Are skill deficits always bad? Towards a learning perspective on skill mismatches

Rolf van der Velden, D. Verhaest

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterProfessional

Abstract

Abstract the explicit assumption in most literature on educational and skill mismatches is that these mismatches are inherently costly for workers. However, the results in the literature on the effects of underqualification or underskilling on wages and job satisfaction only partly support this hypothesis. Rather than assuming that both skill surpluses and skill deficits are inherently costly for workers, we interpret these mixed findings by taking a learning perspective on skill mismatches. Following the theory of vygotski on the so-called “zone of proximal development,” we expect that workers who start their job with a small skill deficit, show more skill growth than workers who start in a matching job or workers with a more severe skill deficit. We test this hypothesis using the cedefop european skills and jobs survey (esjs) and the results confirm these expectations. Workers learn more from job tasks that are more demanding than if they would work in a job that perfectly matches their initial skill level and this skill growth is largest for those who start with a small skill deficit. The learning opportunities are worst when workers start in a job for which they have a skill surplus. This is reflected in the type of learning activities that workers take up. Workers with a small skill deficit are more often engaged in informal learning activities. Finally, workers who started with a small skill deficit are no less satisfied with their job than workers who started in a well-matched job. We conclude that a skill match is good for workers, but a small skill deficit is even better. This puts some responsibility on employers to keep job tasks and responsibilities at a challenging level for their employees.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationSkill mismatch in labor markets, research in labor economics
EditorsS. Polachek, K. Pouliakas, G. Russo, K. Tatsiramos
Place of PublicationUnited Kingdom
PublisherEmerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Pages305-343
Volume45
ISBN (Electronic)978-1-78714-377-7
ISBN (Print)978-1-78714-378-4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Publication series

SeriesResearch in Labor Economics
Volume45
ISSN0147-9121

Cite this

van der Velden, R., & Verhaest, D. (2017). Are skill deficits always bad? Towards a learning perspective on skill mismatches. In S. Polachek, K. Pouliakas, G. Russo, & K. Tatsiramos (Eds.), Skill mismatch in labor markets, research in labor economics (Vol. 45, pp. 305-343). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.. Research in Labor Economics, Vol.. 45 https://doi.org/10.1108/S0147-912120170000045009
van der Velden, Rolf ; Verhaest, D. / Are skill deficits always bad? Towards a learning perspective on skill mismatches. Skill mismatch in labor markets, research in labor economics. editor / S. Polachek ; K. Pouliakas ; G. Russo ; K. Tatsiramos. Vol. 45 United Kingdom : Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 2017. pp. 305-343 (Research in Labor Economics, Vol. 45).
@inbook{23a2924df10846c8953ed0a58092a796,
title = "Are skill deficits always bad? Towards a learning perspective on skill mismatches",
abstract = "Abstract the explicit assumption in most literature on educational and skill mismatches is that these mismatches are inherently costly for workers. However, the results in the literature on the effects of underqualification or underskilling on wages and job satisfaction only partly support this hypothesis. Rather than assuming that both skill surpluses and skill deficits are inherently costly for workers, we interpret these mixed findings by taking a learning perspective on skill mismatches. Following the theory of vygotski on the so-called “zone of proximal development,” we expect that workers who start their job with a small skill deficit, show more skill growth than workers who start in a matching job or workers with a more severe skill deficit. We test this hypothesis using the cedefop european skills and jobs survey (esjs) and the results confirm these expectations. Workers learn more from job tasks that are more demanding than if they would work in a job that perfectly matches their initial skill level and this skill growth is largest for those who start with a small skill deficit. The learning opportunities are worst when workers start in a job for which they have a skill surplus. This is reflected in the type of learning activities that workers take up. Workers with a small skill deficit are more often engaged in informal learning activities. Finally, workers who started with a small skill deficit are no less satisfied with their job than workers who started in a well-matched job. We conclude that a skill match is good for workers, but a small skill deficit is even better. This puts some responsibility on employers to keep job tasks and responsibilities at a challenging level for their employees.",
author = "{van der Velden}, Rolf and D. Verhaest",
note = "European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop). Cedefop European skills and jobs survey (ESJS), Wave 1, Spring 2014 [computer file], 1st edition, Thessaloniki: Greece",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1108/S0147-912120170000045009",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-78714-378-4",
volume = "45",
series = "Research in Labor Economics",
pages = "305--343",
editor = "S. Polachek and K. Pouliakas and G. Russo and K. Tatsiramos",
booktitle = "Skill mismatch in labor markets, research in labor economics",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

van der Velden, R & Verhaest, D 2017, Are skill deficits always bad? Towards a learning perspective on skill mismatches. in S Polachek, K Pouliakas, G Russo & K Tatsiramos (eds), Skill mismatch in labor markets, research in labor economics. vol. 45, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., United Kingdom, Research in Labor Economics, vol. 45, pp. 305-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0147-912120170000045009

Are skill deficits always bad? Towards a learning perspective on skill mismatches. / van der Velden, Rolf; Verhaest, D.

Skill mismatch in labor markets, research in labor economics. ed. / S. Polachek; K. Pouliakas; G. Russo; K. Tatsiramos. Vol. 45 United Kingdom : Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 2017. p. 305-343 (Research in Labor Economics, Vol. 45).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterProfessional

TY - CHAP

T1 - Are skill deficits always bad? Towards a learning perspective on skill mismatches

AU - van der Velden, Rolf

AU - Verhaest, D.

N1 - European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop). Cedefop European skills and jobs survey (ESJS), Wave 1, Spring 2014 [computer file], 1st edition, Thessaloniki: Greece

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Abstract the explicit assumption in most literature on educational and skill mismatches is that these mismatches are inherently costly for workers. However, the results in the literature on the effects of underqualification or underskilling on wages and job satisfaction only partly support this hypothesis. Rather than assuming that both skill surpluses and skill deficits are inherently costly for workers, we interpret these mixed findings by taking a learning perspective on skill mismatches. Following the theory of vygotski on the so-called “zone of proximal development,” we expect that workers who start their job with a small skill deficit, show more skill growth than workers who start in a matching job or workers with a more severe skill deficit. We test this hypothesis using the cedefop european skills and jobs survey (esjs) and the results confirm these expectations. Workers learn more from job tasks that are more demanding than if they would work in a job that perfectly matches their initial skill level and this skill growth is largest for those who start with a small skill deficit. The learning opportunities are worst when workers start in a job for which they have a skill surplus. This is reflected in the type of learning activities that workers take up. Workers with a small skill deficit are more often engaged in informal learning activities. Finally, workers who started with a small skill deficit are no less satisfied with their job than workers who started in a well-matched job. We conclude that a skill match is good for workers, but a small skill deficit is even better. This puts some responsibility on employers to keep job tasks and responsibilities at a challenging level for their employees.

AB - Abstract the explicit assumption in most literature on educational and skill mismatches is that these mismatches are inherently costly for workers. However, the results in the literature on the effects of underqualification or underskilling on wages and job satisfaction only partly support this hypothesis. Rather than assuming that both skill surpluses and skill deficits are inherently costly for workers, we interpret these mixed findings by taking a learning perspective on skill mismatches. Following the theory of vygotski on the so-called “zone of proximal development,” we expect that workers who start their job with a small skill deficit, show more skill growth than workers who start in a matching job or workers with a more severe skill deficit. We test this hypothesis using the cedefop european skills and jobs survey (esjs) and the results confirm these expectations. Workers learn more from job tasks that are more demanding than if they would work in a job that perfectly matches their initial skill level and this skill growth is largest for those who start with a small skill deficit. The learning opportunities are worst when workers start in a job for which they have a skill surplus. This is reflected in the type of learning activities that workers take up. Workers with a small skill deficit are more often engaged in informal learning activities. Finally, workers who started with a small skill deficit are no less satisfied with their job than workers who started in a well-matched job. We conclude that a skill match is good for workers, but a small skill deficit is even better. This puts some responsibility on employers to keep job tasks and responsibilities at a challenging level for their employees.

U2 - 10.1108/S0147-912120170000045009

DO - 10.1108/S0147-912120170000045009

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-1-78714-378-4

VL - 45

T3 - Research in Labor Economics

SP - 305

EP - 343

BT - Skill mismatch in labor markets, research in labor economics

A2 - Polachek, S.

A2 - Pouliakas, K.

A2 - Russo, G.

A2 - Tatsiramos, K.

PB - Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

CY - United Kingdom

ER -

van der Velden R, Verhaest D. Are skill deficits always bad? Towards a learning perspective on skill mismatches. In Polachek S, Pouliakas K, Russo G, Tatsiramos K, editors, Skill mismatch in labor markets, research in labor economics. Vol. 45. United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. 2017. p. 305-343. (Research in Labor Economics, Vol. 45). https://doi.org/10.1108/S0147-912120170000045009