Toward Competence
•Download as PPSX, PDF•
0 likes•54 views
A ppt presentation with voiceover, from an industry talk on the value of a national competency/qualifications framework.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Toward Competence
Similar to Toward Competence (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Toward Competence
- 1. Jeff Griffiths, FCMC CTDP TOWARD COMPETENCE
- 2. NOBODY is their job description. And credentials are often meaningless...
- 3. • No one does EVERTHING that’s part of their occupation • There are LOTS of things that people do that AREN’T part of their occupation • There’s a lot of variation in proficiency among individuals with the same credential
- 4. Occupation Actual duties Up to 50% of what people were doing wasn’t part of their occupational description
- 5. “A formal credential did not guarantee that an individual had the skills that their employer really needed”
- 6. NOBODY is their job description. Or their credential…
- 11. “Competence is what employers pay for”
- 15. … occupational information that is designed to directly support portable, widely recognized, competency-based qualifications.
- 17. OUTCOMES? • More career flexibility • No more “dead end” jobs • Agile, flexible, adaptable workforce • Larger pool of skills • Recognition for informal, lifelong learning • “Whole person” engagement
- 18. NOBODY is their job description. Or their credential. And the sooner we recognize it, the better off our economy will be.
- 21. “… a world where there’s no such thing as a dead end job”
Editor's Notes
- Good afternoon, etc…
- Nobody is their job description… and credentials are often meaningless. Let me explain… A long time ago, when I was first starting out as a consultant, I got an assignment to work with Nestlé to evaluate skills in the maintenance function across 5 manufacturing plants. To do this, I took the logical approach - since the occupations involved were Red Seal trades, I took the published National Occupational Analyses for the trades and looked at where workers’ proficiency was in relation to the tasks in the NOAs. I quickly realized a few things.
- Click for each bullet… First, no one does everything that’s in the NOA for their trade. Second, there are tons of things that people do in the real world that aren’t part of their ‘official’ occupation; Third, there’s incredible variation in proficiency among individuals who hold the same credential. This isn’t an anomaly. In another study that looked at hundreds of maintenance workers across 32 different saw mills and plywood mills, and here’s what we found: THEN SWITCH TO NEXT SLIDE
- we found that up to 50% of what people were expected to do as part of their jobs – and in many cases some of the most critical tasks – were outside the scope of their occupation. And often those tasks were normally considered part of a different occupation. The lesson learned … (SWITCH SLIDES)
- Relying on a formal credential – in these cases a journeyperson’s ticket in a particular trade – was no guarantee that the individual had the necessary skills in critical tasks that mattered to the employer. It also posed a couple of interesting questions – how did the employers manage to hire the right people to fill those jobs, if their credentials weren’t a reliable indicator of a candidate’s skills? And how many potentially really good candidates would never have been considered for these jobs because they didn’t have the credential (even if the credential wasn’t a reliable filter?) There are a lot of HR people in the room today, and I’m certain you deal with this paradox every day.
- Nobody is their job description… Nobody is only their job description. Or their credential.
- So that got me thinking - what defines a job (or occupation), if not a specific credential?
- Which brings me to my “LEGO theory of occupations” I like to think of jobs as being like a set of Lego brinks – each brick represents a particular bit of learning, education, training, experience – and when you click the bricks together a certain way you come up with a particular job or occupation. If you assemble a slightly different set of bricks, you get a different occupation. Add some more bricks, and you get something else.
- Sort of an “occupational equation” – an almost mathematical formula that will allow you to trace a pathway to any job, and then from that job to any other job by adding or subtracting different “bricks”
- And that’s what I was seeing in the field – evidence of a convergence between what used to be discrete occupations, and at the same time enormous variation and specialization within any one of these discrete occupations. The most important “Lego bricks” in the analogy are “competences” Skill = use of method, instruments in a particular setting in relation to a defined task. Competence = the ability of a person to apply their skill and knowledge in an independent and self directed way towards in new situations and to overcome unforeseen challenges
- Competence is what employers pay for.
- But our workforce development system isn’t geared towards competence. And here’s the thing: indications are that the people entering the workforce today will have several discrete careers over the course of their working life. Not different jobs. Completely. Different. Careers. We have no idea what the workplace will look like in the future, but we can be pretty sure that it will be different than it is now. Tomorrow’s worker will need to be very adaptable and flexible. Redeploying their existing skills in new jobs and new contexts, and continually acquiring new skills, will be critical to economic success. They will need COMPETENCE. We need to start thinking about work this way. Our workforce development system has to change. And that needs to start with the way we document occupations, beginning with our approach to occupational standards – which for the most part aren’t really standards at all. Most Canadian OS are essentially a list of activities that someone in a particular occupation MIGHT do. There’s no standard for producing the standards, and so they can be all over the map in terms of the way they are structured, the level of detail, etc. Few of them have any meaningful information on proficiency – what competent performance looks like. Comparing occupations based on the documented standards is difficult if not impossible. Many of the documents that are called “occupational standards” in Canada are purely descriptive in nature, with no performance criteria, and as such should more correctly be referred to as “occupational profiles”. Canadian OS are (generally) activity and process-based, and this approach doesn’t lend itself to a focus on competence. There’s a better way.
- The European Union has an integrated system where each nation’s particular occupation/skills/qualification/competency framework is cross-referenced to all others. This is accomplished through ESCO – the European Skills, Competences and Occupations matrix – which includes cross referenced skills, competences and related occupations, and links to the European Qualifications Framework - which has recognized proficiency levels for all of the skills and competences. All the national qualification systems in the EU can be linked to each other via the EQF – making transferability of credentials and qualifications extremely easy. In addition, the Europeans take a fundamentally different approach to OS development that is based on a functional and outcome-based paradigm, and which facilitates the notion of skills that are common across multiple occupations. Here’s an example … which could apply to anyone who serves food in a restaurant – waiters, waitresses, bar staff – whoever SWITCH SLIDE
- Speak to slide Here’s an example of how the matrix would be developed for someone serving food in a restaurant… waiter, waitress, bar staff, etc… doesn’t matter what occupation is involved. The differences even extend to what an OS is… in Canada, the OS refers the top-level document that describes a particular occupation, whereas in Europe they describe modules of competence that could be incorporated into multiple occupations. The EU approach begins by looking at the PURPOSE or OUTCOMES of a job, and from that drills down to lower level standards that ensure a competency basis for that particular outcome REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL THE OCCUPATION THAT DOES IT. From the purpose, main functions are established, and for each function, titles of specific occupational standards are derived, and then performance criteria for each of these standards are developed. The modular nature of the OS means that they are portable and applicable across numerous occupations, and you can relate all of this together with ESCO and the EQF.
- The European approach produces occupational information that is designed to directly support portable, widely recognized, competency-based qualifications. And it’s possible to gain recognition for competence (through a formal, recognized, national qualification) without having to belong to any particular occupation.
- Wow. A system that quantifies and recognizes competence. For anyone who has that competence. Regardless of where they learned, how they learned, when the learned, or who they learned it from. What a concept!
- So what might things looked like if we embraced competence? Since skills and competences are the building blocks of the system, and can be compared between occupation, moving from one occupation to another involves filling in the gaps - the old notion of “go back to zero and start over” no longer applies if you want to change careers. Since we can trace logical pathways from one job to another, there’s no longer any such thing as a ‘dead end’ job It means that as the workplace and the economy changes, the workforce can adapt and adjust far quicker – we've got the sort of agile and flexible workforce that the economy needs. It means that employers can potentially access a far larger pool of workers – drawing from whatever occupations employ similar skills and competences. This helps, at least to some extent, to get over the current problem of “jobs without people and people without jobs” It means that individuals will have a mechanism to have ALL of their learning quantified and recognized, regardless of where/when/how it was learned. This credits and encourages life-long and informal learning. We’re already seeing a shift away from traditional brick-and-mortar classrooms to a just-in-time, distributed learning paradigm – the competence approach supports this growing trend And finally, moving to a focus on skills/competence leads to a fundamental understanding that EVERYONE has a plethora of skills and abilities that can benefit themselves, their employer and the overall economy – as long as they are recognized and used. “Whole person” engagement becomes the norm, not the exception.
- Nobody is only their job description. Or their occupation. Or their credential. … and the sooner we recognize it and do something about it the better off our economy will be.
- Easy? Hardly. But doable. Work isn’t that different from one location to another – (subject for another talk: if the Europeans can sort this out between countries, why can’t we figure it out between provinces?) And critically necessary.
- We CAN create a better workplace. One with increased opportunity. One where people can grow to the limits of their talent, and their potential, and their desire.
- A place where there’s no such thing as a dead end jobs. And that’s a world I want to live in.
- Thanks!
- KEEP UP DURING Q&A So what’s stopping us? Provincialism, mostly. And waiting for governments to do it. Yet if industry leads (and who but industry knows what competent looks like?) we can probably go a long way towards this without any government involvement at all. Certainly the support of governments as well as the education community is welcome, but industry needs to lead the charge, starting with non-compulsory occupations – that is, those where there’s no “right to practice” rules currently. Show that it works, gather support and momentum and add others over time.