Are Skills “Units” That The Market Can Measure? (Part 1)

Introduction

The idea that skills can be measured like any other commodity in the market is unquestioningly assumed by many companies, governments, and even educational institutions. When we talk about a “skills gap”, we are almost equating the measurement of skills to that of how much financial capital a company possesses or how much oil is being traded in a commodities market. When it comes to fossil fuels, agricultural produce, or rare earth metals, we see that these commodities are universally understood and valued in financial markets across the world, and we talk about skills as though they are equally understood, measured, and valued. Until you pause to interrogate this assumption, you realise that skills are neither universally understood nor valued as tangible commodities.

In this article series, I will delve into three major points: firstly, by illustrating the different understandings/paradigms of defining “skills”; the second article will focus on case studies of how different employers’ views on “skills” affect the dominant discourse on “skills shortages”; and the third and final article in the series will focus on how South Africa is caught in the web of its aspirations between different paradigms and the outcomes thereof. This article will discuss how our understanding of skills informs professional identity, how competency and skills acquisition are understood in largely English-speaking countries and the wider anglophone domain, and how this informs our understanding of skills as “units” in a market.

Context

The two major forms of skills paradigms that I will consider for this article are Competence-Based Training (CBT) or "Outcomes-Based Education" and the concept of "Beruf". Competence-based Training stems from educational reforms in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s when neoliberal economics was firmly established in every area of British policy and institutions. This system aimed to break education and training down into competencies that could be assessed in the workplace. This attempt at framing skills as units that could provide perfect information to the market is itself neoliberal. This paradigm sees skills as “units” that can be objectively measured and valued across industries and professions. CBT has informed the contemporary discourse on “transferable skills”, which dominate discussions on what makes a good education system.

“Beruf” is a concept more common in Germany and other Germanic countries, which emphasises a more holistic view of skills, not as units, but instead as the culmination of theoretical knowledge, practical skills, and professional identity. South Africa has aspirations of “Beruf” while following the prescriptions of CBT. We want an education system that leads to meaningful work, steeped in professional identity, but we also follow the prescriptions of CBT in a bid to make learners and workers mobile in the labour market. There are merits to both systems, however, it is important to recognise where our aspirations are compromised by na?ve assumptions regarding skills and work.

I have to provide the disclaimer, however, that these terms largely apply to developed economies and their institutional arrangements, and not so much to developing countries like South Africa. That is why I would rather frame South Africa's situation as "aspiring to" one or the other system, or being "influenced" by them, and not necessarily as characterising them entirely.

Professional Identity

South Africa’s education system is largely influenced by British educational reforms, such as CBT, which translated into "Outcomes-Based Education" (OBE), the system that I and everyone in my generation (post-1994) were brought up under. This paradigm has influenced most of the basic education system, as well as vocational education and the SETA system (Sectoral Education & Training Authority) of “Unit Standards”. Theoretically, these Unit Standards are supposed to be measurable units in a labour market that universally understands what they mean and how they ought to be valued. The reality on the ground, however, is that they are not valued universally. In fact, many organisations barely consider them when making hiring decisions. Yet, the system and its assumptions endure, even though the qualifications that are meant to represent certain skills have very little bearing on one’s professional identity.

“Beruf”, on the other hand, stems from a Germanic political and economic arrangement where government, businesses, and unions have a clear and structured understanding of professions, and how they neither overlap nor do their skills. Whereas CBT emphasises 'unitised' or modular skills that can be transferred across organisations and sectors, Beruf does not make such assumptions. Instead, it assumes that skills, qualifications, and certifications are linked to a specific occupation and professional identity. So, CBT emphasises skills being seen as transferable and universally valued “units” or commodities, which makes workers more flexible in the labour market but weakens their professional identity. Beruf emphasises skills as being part of a broader package of theoretical knowledge, practical experience, and specific occupational/professional identity (e.g. certified IT Specialist, Chartered Financial Manager), whose skills are not fungible, but limits flexibility for workers in the labour market.

In a paradigm/market dominated by CBT, such as the majority of English-speaking countries, one could be an IT Specialist one day, and a Business Analyst the next day, because their skills belong in a free market of “universally valued” units/commodities that could be used in one operation or another. In a Beruf paradigm/market, however, one cannot simply go from being an IT Specialist to a Business Analyst, because these are two separate professional identities whose qualifications require holistic development, packed with the appropriate training, certification, and practical experience.

At this point, it is clear how skills are understood differently in different contexts and why some of the assumptions we make about skills are linked to deeper institutional frameworks, such as the relationship between governments, businesses, and unions (if they even impact your labour market). If you live in a country or work in an industry with weaker institutional relations across bodies and a weaker recognition of occupational identities, such as the majority of South African white-collar work, and if that market is dominated by a CBT paradigm of skills as “units” in a market, then discussions such as “skills shortages” are understood as meaning that “tangible”, “measurable”, and “universally valued” skills are missing in the market. However, in a Beruf-like paradigm/market with strict occupational silos, one would be more cautious to use the term “skills shortage” because that would imply that entire occupations/professions are missing, as “skills” are not separate from “professions”, but instead uniquely tied to a certified/chartered profession.

Conclusion

In the second part of this article series, I will delve into the ways in which skills are measured according to either occupational identities or the demands of employers in the labour market. In that article, I will provide case studies of how, in a CBT paradigm/market with more flexibility and a modular understanding of skills, the demands of different employers influence the understanding of “skills supply” and why this makes it difficult to universally value skills as one would commodities.