Passing the General Educational Development (GED) is designed to show that an individual has the same knowledge and intellectual skills as that of a high school graduate. And yet, even though a GED shows the same knowledge as a diploma, the typical GED individual is more often unemployed than an individual with a diploma. Why? The problem with a GED grad can be why there was a need for a GED in the first place. If traits of frequent absences, tardiness and general disrespect in high school were the reasons for the GED instead of a diploma, these same traits make the person a bad employee.
A college degree is often used as a qualifier for a position of employment, believing it shows a person has greater knowledge and intellectual skills. However, a lack of a college degree often does not mean knowledge and intellectual skills are less. Work experience gained by not going to college can translate into knowledge the degree holder does not have. Besides, the availability of a myriad courses in any sector imaginable (for example, this advanced ECDL course with certificate) allows a person, college graduate or not, to gain any number of skills that qualifies them to do the job required. A person of average intellect that has the self-discipline to pay attention and apply what they’ve learned to the task at hand will do a better job than a smarter person who doesn’t apply himself.
Similarly, someone who has spent years playing violins and cellos might not have a degree, but someone with a degree won’t necessarily be able to play string instruments to the professional standard that the violinist can. The violinist isn’t unskilled or dumb, they just chose a different path and now they’re one of the best in their field.
A little more than 20 years ago the government conducted an employer survey on the skills employees needed (Learning a Living: A Blueprint for High Performance, 1992). The employers were clear that an acceptable degree of mental skills was essential: employees needed to know how to read and write, communicate, solve problems, and have the ability to learn. However, employees also needed the skills to display leadership when needed, to assume responsibility, to be dependable, show integrity and not be a jerk to coworkers or customers. Subsequent studies found that a person’s character-which might be summed up as non-cognitive skills-ranked higher than grades and years of schooling in determining who was hired and promoted. Employee character had far more to do with the next promotion than intellect.
Success in the workplace is not based solely on intellectual abilities. Indeed, intellectual abilities are only one ingredient in the mix and often are not even the main one. Twice as many job applicants are not hired or not promoted due to their lack of non-cognitive skills than for their lack of cognitive skills. This holds true for all staff, including HR.
It’s critical that those in charge of recruiting the workforce understand how the job is done.
This is why there are online HR academies like Josh Bersin Academy (https://bersinacademy.com) that specialize in getting the best out of HR so that the rest of the staff may focus on their work.
The bottom line is that unless there is a specific skill set that can only be provided through formal education, one should not assume the requisite knowledge and intellectual skills are not there because a degree is missing-nor should the presence of a degree lead to the assumption that the person is qualified. In both cases, the non-cognitive skills are the other pieces of the mix. These non-cognitive skills include the self-discipline already mentioned, as well as being organized in thought and deed, having the ability to follow a plan, the ability to be a team player, and to be cooperative and feel compassion toward others.
A problem in hiring is that it is difficult to test for character. Sure, you might carry out background checks like the australian federal police check to make sure they’re morally sound in the eyes of the law, but most personality tests involve self-reporting, where the individual says how he would act or feel, but these tests are easy to “game.” The best results are achieved through in-depth interviews with former employers and references. However, even here the true picture may not be revealed. What we’re left with is hiring with a probationary period during which the new employee’s character may be tested. It’s not the perfect solution, but it’s a better one than basing hiring solely on whether or not the applicant has an academic piece of paper.
