A WORKPLACE WHERE THEY'RE REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR SKILLS?

For 7 years, we've been fighting shoulder to shoulder with many for a transparent labor market, but this fall is the first time we really feel that maybe, slowly, something is moving. Last week in Paris, we had a glimpse of what will define our next few years.

Here are some key terms we heard in at least 10 different presentations, panels, exhibitors, and product placements:

surprise-surprise, 'skill-based hiring' is leading by a huge margin. This is really the future, or at least many would bet on it.

What does the average selection process look like today?

You read a job advertisement, write your CV, send it, and it's filtered (sometimes by humans, sometimes by robots). If you have relevant education and work experience, you're invited for an interview. If they like you, you might write a test or be called for an assessment center or case study solution, where certain skills are tested. There are a few more interview rounds with your prospective manager, their manager, and hopefully your future team. Finally, a decision is made about your suitability for the position.

All this in a still labor-short environment. Thanks.

Well, skill-based hiring would overhaul this endlessly complicated process. You won't write any resume, but jump directly to testing the skills needed for the task (not position) - with any tool. Previous work experience, qualifications, and other factors are disregarded. After all, we all know someone who was more often beside the university than in it and still got a degree - and doesn't live from the knowledge learned there but from what they learned on the side. It's not about the paper, but the knowledge.

This sounds great, especially as one approaches a midlife crisis: no matter if I've been a leadership developer so far, I can still be an interior designer if I design beautiful interiors.

And here's the twist. Despite the Unleash being full of various learning platforms and apps, despite all the world's books, lectures, TED talks being accessible on our phones, it's useless if we don't learn. You might say, "I do learn." And I'd say, "I stick to my diet from January 1 to 10, I swear."

Because according to a BCG analysis (based on OECD, UNESCO, and Statista research), we spend an average of 1,195 hours per year studying in the school system. After finishing school, this drastically drops to... wait for it... 35 hours.

Per year.

Thirty-five hours.

That's one and a half days.

At a time when half of our knowledge loses relevance in five years because it's outdated. Ask the developers who graduated three years ago with top degrees, proficient in Scala, and now it's hard to find a company looking for this skill. Trash.

In this environment, we spend an average of 35 hours studying, while skill-based hiring is coming. Even a solid degree in programming/electrical engineering from a top university, or fantastic experience in an outdated programming language, will no longer be relevant, only what you learned in the last five (one? two?) years.

So, if you're increasingly encountering terms like upskilling and reskilling, it's not the next buzzword, but a scale telling you to stick to your diet, even if you're not a programmer!