labor market is the basis of any “self-respecting” employability development policy, so much so that continuing education, skills development and employability are often considered by practitioners as synonymous terms.
Resources are also made up of all the skills accumulated over the course of a lifetime (human, social or symbolic capital), the rights and public measures available, time, informal knowledge provided by the professional context (knowledge of jobs, trends, etc.), formal information conveyed by HR or managerial supports (on careers, jobs, the environment, etc.), knowledge and skills acquired in training.
Furthermore, access to networks and information is one of the central factors in securing professional transitions, not only through knowledge of the possibilities of orientation, but also through the ability to present oneself or through the positive and reassuring signal sent to potential employers.
Finally, the provision of financial resources on the occasion of a professional transition or through remuneration practices that allow for the regular building of personal financial capital promotes risk-taking and the development of a capacity to move, a characteristic of employability (Forrier et al 2018).
2.2.2.2. Ensuring levers for activating resources
Having resources is not enough. The employee must benefit from levers of activity or conversion factors that can be found in his or her personal, institutional or organizational environment. All the mechanisms that can be described as “learning”, as well as the methods of managing mobility and securing career paths, can act as resource conversion factors, which are essential to the development of employability: informal learning in the workplace, continuing education adapted to the activity, dissemination of useful information to prepare for mobility, support from management and colleagues, forms of collective solidarity and so on.
2.2.2.3. Building a project
Finally, being employable also means knowing where to go. In this respect, the notion of “project” or “value realization” is important and, on this point, it is interesting to look at how the real aspirations of employees can (or cannot) meet the needs of the company. The idea is that employable individuals are also those who are “people with a plan”, who express in one way or another a desire to progress (Fugate and Kinicki 2008), who are part of a life path compatible with the opportunities available on the labor markets.
All the formal or informal employee guidance systems are part of this effort to build a project that is likely to find an outlet. Internally, this can be the professional interview, if it is possible to express oneself freely on this occasion (Véro and Sigot 2017). More informally, organizations also offer the possibility of observing and imitating career paths that are socially validated as successful and desirable, which facilitates individuals’ learning of norms and can activate a form of mimicry based on social conformation mechanisms. Externally, skills assessment, motivation exploration and even coaching
2.3. Conclusion
Changes in the workplace are shifting employability issues: the decline in prescribed work, production in smaller batches, project-based organization, the increased importance of the relational dimension of work and so on, require employees to be increasingly adaptable and able to evolve. They also require the ability and willingness to adapt to new situations. They also require an ability and a desire to build one’s own activity while contributing to the organization’s objectives. In the best of cases, the emancipating dimension of work meets a (de)liberated management style.
It is then a matter of designing a work context and management systems that allow individuals to take dual responsibility for their own career paths and for the organization that employs them. However, beyond the incantations:
The question is to understand whether the conditions are actually met for employees to have real freedom to work and develop professionally, which is a prerequisite for taking an active part in the external transition from one job to another or in the internal transition within a company aiming at a change of position, department or profession (Bonvin et al. 2011).
Indeed, developing employability implies avoiding certain traps. The first is that of an incantatory overstatement which would not be reflected in management practices. By putting forward the heroic figure of a free, competent and attractive worker, there is a risk of confronting workers with unrealistic and paradoxical injunctions that have deleterious effects (Périlleux 2005). Concrete and measurable compensations must therefore exist and be supported by management approaches that go well beyond rhetoric (Dietrich 2010).
A second pitfall is that of a loss-making investment if the psychological contract is not clarified: unless we want to encourage turnover, what is the point for an HRD to invest in an employee’s mobility? Conversely, the employee may wonder whether it is reasonable to invest in developing his or her own employability if he or she doubts the existence of prospects for professional advancement. Yet, the development of employability does not necessarily lead to a breakdown in the employment relationship and can contribute to the retention of employees who would see it as proof of the employer’s commitment to them (Philippaers et al. 2017). This paradox should lead us to reflect on the forms of mobility and adaptation that we wish to encourage and to clarify the substance of the psychological contract that we seek to maintain.
Finally, a third trap is the effects of employability on labor market polarization (Forrier et al. 2018). Managerial and individual decisions based on employability may indeed contribute to reinforcing employability inequalities as self-fulfilling prophecies. Employability is reinforced in particular by the experience of mobility and adaptation, which always constitutes a risk for the employee. However, the least employable employees tend to perceive adaptation as more costly for them for more uncertain prospects of success. This can lead them to prefer to stay away from learning and skills development opportunities. In contrast, employees who are better endowed with the resources to support mobility will be more likely to take the necessary risks and develop this capacity. Employers are then likely to focus their efforts on the employees on whom they are most dependent, offering them more opportunities to develop their employability. The idea would therefore be to prevent this polarization by building inclusive policies that promote the employability of the most vulnerable individuals, in a logic of “sustainable” or “durable” employability (Van der Klink et al. 2016).
Finally, the approach to employability developed here makes it possible to go beyond the traditional approaches centered on skills, to supplement the abundant literature on employability seen above all as an initiative and an individual responsibility, and to integrate several key management issues. It also makes it possible to focus not on public employment policies, but on the room for maneuver and the levers of action available to organizations concerned with strengthening the employability of their employees, whether out of concern for their social responsibility or with a more instrumental aim of developing their capacity to cope with change.
2.4. References
Berntson, E. (2008). Employability perceptions: Nature, determinants, and implications for health and well-being. PhD Thesis, Stockholm University.
Bonvin, J.-M. and Farvaque, N. (2007). L’accès à l’emploi au prisme des capabilités, enjeux théoriques et méthodologiques. Formation emploi. Revue française de sciences sociales, 98, 9–22.
Bonvin, J.-M., Moachon, E., Vero, J. (2011). Déchiffrer deux indicateurs européens de flexicurité à l’aune de l’approche par les capacités. Formation emploi. Revue française de sciences sociales, 113, 15–32.