Intervention (Hidden)
The challenges of the 21st century, such as technological change, require individuals and organisations to continuously maintain and develop their human capital in order to stay up-to-date. However, several groups of workers are lagging behind in their participation in training (Bassanini et al., 2007). For example, low-skilled flex workers are less motivated to train (Künn et al., 2020). As it is well known that a lack of training participation is often associated with lower employability (Picchio & Van Ours, 2013), it is of great importance to motivate low-skilled individuals to train (Narushima et al., 2018). However, causal evidence providing insights into how to motivate people to participate in training is rare and limited to the use of vouchers (Fleuren et al., 2020). While Schwerdt et al. (2012) and Hidalgo et al. (2014) show that vouchers increase training participation, Fleuren et al. (2020) show that characteristics of the voucher matter for training take-up. Görlitz and Tamm (2017) show that the information provision about a German voucher targeted to employees with low or medium income does not lead to more training take-up, which the authors explain by financial burdens seldom being the main reason for not participating in training. Instead Görlitz amd Tamm (2017) show that the main reason for not participating in training among their sample was a perception of need for training. Our study therefore seeks to investigate whether the provision of labor market information and the consequences training can have for individuals’ careers, can serve as a motivating factor, especially for low-skilled flex workers.
Individuals often have misconceptions about the extent to which labour market dynamics affect them (de Koning, 2022). To address this, our intervention involves educating individuals about relevant labor market developments, including technological changes and the impact of skill adjustments. Building on the existing literature (Frey & Osborne, 2017; Schmidt, 2007; Schmidpeter & Winter-Ebmer, 2021; Veum, 1999), we highlight the relationship between training and labour market outcomes. Specifically, we provide (framed) information on the potential outcomes of training, such as the opportunity to deepen or update knowledge, the chance to work in a different occupation, the prospects for a future wage increase, the potential for increased job satisfaction, and the opportunity for a new job.
The information we provide participants is discussed during three focus groups consisting of individuals with similar characteristics as our target group. Moreover, we will run a pilot to pre-test. There will be a control group that receives no labour market information, but do receive an email to inform individuals about the training portal, and a link to the portal, and three treatment groups:
• General labour market information (in a neutral way) on the current changes in the labour market
• General labour market information + information highlighting the benefits of engaging in training (gain-framed message)
• General labour market information + information highlighting the costs of not engaging in training (loss-framed message)
Ref:
Bassanini, A., Booth, A. L., Brunello, G., De Paola, M., & Leuven, E. (2005). Workplace training in Europe. Available at SSRN 756405.
de Koning, B. K. (2022). Empirical studies on information, beliefs, and choices in education and work. [Doctoral Thesis, Maastricht University]. Maastricht University. https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20220926bk
Fleuren, B. P., de Grip, A., Kant, I., & Zijlstra, F. R. (2020). Time equals money?: A randomized controlled field experiment on the effects of four types of training vouchers on trainingparticipation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103403
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological forecasting and social change, 114, 254-280.
Görlitz, K., & Tamm, M. (2017). Information, financial aid and training participation: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Labour Economics, 47, 138-148.
Hidalgo, D., Oosterbeek, H., & Webbink, D. (2014). The impact of training vouchers on low-skilled workers. Labour Economics, 31, 117-128.
Künn, A., Poulissen, D., van Eldert, P., Fouarge, D., & de Grip, A. (2018). Leren onder werkendenmet een kwetsbare positie op de arbeidsmarkt. ROA. ROA Reports Nr. 005
Narushima, M., Liu, J., & Diestelkamp, N. (2018). Lifelong learning in active ageing discourse: its conserving effect on wellbeing, health and vulnerability. Ageing & Society, 38(4), 651-675.
Picchio, M., & Van Ours, J. C. (2013). Retaining through training even for older workers. Economics of Education Review, 32, 29-48.
Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain-and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1355-1369.
Schmidpeter, B., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2021). Automation, unemployment, and the role of labor market training. European Economic Review, 137, 103808.
Schmidt, S. W. (2007). The relationship between satisfaction with workplace training and overall job satisfaction. Human resource development quarterly, 18(4), 481-498.
Schwerdt, G., Messer, D., Woessmann, L., & Wolter, S. C. (2012). The impact of an adult education voucher program: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 96(7-8), 569-583.
Veum, J. R. (1999). Training, wages, and the human capital model. Southern Economic Journal, 65(3), 526-538.