The Higher Ed – HR Paradox

According to Gallup’s Brandon Busteed, “barely one in 10 (11%) business leaders strongly agree that college graduates have the skills and competencies that their workplaces need”. However, he continues, “A whopping 96% of chief academic officers at higher education institutions say their institution is ‘very or somewhat’ effective at preparing students for the world of work”. Clearly, there’s a disconnect.

Furthermore, according to Gallup’s findings, the vast majority of Americans believe that the primary purpose of attending college is to secure a good job (i.e., one that is a right fit).  Accepting that the collective will of the market is accurate and honest, then it is so. The business of developing ability (the higher education imperative) is to enable people to be happy while they are being productive. The business of hiring ability (the human resource imperative) is to provide an acceptable return on investment.

Unfortunately, according to Gallup, “The vast majority of U.S. workers, 70%, are ‘not engaged’ or ‘actively disengaged’ at work, meaning they are emotionally disconnected from their workplace and are less likely to be productive. Actively disengaged employees alone cost the U.S. between $450 billion to $550 billion each year in lost productivity, and are more likely than engaged employees to steal from their companies, negatively influence their coworkers, miss workdays, and drive customers away”.

So, there’s a “chicken or egg” paradox: Is learning quality being delivered to the population not valuable enough, or are employers' evaluations of ability developed disconnected from higher education’s learning quality? Whatever the answer, it’s clear that there’s a disconnect —a failure to communicate — where both higher education institutions and employers play the role of “boss man” at different times. 

Asking Better Questions

Modern society has been conditioned to measure things so that we can manage them. It seems to pervade everything in our lives. In turn, as we attempt to solve “big” problems, the more important or valuable the measurement becomes. As great a management principle as that is, I do NOT think “What is my value?” is the right question to ask. The better question to ask is, “Why am I important?” because I believe that we are on the cusp of an improved understanding that we are here to help one another. Better questions improve that understanding.

I think that solution providers should consider designs that focus on us, as individuals, as benevolent rather than on themselves. Jim Clifton writes in The Coming Jobs War, “The will of every person on earth is to have a good job”. Can new designs change how we develop and place ability that encourage a life well-lived? 

Winner Takes All

The development and placement of ability that serves us, as individuals, can be provided by higher education institutions or employers. Higher education is becoming more efficient and effective at developing skills, and employers are becoming more efficient and effective at hiring skilled individuals. However, if they switched imperatives and higher education got very good at placing ability, then they could subsidize development with placement revenue.

Okay, now you might be thinking that it’s unrealistic to expect higher education and employment leaders to create and scale solutions that push ability development and placement from 1.0 to 2.0, then towards 3.0. For each, they are too busy focusing on eliminating their most significant pain point of today, which is viability. I agree. Neither will be the winner as a result.

The winner will most likely be a third-party solution that enables interactions that place ability at the right fit for us, as individuals.