 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This Month's HeadlinesClick on any Headline to go to the full story. From Jim and CharlieThis is our personal note welcoming you to the July 2006 issue of Future of Work Agenda and setting our theme for the month. This month we offer a diverse potpourri of ideas, insights, and rants (meaning we haven't figured out a unifying theme even though there's lots of good ideas to wrap your brain around). From the virtual death of Detroit to the hills of Northern Italy to small-town America, we take you on a global tour of the future of work. Enjoy! AnnouncementsBusiness Week has once again turned to WDC for insight into the changing world of work. Paula Bartholome requests your participation in a national survey on collaboration. And we're very pleased to welcome two new members to the Future of Work community. Feature Article: Who Let Detroit Burn?On January 23 of this year, William Ford, CEO of Ford Motor Company, held a nationally televised press conference announcing yet another round of plant closings and layoffs totaling nearly 30,000 jobs. Few people in or out of the auto industry believe that these jobs will ever return. Despite some innovative work done fifteen years ago at a Ford Engine Plant in Cleveland-work that should have sparked a renaissance of the U.S. auto industry-Motown has failed to learn some key lessons. Bonus Article: Musings on Knowledge Work and PlaceI don't need a workplace; I need workplaces. Of course, I can only be in one place at a time. . . . sometimes I need to be in one place, and sometimes in another. . . . But here's what's bugging me: I use my head in a lot of different ways, and I've begun to realize that where my head is physically (and where it's been) has a lot to do with how well that head produces what I want it to. Best of the BlogThis section provides you with brief summaries of several recent notes we've already posted on the Future of Work weblog. In each case we also include a live link to the original post on the blog. And we encourage you to become a regular reader of the blog, where we are posting notes, case studies, and links to other important websites on a regular basis. In Our Humble Opinion: Reality BitesWe end each issue of Future of Work Agenda with a personal perspective - our chance to comment on issues and developments in the world of work that we find important and interesting. This is our "editorial" page, where we enjoy offering our opinions and predictions about what's happening (or should be happening) in the world of work and beyond. |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
From Jim and CharliePop! Whiz! Bang! It's that time of year again in the United States - fireworks, hot dogs, apple pie - and sunburn. We hope you all had a happy and safe Fourth of July holiday, and are now back on the job (or, if you're lucky, still enjoying a vacation at the beach, in the mountains, on the golf course, or off in the wilderness somewhere). Of course, if you're off in the wilderness you probably haven't read this issue yet. But then, with 90% of the United States now having access to WiFi of one kind or another, maybe you're online out there in the woods (for your sake, we hope not). As a quick aside, don't forget that we'll be taking our usual August time-out, so don't look for another newsletter until September. We'd like to think that we will be off in the woods, on the beach, or in the mountains next month, but something (read: several new and exciting consulting projects) tells us we'll actually be pretty hard at work right up to and through Labor Day. But wherever you are these days, we hope you find our selection of ideas, provocations, and predictions useful, if not unsettling (don't ever forget that making you uncomfortable is our primary goal in life). Our feature article this month ("Who Let Detroit Burn?"), by new Future of Work member Russ Eckel, is an intense and candid look at the failure of leadership in one of America's oldest - and right now most fragile - industries. Russ's experience with the automobile industry gives him a unique perspective on the tragedy now unfolding in Detroit and southern Michigan. We think it's almost criminal that General Motors and Delphi have recently "bought out" over 40,000 workers, essentially depriving them of their livelihood and their future retirement income. We're working on a future rant about the responsibilities of corporate executives, because frankly we just don't see very many of them anymore who are willing to accept their role as stewards of the economy, their businesses, and - most of all - their employees. Why isn't long-term sustainability seen as an important part of corporate strategy? Why don't business executives understand the value of innovation and what Schumpeter called "creative destruction"? It's the only way to keep a business alive. But that rant is for the future. Back to today. We've also included a brief thought piece that Jim wrote following a mind-expanding experience in Northern Italy with a group of artists ("Musings on Knowledge Work and Place"). While the artists were "recording" the idyllic landscapes and sketching portraits of local residents, Jim was absorbing history and keyboarding his thoughts in a fascinating variety of indoor and outdoor "workspaces" that helped him realize all over again the impact of Place on creativity and insight. We hope you'll find his ideas intriguing. Our current rant ("Reality Bites") is actually a bit more of a ramble, highlighting some important current real-world data about the changing workforce and where those elusive workers are choosing to live these days. Once again we're warning you about changes in the workforce that you simply can't afford to ignore. The challenge for you employers out there is getting tougher and tougher; not only are you facing the most massive talent shortage in our history right at the time when knowledge and creativity have become strategic must-have's, but now the rapidly diminishing pool of talented folks is choosing to live in small towns far from the urban centers where all you Big Corporation types are headquartered. Talk about a misfit! If you're not worrying about how to find, attract, and retain your future talent, you're well on the way to joining GM, Delphi, and all those other incredible shrinking dinosaurs that once dominated the dear departed Industrial Age. We'd like to think that our monthly rants serve as great big alarm bells that help you wake up and see the future for what it's really going to be. As they say, though, the next move is up to you (and sometimes "they" are actually right). And as always, of course, we're pleased to bring you our regular Announcements and Best of the Blog sections. We continue to believe that you'll find ideas and information here that you just can't get anywhere else. So, on to the rest of the newsletter. Enjoy! And please let us know what you think.
AnnouncementsCharlie Grantham Quoted (Again) in Business WeekWe're very pleased that our expertise and understanding of the evolving workplace was once again recognized by Business Week. The July 3, 2006, issue includes an important article by Michelle Conlin about the proliferation of "bedouin" professionals who work any-time, any-place and are increasingly location-agnostic ("Square Feet? Oh, How Square!"- available online only for paid subscribers). The article actually focuses on how the growing mobile workforce is changing the need for, and uses of, commercial workspaces; it points out that many corporate offices are virtually empty most of the time, and that more and more organizations are rethinking the way they design those workspaces to foster more collaboration and creativity. Charlie's statement, in the fourth paragraph, emphasizes WDC's research showing that, as he says, ". . . companies could get as much as 30% to 40% cost savings" by rethinking and redesigning the way they use their real estate. We've also posted some more detailed comments about the article on the Future of Work blog. See "What's an Office For, Anyway?" (June 29). Please Participate in a Survey on CollaborationWe are pleased to invite all Future of Work Agenda readers to participate in an online survey about collaboration that is being conducted by Future of Work small business member Paula Bartholome. Please read her announcement below and contribute your ideas and insights to her survey. Paula teaches online and on campus in DePaul University's nationally recognized School for New Learning and heads her own firm, called Parallax. This fall she will conduct a workshop at Loyola University Chicago's School for Professional Studies on the individual and organizational requirements for collaborative workplaces. Over the years I've heard a lot of stories from students. More specifically, stories about working collaboratively. Everyone seemed to have a horror story about group work. There were success stories too, but not everyone had one of those. Yet isn't collaboration touted as a way to tap the creativity, energy and insights that reside in an organization's human capital? Undoubtedly it requires skills, and these days, most likely some technology, but is that all? Does everyone share a definition of "collaboration?" And if working collaboratively was supposed to bring such benefits, was it inevitably at the expense of the people doing the collaborating? It was time for a reality check. I recently composed a brief survey to look at:
I have already distributed this brief survey to my e-newsletter subscribers, to another membership group where I am a member, and I have placed it on my website. Although it is not intended as rigorous, academic research, I would like as large a response as possible and will leave the survey open for the next few months at least. I plan to use the results as a conversation starter to help people think through all the pieces of what collaborative work looks like and what really supports it. And it will of course be my own reality check. Charlie and Jim have been gracious enough to allow me to request your participation in building a picture of what is happening by taking my brief survey. Feel free to send the link to colleagues and friends. Participation is completely anonymous and I will share the results in a future article. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact me at paula@parallax-perspectives.com. Also, if you have stories, theories or questions you'd like to share about your experiences of collaborative work, your organization's approach to fostering collaboration or other related topics, I'd love to hear them. Thanks for your help! Russ Eckel and Aaron Dienstfrey Join Future of WorkWe're please to announce that Future of Work has two new individual/small business members. Russ Eckel is the founder of Nommos Consulting, based in Salem, Massachusetts. He's an organizational development and change management expert with deep experience and expertise in the automobile industry. And he's also the author of this month's feature article, "Who Let Detroit Burn?" Aaron Dienstfrey is a consultant with Trammel Crow Company who is on a more or less permanent assignment to support McKesson Corporation, where he is responsible for the overall Facility Management Services at McKesson's corporate headquarters in San Francisco. Before joining Trammell Crow, Aaron was Senior Distribution Manager for seven years with the Hertz Corporation at the San Francisco Airport. Please join us in welcoming Russ and Aaron to the Future of Work community. Future of Work Continues to Seek New MembersFuture of Work offers several levels of membership that depend on your status and needs: Individual and Small Business, Corporate, and Implementation Partners. We also offer special discounts to nonprofit, educational, and public sector organizations. These membership programs are described in more detail on the Future of Work website, or feel free to contact us directly for more information about fees and benefits. All Future of Work members are now listed on the Future of Work website, in the About Us/Members section. We encourage all our readers to consider joining the community. Please visit our website and apply for membership today.
Feature Article: Who Let Detroit Burn?by Russ Eckel Russ Eckel is the founder of Nommos Consulting, based in Salem, Massachusetts. He can be reached at russ@nommos.com On January 23 of this year, William Ford, CEO of Ford Motor Company, held a nationally televised press conference announcing yet another round of plant closings and layoffs totaling nearly 30,000 jobs. Few people in or out of the auto industry believe that these jobs will ever return. Despite some innovative work done fifteen years ago at a Ford Engine Plant in Cleveland-work that should have sparked a renaissance of the U.S. auto industry-Motown has failed to learn some key lessons. What we're witnessing in Motown is a general alarm blaze, a conflagration that started a long time ago, when many people in Detroit could have-and in some cases did-smell the smoke. It was as long ago as 1980 that smoldering embers first ignited a fire in the auto industry; and where there is smoke there's fire. The fuel for the blaze was a complex and highly combustible mixture of rising energy prices, rising imports, rising labor costs, and a killer recession. It was then that I began working as a consultant/trainer supporting an industry-led initiative to activate a newly formed "fire brigade" of union leaders and managers who were interested in collaborating to fight this fire. The work at Cleveland Engine Plant No. 2 was refreshing because the Union and the Company worked together with great success to create their own lean manufacturing system, the Cleveland Production System, a homegrown version of the Toyota Production System. The Cleveland plant had been nearly out of business, but union leadership had the idea that it could work with management to create something new. Together, they went to Michigan to ask Ford to assign them the manufacture of the Duratec engine, which had already been assigned to a plant in Europe. The executives in Dearborn agreed. The Cleveland Production System, the most comprehensive example of lean manufacturing in the U.S. auto industry at that time, was the product of the efforts of hundreds of UAW members, Ford managers, and engineers, supported by a cadre of outside consultants. The system has a highly developed structure of self-managed teams, just-in-time production and visual factory, and one of the most extensive employee development and training programs in the U.S. auto industry. It took more than two years to create the system, but the results have more than justified the tremendous investment of both human and physical capital. The Duratec engine has been consistently rated one of the best engines in the world and has been put into automobiles all over the world. Why is this story of Cleveland not the story of the Ford Motor Company as a whole? If so much was learned about world-class manufacturing nearly fifteen years ago, why is Detroit burning today? I believe the answer to the question is a failure of leadership. Strategic decisions made by auto executives at Ford, as well as at GM and Chrysler, in the mid- and late 1990s reflected a longstanding pattern of seeing manufacturing as the poor stepchild of the business. Not since the 1920s had any of these companies really competed on the basis of manufacturing excellence. The U.S. auto industry as a whole completely misunderstood the competitive threat posed by Toyota and the other Japanese manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s-manufacturers who understand that the customer is king. The failure of leadership extends also to the United Auto Workers. Scores of local and international UAW leaders rose to prominence by opposing innovations such as manufacturing teamwork, which they labeled "management by stress." At the highest levels of the union, a decision was made to take a laissez-faire attitude toward local innovations in manufacturing practices. The result has been the absence of any broad learning and diffusion of the key lessons learned by the mavericks in Cleveland. Over time the Cleveland Production System would become the standard and model for the entire Ford Motor Company, but the fact is that neither Ford's nor the UAW's top leadership were prepared to recognize the extraordinary opportunity that this local experiment offered both the company and the union. A very different history could have been written for the U.S. auto industry over the past decade. It may be too late, but Ford and the UAW already know everything they need to know about how to rebuild their shattered company. They just need to call the people in Cleveland. Please direct your comments and questions to comments@thefutureofwork.net. We'd love to publish your reactions and suggestions.
Bonus Article: Musings on Knowledge Work and Placeby Jim Ware I don't need a workplace; I need workplaces. Of course, I can only be in one place at a time. But sometimes I need to be in one place, and sometimes in another. I am a knowledge worker. I use my head to create value. Sure, I use my hands too, but mostly just to hit some little square pieces of plastic in a particular sequence that produces images of text on a plasma screen. Sometimes I hold a pen and spread ribbons of ink on paper as another way to create and communicate my ideas. But however I record my ideas, it's what goes on in my head that matters. But here's what's bugging me: I use my head in a lot of different ways, and I've begun to realize that where my head is physically (and where it's been) has a lot to do with how well that head produces what I want it to. Sometimes I need to explore, to think, to create new ideas. Other times I need to express an existing idea, to produce an article or complete a report. Still other times I am searching for new information, often via the web, but sometimes in a book or magazine. Those kinds of knowledge work are a lot different from analytic or problem-solving work, where I am sorting out existing information, recasting it, or searching for an answer to a specific problem. And everything I've mentioned so far is essentially individual work. When I'm interacting directly with others in a phone call, a face-to-face meeting, or a working session, I'm using not just my head but my eyes, ears, and mouth (and sometimes my nose) as well. That's how I translate what goes on in my head into meaningful words (and body language too) that make sense (sometimes, anyway) to other folks, and sometimes actually contributes to group creativity and innovation. So what's the point? Isn't that all pretty obvious? In one sense, of course it is. But in another, I am not so sure that any of us really understands or appreciates the impact that our physical surroundings have on either the quality or the quantity of the stuff that happens between our ears. I've been thinking about this lately because not too long ago I had the good fortune to spend almost three weeks in northern Italy accompanying my wife and a group of her fellow artists who were exploring the history, the art, and the architecture of that very special area, and doing a marvelous job of capturing many of the incredible buildings, natural vistas, and people on paper and canvas. The group was gracious enough to let me tag along, so I too got immersed in ancient churches, museums, 11th-century walled villages, monasteries, and wonderful country walking paths. The fresh air and light breezes during the day and the hearty food and rich conversations every evening (helped along in no small part by some of the best, inexpensive red wine on the planet) refreshed my spirit in ways that I hadn't really anticipated. During that trip I experienced a personal renaissance of thought and energy that mirrors in a very small way the grand cultural Renaissance that took place in the hills of Italy some 500 years ago. Surely the sun, the hills, and even the monks and barons of that far-away time had something to do with the burst of creativity that brought Western Europe out of the Dark Ages. Now, my own artistic ability is presently limited to pointing a digital camera and clicking the shutter, but even that simple activity helped sharpen my sense of where I was and what colors, textures, and shapes were surrounding me. And that thought brings me back, finally, to what is bugging me now. My experience of getting away from "the office" and the simple space inside the four walls where I normally do all that head work has awakened me to how profoundly my surroundings affect the way I think, what I think about, and what I am capable of dragging out of that wet space between my ears. Yet I, like most "knowledge workers" spend almost all my work time in a fairly traditional office environment - four walls, a desk, some filing cabinets, and shelves full of books. Sure, there might be a family photo or two on the wall, and maybe a picture drawn by a child, but the fact is that no matter what I am trying to accomplish on a given day, the place where I am is almost always the same (yes, I usually hold team meetings in a conference room, and sometimes I even have a meaningful "meeting" in a cafeteria or a coffee shop, but let's face it, most of the time I use the same place to read, write, analyze, list, sort, file, talk on the phone, and even meet with colleagues - at least when I'm not on airplane or in some drab hotel room far from home). What if I had lots of places to choose among, and could move from one to another as I moved from one task to another? My instinct tells me I'd be a lot more creative in some kinds of places (rooms filled with art work, or with outdoor photos - or literally outdoor places), more analytic in others (a library, or a bare-bones office?), and thoughtful and reflective in yet another place (a church? a mountain retreat? a sailboat? a café?). Now, to bring this back to office design and the future of work, Charlie and I have recently had an opportunity to visit several innovative office facilities, some of them one-company endeavors and some multi-company shared "third places." One facility in particular was exceptionally impressive - open workspaces with low or no dividers, light and bright colors, lots of windows and natural light. I can't help but think I'd be creative and energized if I worked there regularly. The folks who are fortunate enough to have access to that place seemed highly engaged with their work and - when working collaboratively - with their colleagues. But the deeper lesson for me was the incredible variety of spaces and places in that one facility. There were several different "zones" with different workstation layouts (some were traditional 8x8's, some used the increasingly popular 120-degree designs), but there were also several enclosed "personal harbors" for two- or three-person meetings, private heads-down work, or phone conversations; a "kitchen" and café area with informal lounge furniture groupings; an outdoor patio area; and several more traditional conference rooms of varying sizes and designs. We don't have detailed work behavior or productivity data on that workplace yet, but anecdotally it's clear that people are moving around frequently from one spot to another over the course of a day, as individual and team activities change dynamically from one hour to the next. How effective is that kind of workplace? In this case, it's a pilot project that's only been open for a few months, so the jury is still out. But the early reports are that the folks who "inhabit" the facility are highly satisfied, and their managers are too. It's hard to ask for more. I think you get my point. When there are so many different kinds of knowledge work, why do we so often try to do it all in one kind of place? How much creativity and innovation have we lost forever by plopping people who do different kinds of work from day to day and even hour to hour into those all-too-common, drab, one-size-misfits-all, cube farms? Please direct your comments and questions to comments@thefutureofwork.net. We'd love to publish your reactions and suggestions.
Best of the BlogHere's a small sampling of excerpts/lead-ins from our recent weblog posts. Please get in the habit of reading the Future of Work weblog regularly - bookmark it, or if you have an RSS news reader, subscribe to it. And please contribute as well. We're more than happy to reprint your stories, or to consider featuring you as a Guest Writer. We believe we're creating a unique knowledge base of what's going on out there today, and what's going to be going on tomorrow. If you want to learn about the future of work, our blog is the place to go (along with this very newsletter, of course). Just click on each headline below to visit the full original blog post. New York Times Weighs In on WiFi (June 6)"All the news that's fit to print" today includes a call for "unwiring" New York City. That is, make the Big Apple another municipal wireless city-wide hotspot. The New York Times editorial page today states the obvious: WiFi is Now - not some distant future technology. . . A Conversation with Alvin Toffler (June 7)I've written earlier (here and here) about Al and Heidi Toffler's new book, Revolutionary Wealth. Now you can view a CSPAN2 "AfterWords" conversation between Al and Newt Gingrich (yes, that Newt) about the book and the Tofflers' insights into the radically changing nature of the global economy. . . Internet Neutrality (June 8). . . . there's plenty of discussion and debate all over the place about this very important topic. The San Francisco Chronicle's Tom Abate, a topnotch technology writer, has a good overview of the issues in today's paper: "House floor vote on network neutrality expected Friday." Location, Location, Location! (June 19)I've come across a couple of datapoints recently that shed some light on the changing values and priorities of younger workers in particular - but also on how the workforce more generally is changing. First, an organization called CEOs for Cities has published a survey ("Attracting the Young, College-Educated to Cities") that supports very definitively something Charlie and I have been claiming for quite a while - younger folks (especially 25 - 34 year olds) are choosing where to live first, and then - and only then - worrying about who to work for. In other words, location matters - more than ever.
In Our Humble Opinion: Reality BitesCommentary by Charlie Grantham and Jim Ware We told you so. . . Or: it's like déjà vu all over again - again. Well folks, it's time to drift off into the good 'ol summertime (at least here in the northern hemisphere). Bar-B-Que, suds, and sun. Oh ain't it wondermous when we aren't doing nothing (don't we wish). Our usual cast of characters, Buford, Maynard, Cousin Zeke, and Cooter (the virtual trend-sniffing blue tick hound) were last reported down in Mexico for spring vacation. Seems there was a little re-entry visa problem with the humans at the border. So the Homeland Security types have spirited them off to a re-training facility in Lower Slobovia in hopes of instilling some civility and common sense. We hope to see their return this fall. However, as luck would have it, Cooter slipped through claiming the need for a potty break; so he's been out there searching for more trends. And dag-nab it, he found some more things we need to talk about. So this month's "rant" will be a ramble into the vast dataland of coming trends. Well, not really; it's actually going to be about stuff we've been slogging at for over a year. But now, Yo Boy, we've actually got statistical proof to back up our not-so-humble opinions and recent rantings. It's all got to do with people, labor pools (as opposed to puddles, which most news folk seem to like wading around in), and just where the Sam Hill all those things are going. So let's start with a few Cooter nuggets to set the stage and then we'll lapse into the really juicy stuff. All this, of course, to get you all in a lather before we launch into a real rant in September to celebrate Labor Day. Chew on this stuff, Homer:
Fact #1: In 1978 our workforce growth rate was 3.5 percent. By 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects the rate to be 1 percent. Hey, enough already! This is getting depressing. A tip of the ol' chapeau to Cooter, who sniffed this out. You can check it out yourself at The Perfect Labor Storm, a good site to check in on regularly (the list includes about 42 more of those depressing facts, along with a whole lot more workforce data worth thinkin' real hard about). OK dear hearts, got the picture? For those of you who may be just a bit cognitively challenged, let's break it down. The US isn't going to have enough workers by 2010 to support continued economic growth!!! So let's fast forward that. One more time, with feeling: Labor (not capital, folks) drives growth in the knowledge intensive sector. And it ain't there. Growth drops to 1% annually, the Feds freak and jack interest to 10% for a 30-year fixed home mortgage. Good God, it looks like 1977 all over again (Can you say Jimmy Carter?). That's the deju vu thing kickin' in full strength. Hello out there: the picture for non-burger flippers is even worse. Those 20-35 year olds simply aren't going to be there when you need 'em. And no, that work isn't just going to be outsourced to some Third World country. Don't believe that? Take a look at Apple Computer (you know, the guys who sell iPods at 5 million a quarter - see "Is the Music Fading for Apple?" - Business Week, June 22, 2006 ). The company recently decided not to move a tech support center to India, citing the high cost of wages and too much turnover ("Why Apple Walked Away," Business Week, June 19, 2006). Well, glory be, could it be that the chickens have finally come home to roost? (Had to slip a good 'ol metaphor in there somewhere.) Meanwhile back at the ranchette ('cause we haven't got enough buckaroos to buy a real ranch anymore). Those pesky 20-to-35 year-olds are melting away to parts unknown (well, sort of). Cooter turned over another data rock and found some really neat squiggly stuff crawling around under there. Here's what he uncovered: a recent survey by CEO's for Cities showed that that 67% of those critical young labor-bots are figuring out where they want to live, moving there, and only then starting to look for work. Whoa! You need them bad and they're choosing to vamoose from many of the big cities to the far-off burbs and beyond. Let's look under that rock a little more closely. First of all, the survey noted that these talented folks don't want to get near places like New York City and Washington, DC. They say those places are just too crowded and dangerous. Humm? The centers of financial and political power in the United States actually repel talent? Now ain't that interesting. We got to get Buford and Maynard back quick 'cause this is Big News that Means Something. Want more detail? Yankelovich (not exactly lightweights in the research biz) notes that the majority of this highly talented, and in-demand group wants to live outside the downtowns of big cities. 75% of them are looking to the traditional suburbs, 54% to far suburbs, 52% small towns, and 41% seek out even more rural areas. (the numbers don't add to 100% because respondents could give multiple answers). But you get the picture. Get a grip people; these folks are moving to where there ain't a lot of good old American Class A real estate. And those folks sort of like to stay around the region they grew up in - except for one notable exception: the Northeast, where 35% would consider a move to the South. No surprise there for anyone who's ever spent a winter in Buffalo or Bangor (sorry Tim, had to say it). We've been rattling on now for too many paragraphs. The bottom line, dear readers, is that there is a looming (like, right behind you) shortage of talent in the United States - and much of the rest of so-called civilized world as well. And the talent that is here is moving away from traditional industrial employment centers. So we have a problem Houston. Where ya going to go, Mr. Smarty-Pants CEO, to get the talent you need? In Our Humble Opinion (and you thought we were going to go through this whole ramble without opining? Come on, you know us better than that), in the next five years there will be hundreds if not thousands of businesses that will literally fold up and close their doors because they couldn't find the talent they need to deliver a perfectly good product or service that the market wants. For sixty-four dollars, what'er you doin' to make sure that's not your business we're talking about? We'll just let those questions drift in and settle on your mind while you coast through the rest of the summer. Yep, we've actually also got some humble opinions on the answers to those questions, but we'll hold off until Labor Day (gotta give y'all a reason to come on back). In the meantime, anyone who wants to speculate and send in their own solution, go on and "Bring it on" (sorry, couldn't resist). We'll keep track, and those of you who get closest to our humble "correct" answers will get a free ticket to our next World Congress on the Future of Work. Seriously, that's worth at least a dollar two ninety-eight but you've got to pack a lunch. Have a good one. See you in September. Please direct your comments to comments@thefutureofwork.net. We'd love to publish your reactions and suggestions. And thanks for listening. This issue of Future of Work Agenda was produced by Jim Ware and Charlie Grantham of the Work Design Collaborative. We encourage your comments, suggestions, and submission of materials for possible future publication. Please contact us at: Charlie Grantham, charlie@thefutureofwork.net, +1 928 771 9138 To subscribe to Future of Work Agenda, register on our web site. Please pass this newsletter on to other interested individuals and encourage them to subscribe as well. The newsletter is free, and will remain free as long as possible. To end your subscription, send a message to newsletter@thefutureofwork.net and write Unsubscribe in the Subject line. For republication rights, contact Jim Ware at jim@thefutureofwork.net.
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
