). Companies need to think about the mechanisms for how this content gets into the hands of those who needs it. No, this does not mean sticking it on your LMS or LXP to die. At best, think about EdTech ecosystems which integrate with existing work tools like MS365 or Slack with curation capabilities.

The report also refers to a “menu problem”. Companies are forced to develop their own content because the gaps are not being served by existing educational bodies. I would argue that may be a problem for formal education but upskilling and EdTech is an industry now worth trillions of pounds. It experienced a huge boom in the push to go remote.

There is no shortage of platforms, content libraries, knowledge nibbles or learning apps, all with proprietary learning algorithms /s, all itching to sign you up as a customer. It is open season right now with VCs throwing Series B and C rounds at some really suspect learning solutions without any L&D bench strength. Many are not fit for purpose but with slick marketing and a few soundbites from a World Economic Forum report, they sell. These are the vendors companies should be putting pressure on to build content against where the skills gaps are. ?

But content, even really good content (which is lacking), locatable (which is not always possible at point of need), is not enough to upskill a workforce. Without any intervention you could end up with a talent pool upskilling in ways not aligned with the direction of the business. I wrote more about this using a tomato and pizza analogy here.

I can appreciate KPMG must stay neutral when it comes to vendors, but talent marketplace technologies are becoming essential to providing the true upskilling experiences, so I was surprised not to see any mention of them in the report. In simplest terms, I want a brain surgeon who has been mentored in the operating theatre, not one trained via YouTube. If I were an L&D leader, I would be looking at a talent marketplace technology before any upgrades to my EdTech.

So, why care? This is basically a longform meme of “woman angrily shakes fist at cloud”. That said, this type of report creates the type of quotes that end up in sales pitches. It also convinces HR leaders, who are already struggling, that bite-sized content will solve our very real skills shortages, so they open their wallets. Unfortunately, this is not in the best interest of companies who need to build talent to stay competitive. Lastly, whilst there is more movement now more than ever in the workforce, we have a responsibility to help people stay relevant, lest they be made redundant. That means thinking critically about how we upskill talent in meaningful ways, so no potential is left behind.