A reskilling plan needs a job people can actually move into

Consider a reskilling programme that produces capable employees but no transfers. The receiving team has no funded vacancies. Their current managers cannot release them. The new roles pay less than the employees can afford to accept. Another course will leave those problems intact.

McKinsey Global Institute's September 29 report examines possible moves between US occupations through 2035. Its base scenario estimates that roughly 11 million workers could need to change occupations, with alternative scenarios ranging from six million to 16 million. Those are modelled possibilities, not observed job losses or a forecast for Canada. The report evaluates potential moves against demand for the destination job, existing skills, wages and the time required to obtain credentials.

That changes what I would ask for in a workforce reskilling proposal. Before approving a large cohort, I would want to see a small number of specific moves the business is prepared to support, including the conditions under which an employee could accept each one.

Take a proposed move from customer service into operations coordination. Identify the work the receiving manager actually needs done and the evidence they would accept that a candidate can do it. Agree on paid practice time, who will cover the employee's existing work and when a successful candidate can transfer. Put the pay range and location requirements in front of the employee before asking them to invest months in preparation. This is an illustrative test, not a claim that those roles are interchangeable.

WorldatWork's September 28 discussion of internal mobility describes another possible obstacle: managers protecting their own teams while the wider organisation needs people elsewhere. Its contributors include talent-technology vendors, so their recommendations are interested practitioner views, not independent proof that a platform improves mobility. The management problem is still worth testing locally. A team leader who loses a strong performer without replacement capacity has a reason to delay a transfer, even while publicly supporting development.

The executive sponsoring redeployment should settle that cost before enrolment starts. L&D can assess the skill gap and arrange learning and practice. It cannot create a funded vacancy or resolve competing staffing priorities on its own. Where the destination team cannot commit, describe the offer honestly as development for possible future opportunities, rather than a route into a particular job.

I would review the first cohort by following people beyond completion. How many demonstrated readiness, received an offer and moved? For everyone who stalled, record the reason. Keep an unsuccessful skills assessment separate from a hiring freeze, a delayed release or a pay offer the employee declined. Otherwise, the organisation can label an unsuccessful redeployment programme a learning failure and fund more of the same.

A useful next investment might be temporary backfill for the sending team. It might be supervised practice or a different destination role. The decision should follow the reason the move is blocked.