It is not so simple: organizations hire people for a number of reasons, last but not least nepotism, and when it comes to that, skills are the last of the worries. And there are further reasons - that I'm not allowed to quote - for hiring a certain gender of employees. Having hired people, organizations, or companies, for what matters, tend to make them work as automata: it's no wonder the joke "when I open my office door, I shut my brain off". Or managers - not leaders ! - complaining "you're here to work, not to think !" One gets what one deserves, it's a basic rule. Let's just look at the european automotive industry: the bigs all went to low-labor-cost countries and now they all lament ever increasing non conforming PPMs. Is this worth any comment? There's a further point: training is still lived by industry as a cost, not as investment. Only when you're experienced enough you're hired; and when there's new machinery, or new software, industry seldom trains you, they hire new guys - because industry think they cost them less. That's "doing nothing", isn't it? Thank you.

These companies defined the symptoms (unskilled workforce) and provide the equivelant of 'take two aspirin, and call me in the morning'.

What is really missing in these companies is skilled management.  Imagine what a company could accomplish with skilled management - - - with management.

What any company really needs is good people. Skills can be taught, good people are hard to find. Exchanging good people for skilled unknown workers is a very risky business strategy. And some would say morally questionable (workers as disposable people).

Ryan Day, if you write an expanded article in the future, use examples of management retraining their own people as technology advances. Those companies are the ones that should be praised as good examples.