(by Alessandro Capezzuoli, ISTAT official and head of the Aidr professions and skills data observatory) The empirical evidence shows that any idiot, over time, if properly trained, can carry out the most disparate jobs. He can also learn to kill, and to be killed, if he is convinced that he is on the side of the "good ones", and that war is essential to live in peace, and that violence, exercised to defend a homeland that exists only in the head of those who 'he created, both in some way "for a good purpose". This simple parallelism should lead us to think that the recruitment policies, through which mainly notional checks are privileged, need a radical update. The public administration is made up of people, not notions, and the functioning of the public machine depends more on those workers who possess a set of characteristics that are difficult to detect during the selective procedures. It is necessary, indeed indispensable, to define a measurement system capable of detecting also different characteristics: the level of awareness, maturity, responsibility, the capacity for autonomy and adaptation of the candidates. And, again, the critical sense, the ability to solve problems, self-control, the ability to use logic, intuition, intelligence and emotional security ... This type of evaluation, which concerns the so-called transversal skills, it is the center of the project around which an employer should build the worker's choice path. Today more than ever in the PA we need a prospective vision of work through which to consciously recruit staff. Staff who will presumably remain within the organization for a very long period of time, whose developments are still unknown. Finding a good Java programmer is not that difficult; finding a Java programmer who knows how to work independently, reduce conflicts, find new motivations, follow the transformations of society and adapt to changes, while maintaining a good level of curiosity and participation in institutional activities, is more complex. The illusory relativism of skills is very dangerous and risks generating false expectations in public administration, citizens and candidates. It is now more or less widespread the idea that competence corresponds to the ability, or rather the ability, to carry out a specific task; much less widespread is the awareness of what are the elements that contribute to forming a certain competence. In the US labor market, the word competence is the piece of a much larger mosaic that takes the name of skill. The skill, whose literary translation is skill, is formed by a complex set of factors: experience, training, knowledge, skills, personal growth, continuous learning, training and experience.
During the selective procedures, then, the competence, already deprived at the origin of its true meanings, is confused with notionism. The result of this confusion is revealed in all its danger when the workers exhaust the productive drive dictated by the initial enthusiasm and become a problem rather than a resource. Problem borne by the company for at least forty years. The great deception of skills is the result of an Italian malpractice that has very distant roots. It can be said that the glamor of common sense began when the degree, which is associated with the formal certification of something that is often not even comparable to the real needs of society, was valued beyond its real value and privileged to the point to make it more representative of the individuals it represents. Universities, on the other hand, have been transformed into self-referential structures, light years away from the real world, in which teaching is a catwalk on which to show characters of all kinds, following some grotesque competition, which has as a prize a chair as full professor. There are very few teachers who teach by vocation and associate the etymological meaning of the word, studium, passion, love, dedication to study. As a result, the system that should shape individuals, shape consciences, feed awareness and foster critical sense, has turned into a pseudo-training system in which skills are a pathetic exercise in notionism training. It could be objected that Italian education aims to provide learners with so-called hard skills, technical skills, while soft skills are delegated to other channels. Which, exactly? The family? Friends? The work environment? This distinction, given the cultural impoverishment and the returning illiteracy in which we are immersed, is extremely dangerous. Rather, we would have to question the entire country system and ask ourselves if the ways in which the "skills" of candidates are ascertained, in a competition or during a university exam, are really effective, considering that there is a valid theory on oblivion, formulated by Hermann Ebbinghaus, in which the brain mechanisms through which learned information are forgotten are scientifically described. A selective test, or an exam in physics, chemistry, or construction engineering, is still carried out through a timed written test (often sufficiently difficult compared to the time allowed and sufficiently easy if you had more time available) and a oral interview. Are we sure that this system allows us to evaluate and select in the best way? Frankly, I don't believe it. Work is a complex entity, which evolves, transforms, and forces workers to adapt.
If we got into the habit of subjecting candidates to very complex tests, in which they can really practice the "skills" in their entirety, perhaps something would change. A complex problem that forces candidates to use all the skills they have, including interpersonal skills, critical sense and self-control. With the right timing, of course. Without relying on memory and without the hypocrisy of “no copying”. Because in real life it works exactly like this: problems are not solved "in time". I have a problem? Do I want to solve it? I read, I reason, I ask, I inquire, I try, I make a mistake, I reflect, I try again, I make a better mistake, I ask again, I study, I stop, I do something else, I make a joke, I smile, I resume, I discuss, I compare myself with others, I learn , I unlearn, improve, write, solve. In these few lines I believe there is the essence of what the public worker should "know how to be". After all, the assessment of skills goes through a paradigm shift: “know how to do” or “know how to be”? That is the question.