WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SKILL IN THE PERSON, SKILL IN THE JOB AND SKILL IN THE SOCIAL SETTING AND WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT.
A quarter century ago skill was generally referred to as manual dexterity (tool usage or control) and to some understanding of underpinning bodies of theory and knowledge associated with the exercise of particular trades or occupations. Hence, there has been growing priority of softer social skills and personal attributes such as manner, deportment, appearance, dress sense, accent, ability to get on with people and self confidence (Payne, 1999; Grugulis et al, 2004). As one employee reports ‘one recruit attitude’ (Calligham and Thompson, 2002:240). These attributes and attitudes are being referred to as skills (Payne, 1999 cited in Stephen Bach, 2007).
One of the most difficult to describe and hard to define concept is ‘skill’ (Warhurst, Grugulis and Keep, 2004), in a survey carried out by (Francis and Penn, 1994), they concluded that different occupational groups will categorize skill in different ways, which suggests that a person’s conception of skill is largely based on his or her own experiences of employment.
Therefore, this essay aims at defining the approaches of skills and also what these approaches are and why it is fundamental in analyzing skill.
WHAT IS SKILL?
Skill is defined as the expertise, ability or competence to undertake specific activities often acquired through formal instruction or work experience (Brown et al, 2001).
The dictionary definition of skill reveals the complexity of the concept. At the core of all definitions is the idea of competence or proficiency-the ability to do something well. The word encompasses both mental and physical proficiency meaning skill implies understanding or knowledge, it also implies physical dexterity. In distinguishing between skill as mundane accomplishment and skill as virtuosity will help give theoretical insights into the mechanisms that underlie skilled activities, failure to distinguish between the two senses of the word can lead to conceptual confusion (Attewell, 1990).
Attewell’s research indicates four distinct sociological notions of skill which yields different images of skill.
- Positivist
- Ethno-methodological
- Weberian
- Marxist
Positivism
This refers to those who treat skill as an attribute amenable to qualitative measurement and believe that this attribute has an objective character independent of the observer. With this assumption, at the outset positivists are faced with two issues: First, should skill be treated as a measureable attribute of persons or jobs/tasks (Spenner, 1983)? Second, should apparently diverse or qualitatively different skills be rendered commensurate and hence measurable? Is there a yardstick that underlies varied skills? (Attewell, 1990).
Ethno-methodological
This is completely at odds with the positivists assumptions about complexity, routine, and conscious analysis, it offers a view of human activity and hence, skills. The core of this perspective is the idea that all human activity, even the most mundane, is quite complex. Things such as walking, crossing the road and carrying on a conversation that everyone does, are amazing accomplishments requiring a complex coordination of perception, movement, and decision, a myriad of choices, and a multitude of skills (Garfinkel, 1969).
The Weberian School
This school tries to understand the conditions under which occupations are socially demarked as skilled and the processes by which some jobs come to command higher standing than others. This school points that tasks complexity becomes important as it creates uncertainty as to whether and how the task can be accomplished. This then becomes the core around which practitioners build claims to skill, even when their knowledge and techniques are modest (Attewell, 1990).
The Marxist School
This school enters skill from three areas which are: in the labor theory of value, in debates concerning the “labor aristocracy,” and in the theory of alienation and technological change. However it would be misleading to suggest that classical Marxist has a well articulated theory of skill as such. Marx and Engels’ writings provide theoretical hints and some neo-Marxists have built upon these. Hence, many contemporary Marxists treat skill as a “common sense” category which does not require explication, while other neo-Marxists treatments of skill frequently shade into either positivist or social constructionist thinking (Attewell, 1990).
APRROACHES TO THE ANALYSIS OF SKILL
There are three approaches to the analysis of skill as shown in (Table 1).
- Skill in the person
- Skill in the job
- Skill in the setting
Focus |
Principal Area of Concern |
Typical Method of Analysis |
Typically Adopted by: |
Person | Individual attributes acquired through: |