UKCES

By Gillian Brewin, UK Commission for Employment and Skills

What’s the problem?

It is rare to see a new government policy on employment or skills that does not mention the need for employer involvement. Yet whilst the role of employers has been high profile it has not always been clear.  There have been many different messages about what is expected of employers and what they should expect in return.   Policy papers have variously talked about employer leadership, employer engagement, employer voice, a demand-led system and countless other terms to describe the employer role.  The problem isn’t just that the terminology causes confusion, but more fundamentally that the policy framework itself is not coherent.  Policy over the last decade appears to be more of series of ad hoc approaches than a conscious statement about what role the ‘employer voice’ should play.  There is a wealth of evidence that this leads to frustration and disillusionment for both employers and public sector partners and, most importantly, a lack of impact.

So just what is meant by the employer voice?

The model below outlines the different levels of accountability employers have, or could have, within the employment and skills system. Its purpose is to examine the relationship and interaction between government and employers. This is not to say that we need an inflexible, didactic model that can only accommodate one of these roles. It may be that in an environment as socially and economically complex as the UK there is a need for different approaches in different settings. What is important though, is that employer leadership, determined by different levels of accountability and influence, is transparent and there is a much clearer match of expectations between both parties. This then becomes the agreed ‘deal’.

Further complicating the ambiguity about employers’ roles and responsibilities is the need to balance the twin goals of economic prosperity and social inclusion. There are inevitable tensions. Whilst meeting the needs of employers is deemed essential to ensure increases in productivity and competitiveness, the state’s role is to ensure wider societal wellbeing and protect the welfare of the individual.  Employers are in the business of making money or cutting costs and may want to transfer as much as possible of the cost of skill acquisition onto the individual or state.   Public money must be targeted at supporting the most vulnerable in society to enter sustained employment and progress and national targets reflect this. Employers are asked to tell government what they need to thrive and contribute to the economy and can become frustrated when this comes with restrictions and caveats. It can seem like government is giving mixed messages. These two goals are not fundamentally incompatible, but a lack of clarity about what takes precedence can lead to a mismatch in expectations. Economic uncertainty intensifies the debate.

The absence of a strong policy framework has led to the ‘organic’ development of different ways of capturing the employer voice. There is a plethora of different boards, partnerships, organisations and groups that claim to represent employer views on employment and skills. Looking at the number and variety of mechanisms (and the lack of connectivity between them) it may seem obvious that some form of simplification is needed. However, it’s not that easy, because it would be wrong to treat employers as a single, relatively meaningful interest group. Employer interests are affected by size, sector, geography and many other factors.  There isn’t only one ‘employer voice’ so a variety of different routes is essential to capture a more representative mix of opinion.

The problem isn’t that there is more than one route for employers to articulate their views, but that the landscape is cluttered and confused. Roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and duties are ill-defined and there are numerous examples of different bodies working in competition rather than collaboration. In short, things aren’t working as well as they could, and there isn’t enough evidence of impact.  Perhaps most importantly employers feel short-changed when sufficient benefits are not seen for the investment of their time.  

What’s being done?

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills has been asked to produce recommendations to help maximize the leverage of the employer voice in the UK’s employment and skills systems.  In the first phase of the project we carried out more than a hundred interviews with employers, employer representative organisations and other stakeholders. We reviewed what recent policy and literature says about the role of employers and we mapped all of the existing partnerships, board and organisations operating across the UK.  We also looked at how things work in practice at different geographic levels focusing primarily on Wales, Yorkshire and Manchester. As a result of the analysis undertaken so far the following challenges have been identified:

• There is a lack of clarity on what employers are being asked to do by government and what accountability they have.  This has resulted in confused architecture and inconsistent terminology and language (employer engagement, employer leadership, demand-led, employer-led, employer voice). 
• The system lacks coherence.  There are a range of sectoral and spatial groups (local, sub regional, city region, regional, national) without clear accountabilities or roles and responsibilities.  This results in lack of connectivity, duplication and tensions between the different mechanisms.  They have developed organically as opposed to through a planned policy framework.
• The system is constantly changing as a result of government policy and initiatives that do not build on what’s already there, causing added layers of complexity on already complex system.   This results in many groups continually forming and norming but not getting around to the performing stage.
• The employer leadership mechanisms that currently exist have very little real power.  In many cases, the public sector is the main driver behind employer leadership mechanisms so the idea of employer leadership is a misnomer.  There is also lack of real connection to government and Ministers and little resulting leverage.

Possible solutions

To help overcome these challenges and strike a more clearly understood 'deal' between government and employers, we are developing a set of principles to drive any revision of the system.  These principles aim to ensure employer influence is used in the right way and has impact both in terms of ensuring the system is able to meet the needs of the economy and that employer investment in training is stimulated. 

Principles for discussion include:

• A policy framework is established that is clear about the deal between employers and government and articulates their respective accountabilities.  This can result in a mixed model (applying different types of employer leadership to different parts of the system) but this must be a conscious choice reflecting what specific parts of the UK economy needs rather than a random series of approaches that have arisen out of a lack of clear policy direction.
• A coherent system is established that explicitly determines the elements of the system where employer leadership mechanisms can be most effective. It needs to be clear about who does what and who works with whom to ensure that the system operates effectively as a whole.
• Ensure that, once the policy framework is established, the coherence of the system is maintained and any new policy clearly fits within this framework and adheres to these principles so that employer leadership mechanisms add value and deliver impact both individually and as a whole.
• Powers and authorities are awarded to employer leadership mechanisms that are best placed to make decisions on appropriate elements of the system – that is, where there is a strong need and strong employer leadership.  Their roles are formalised (in terms of the deal and accountabilities and authorities) and they are given:
• Direct feedback mechanisms to government;
• A clear package of funding to directly support the mechanism with rules for building sustainability;
• Guidance on what mainstream funding they are responsible for allocating or commissioning and what targets they are responsible for delivering.

This article first appeared in 'Working Brief.'