Skill transferability through structure–agency perspective

Soft skills are commonly referred to as easily transferable skills (Balcar et al., 2011) irrespective of the contextual implications they carry and instigate with them (e.g. interpersonal skills). Applied to the situation of skilled migrants, this overgeneralisation creates a false sense of transitional ease for migrants’ skills across national borders. However, it is worthwhile to understand if a contextually defined and subjectively interpreted set of personal attributes such as soft skills are so easily transferable across fiercely protected national borders, especially in the context of wider sociocultural differences. If soft skills are contextually defined and subjectively interpreted, the interplay between social structures and individual agency of the actors who endeavour to transfer their skills across borders has a pivotal role in skill transferability discourse. The structuralist and individualist division is counterproductive in understanding transitional challenges since the former effectively reduces the responsibility to social structures and the latter reduces it to individual agency (Archer, 1982, 1995, 2007; Bakewell, 2010). Therefore, the realist construct of structure–

agency interplay provides a more fruitful avenue to investigate the challenges of soft skills transferability in cross-cultural settings.

The occupational mobility literature provides a set of skills and attributes identified as necessary for employment success in contemporary labour markets. Among many such identifications the Mayer Committee (1992)’s seven key competencies, DEST (2002) employability skills for the future and Balcar et al. (2011) are worth considering due to the different approaches they suggest in identifying employability skills. Table 24 summarises the key identifications for each. Further, the above three classifications align with the skill classification attempts made by Bratianu and Vatamanescu (2016). They represent wider aspects of skills and personal attributes necessary for employment success. However, three fundamental challenges arise in any attempt to discuss employability skills:

1. What is meant by each skill/personal attribute type? Whose definition prevails? 2. Under what circumstances might someone be judged as competent?

3. Who is responsible for the attainment of such desired skills and attributes? This entails the level of skills jobseekers/employees need to bring to the job against the level of training needed to be provided by the employers.

Table 24: Comparison of employability skills Mayer Committee’s (1992) seven

key competencies

Employability skills for the future (DEST, 2002)

Balcar et al. (2011)

• Collecting, analysing and organising information • Communicating ideas and

information

• Planning and organising activities

• Working with others and in teams

• Using mathematical ideas and techniques

• Solving problems • Using technology

• Communication that contributes to productive and harmonious relations across employees and customers

• Teamwork that contributes to productive working

relationships and outcomes • Problem-solving skills that

contribute to productive outcomes

• Self-management skills that contribute to employee satisfaction and growth • Planning and organising that

contribute to long- and short- term strategic planning • Technology skills that

• Personal effectiveness skills cluster

• Relationship and service skills cluster

• Impact and influence skills cluster

• Achievement skills cluster • Cognitive skills cluster

of tasks

• Learning skills that contribute to ongoing improvement and expansion in employee and company operations and outcomes

• Initiative and enterprise skills that contribute to innovative outcomes

Among the above-stated wide variety of skills, communication can be considered as a good example to illustrate the transitional complexities of soft skills across cultural distinctions. Most participants (n = 17) in the qualitative phase inquiry self-identified as individuals with adequate communications skills in their home country context, in both language and culture. Further, some of them (ETS 2, ETS 4, AOA 4) had some examples to showcase how communication skills were important in their home country occupations and how they succeeded in tasks involving communication skills. However, as explained in Section 5.4.7, participants identified themselves facing certain communication challenges due to reasons such as cultural references attached to language, having foreign accents and public perceptions on their use of English. The interplay of such factors created a situation where some participants lost confidence in conversation with native English speakers in Australia (see Section 5.4.7).

The realists’ construct of morphogenesis is useful for understanding how structural determinants play a vital role in the above example. Skilled migrants have to deal with a plethora of pre-existing structural factors in terms of English language capabilities, which they have not necessarily played a role in making. For example, English language skills are considered as a symbol of social affluence in some former British colonies (Pennycook, 2014). Therefore, skilled migrants from such countries have to bear the structural pressure of using English as a social status indicator. Further, owing to their identity as skilled migrants they face a similar structural pressure in Australia, where society and labour market operators expect them to use fluent English (Frost, 2017; Hawthorne, 2015, 2016a; Syed & Murray, 2009). The skilled migrants respond to such pre-existing structural determinants through a variety of agential projects. Some try to mimic Australian accents, or learn local clichés and cultural aspects related to English, while others limit themselves in conversation in the public sphere.

In response to the abovementioned structural pressure, they often inadvertently contribute to reinforcing the very social barriers that hold them back. According to Archer (1982, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2007), agents may or may not be aware of their role in such structural elaboration processes. This distinguishes morphogenesis from structuration, where structuration is constrained to active agency in structural elaboration processes (Archer, 1982; Bakewell, 2010). The above example showcases the difficulty of transferring communication skills across national borders. If communication skills come with no such attachments to social structures, their transferability would be much easier.