Employability and Industrial Mutations. Группа авторов

Figure 2.2. The Van der Klink et al. model (2016)

In order to do this, we need to take an interest, in accordance with the analytical grid proposed by Sen (2008), in the resources available to individuals, and also in the individual social or environmental conversion factors that enable them to effectively use these resources to develop their capabilities, that is, a set of opportunities whose spectrum is constitutive of the freedom actually offered by employability within which the individual will be able to make value choices. Figure 2.2 summarizes the entire process.

2.2. Employability management practices

      As we can see, developing employability means developing the real capacity of individuals to make choices. This capacity is the result of a process that is built throughout life, and not only when the prospect of unemployment arises during a crisis. The challenge for the company and for human resources management is to ensure that this freedom remains compatible with the interests of the organization. Practices in this area are highly codified in French companies.

      2.2.1. Assessing employability

      To engage in proactive approaches to developing employability presupposes, first, that it is possible to evaluate this employability. A first approach, adopted in particular by researchers, consists of understanding employability through the perceptions that individuals have of it, hence the notion of “feeling of employability” or self-perceived employability. Assessing employees’ actual employability is more difficult, as it can only be observed in the context of career paths. Finally, assessing employability-capability presupposes the inclusion of a biographical dimension that makes it possible to observe the choices made by individuals throughout their career.

      2.2.1.1. Perceived employability

Numerous measurement scales (Rothwell and Arnold 2007; Berntson 2008; Van der Heijden et al. 2018) make it possible to approach the employability of individuals by measuring how they perceive the threats to their current job, their professional positioning, the transferability of their skills, their adaptability, the networks in which they are inserted and so on. These approximations of employability through self-perception raise a number of questions. How valid is this approach? For the individual, is it important to feel employable or to actually be employable and to be able to pursue his or her career path in a positive way (by staying in the job or by a mobility that he or she considers satisfactory)? For the organization, should we be satisfied with a strong sense of employability or should we set ourselves the goal of ensuring “successful” transitions? Conversely, can we not consider that individual perceptions are the driving force behind behavior and that, as such, feeling employable is tantamount to, or even sufficient for, becoming employable (Forrier et al. 2018). Finally, we can put forward the idea that, if we perceive oneself as employable, this is probably, despite everything, a sign that we are indeed employable.

      2.2.1.2. Measuring “real” employability through the analysis of individual trajectories

      The use of self-perceived employability can be misleading and lead some employees to take risks or, on the contrary, to excessive immobility. But then, how can we measure what would be real, effective, objective employability? Evaluating the actual return to employment is a possibility, but this would mean distinguishing between returns to employment deemed satisfactory by the individual and situations where the job is degraded or constrained, not corresponding to the person’s aspirations, which is frequent, particularly in the case of restructuring (Mazade 2010). Could we instead assess the probability of returning to work? To do so, we would have to identify more precisely which dimension of employability is at the origin of this (the person, the context or the system). We could also, at the risk of being reductive, propose an evaluation of employability by considering the resources identified as being at the origin of employability: economic, educational and social capital and so on.

      In any case, effective employability cannot be validly understood without a situation: only an analysis of individual trajectories is likely to provide objective and precise elements on the employability of individuals. Employability cannot be assessed without creating (on a real scale or in a simulated manner) a mobility/transition/adaptation situation. A qualitative analysis of trajectories would lead to an interest in adaptation situations, to question the feelings of individuals, to understand the strategies they develop, to identify the contextual elements that facilitate or hinder their movements and, ultimately, to understand their employability in all its complexity.

      2.2.1.3. Measuring employability-skills through mixed approaches

At the organizational level, Bonvin and Favarque (2007) consider that it is impossible to evaluate exhaustively and objectively all the freedoms and options of choice that individuals have in terms of employment, but that we can either apprehend a subjective measure (how much room for maneuver do individuals feel they have?), or approach it through the “incapacities” (set of constraints or deprivations encountered by individuals). They also suggest identifying typical trajectories that make it possible to highlight individual differences in the processes and modalities of occupational integration and to understand the different opportunities available to individuals. It is therefore by using a biographical approach that this form of employability can be measured by highlighting both the greater or lesser latitude of choice of individuals and the more or less secure nature of their professional environment (Corteel and Zimmermann 2007).

      The exercise of evaluating employability prior to any form of development action is arduous. However, human resource management as a set of managerial techniques is entirely based on methods of evaluating phenomena that are known to be multidimensional, ambiguous and subjective: social climate, motivation, competence and potential are all equally vague quantities that are nevertheless the subject of measurement systems. The examination of evaluation systems often helps to identify the meaning given to the underlying concept. As already mentioned, it is mainly perceived employability that makes employees mobile. The aim of coaching and career development counseling methods is to build an appreciation of the universe of possibilities. The skills assessment meets this objective. Conversely, on the employer’s side, what makes workers employable is probably not very far from what makes them “recruitable”. Internally, the evaluation of employability is based on more or less tacit methods of detecting talent or measuring potential. In the outplacement units, methods are also used to direct workers towards a particular system. In the end, therefore, it is the examination of the conventions of judgment used by the actors in the internal or external labor markets that should be the focus of attention. There is a great deal of uncertainty, but the players generally know how to overcome it. Moreover, beyond impersonal criteria, the systems often provide for negotiation methods around which perceptions can be agreed. Interviews – whether they are “professional”, “recruitment”, “evaluation”, “orientation” or “dismissal” – precisely aim at reducing this uncertainty.

      2.2.2. Developing employability

      Beyond its measurement, how can employability be developed and what are the levers that organizations can use? If we consider that employability stems from the resources available to individuals, combined with activation levers (or conversion factors), and placed at the service of a project, then organizations can play on these three dimensions.

      2.2.2.1. Making resources available

      The resources needed by individuals are provided by the individuals themselves, by the institutional environment, and also by their work context or by HRM practices.

      The financing of training programs leading to the recognition and validation