Tag Archives: management

Workplace Culture Caution

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Workplace culture unfolds to be what it is due to interactions of several influences. Included among these affects are how leadership and managerial styles project specific decision-making approaches, the modes of communication present, and guidance behaviors displayed by management and mentors. In addition, organizations may attempt to adhere to mission statements or other codified value declarations to drive operations, policies, and procedures. Workspace design can also matter when assessing the safety, comfort, and efficiency of the workplace. Further, diversity and inclusion, learning and development, and work-life balance initiatives can make a difference in employee attitudes.

All of these factors are important, but I will argue that the quality of employee engagement internally within their workplace and especially among each other’s colleagues is chief among the impacts shaping workplace culture.

Workers in an organization or business typically make up the bulk of bodies at the workplace. For any establishment to be successful several conditions must be evident among the members of this cohort. We know that the type of work being performed must feel meaningful and purposeful; that there are prospects for career growth or advancement; that positive and productive behaviors are recognized and reinforced; that employees feel a significant degree of empowerment and autonomy to make their own decisions; and that workers feel transparency and fairness is always evident in how decisions are made and performance evaluated.

The collective psychology of employees plays a crucial role in whether organizational prosperity is achieved or not. But workers should not expect managers to be the sole kingpins of whether their progress is favorable or not. Sure, poor leadership can sink the ship. However, workers themselves are also critical to workplace positivity, or lack thereof.

Poor or even dysfunctional workplace culture results from a series of mishaps and inadequate calculations caused by management or workers or a combination of the two. But it is the workers I want to stay focused on at this time. In particular, I want to address the phenomenon of a workplace culture that is misguided psychologically with the cause originating from the employees themselves.

I will use an example from my own professional past to help make my point. I worked for many years in an environment that praised egalitarianism. Equity was baked into system. We bargained for contracts collectively. There was no compensation differential between men and women. Unionism was strong. To be clear, I think these are all great traits and would not trade any of them away. But this equity-based culture produced an unintended liability that to my knowledge has never been resolved.

Workers largely prided themselves on staying in their own work lane — working collaboratively at times, but mostly performing a solo function that required a lot of stamina. We were all pulling oars, which meant we needed to work mechanistically. To have someone stray off course because they wanted to be too creative, or too much of a leader, or too, well, different in the way that they wanted to handle their job, then the mainstream raised their shackles. Questions of, ‘Who-do-they-think-they-are?’ and ‘Looks-to-me-like-they’re-trying-to-suck-up-to-management?’ began to get buzzed about.

Homogeneity was culturally rewarded. Divergence and distinction were not. Inbred psychological unsafety and insecurity had too much of a hold on the group. There are many other scenarios that embody cultural breakdown. The journey to worker psychological unsafety can come a number of different ways.

So, once a consensus of stakeholders recognize there is a problem, how then best to remedy it? One suggestion is for the workforce to consider adoption of an agile mindset. Let me explain. About twenty years ago a group of software development engineers instituted an Agile Manifesto, which they believed would strengthen an organization’s ability to produce. Agility was their reaction against an overly bureaucratic and rigid process which they claimed slowed production and innovation. Being agile meant introducing flexibility and adaptability to the process, leading to greater invention and dynamism.

The agile movement has since found applications in many other areas of operations, including HR, sales, customer service, project management, employee management, and elsewhere. The changed frame of mind an agile approach ushers in has demonstrated value and it can as well in employee-to-employee relations.

Among the benefits an agile process brings is to address how to handle internal conflicts within the group so that each group member can function efficiently and securely. What is encouraged is open communication, give and take, question and answer, working the problem, and acting and reacting with respect for each participant and the process. What is discouraged is staying rooted in unchanging and low-production practices and in censoring one another. The anticipated outcome is a shift to a workplace of high psychological safety and greater production.

The scaffolding necessary to transition to a cultural change of this magnitude is beyond the scope of this essay. However, for many workplaces it can happen and needs to happen. A workplace saturated in creativity, managed risk, and mutual regard beats a workplace steeped in fear and survival any day of the week.

 

Knowing When It Is Time for a New Job

Posted on by Bill Ryan

It is common for a worker to know at different times throughout their working years that they have hit a rut. Their energy is leaking, enthusiasm is waning, anxieties are building, and performance is suffering. Questions arise in the self-dialogue pointing to serious doubts about their job. Eventually, the feelings of dissatisfaction mount and the worker becomes faced with a dualistic and existential choice concerning their job — should they stay or should they go.

In this piece I would like to review the signs and the nature of employment discontent in hopes that an analysis of the topic may yield a useful suggestion or at least a degree of solace for those undergoing job disgruntlement. Given my encouragement of purpose as a prime motivator for what leads to job satisfaction, I turn to writer and speaker John Coleman, who examines the value of purpose in work and life, to see what his latest thinking is on the subject.

Feeling purpose is fundamental to work contentment. Without it our efforts seem to be adrift and our self-confidence diminishes. Coleman highlights several indicators to be mindful of while on the job. These signals carry meaning concerning the problem of work frustration. When they are present one should consider themselves forewarned. What follows is an amalgamation of considerations from Coleman’s writing.

Avoidance: We all have the odd day when we do not feel like going to work. But if this feeling is becoming chronic and frequent, then something about the job is amiss. Procrastination is a form of indecisiveness. Postponing or hesitating to make important decisions because your heart is not into it or you are fearful about possible outcomes is a sign a change needs to be made.

Growth: As we spend considerable time on a job we generally enjoy noticing the skill development and emotional lift that comes from feeling we are growing both as a subject matter expert and as a person. Building mastery in an area should be a cause for celebration. If it is not, then it probably means growth has stalled and you no longer feel as if you are providing employer or customer value.

Achievement: Related to the issue of growth is the concern about whether your original career goals for this job have been achieved. If they have, perhaps your job is no longer delivering adequate challenges or breakthroughs. Periodically, it is a good idea to reflect and assess if the objectives you set for yourself when initiating the employment have been met or not. If so, why are you staying in your role?

Workplace: Could the work environment in which you are functioning be the cause of your job angst? It is possible that an accumulated toll could be robbing you of your energy and enthusiasm due to a workplace which is toxic, unnecessarily stressful, or encouraging you to operate in ways contrary to your values. It is imperative to feel that you have and can sustain integrity and a positive character at work.

Maybe the change you need, if any of the above difficulties arise, does not require necessarily leaving your current employer, but could instead involve trying to practice what Coleman describes as “job crafting”. It is worth exploring with your employer if they can give you a degree of latitude to make adjustments to the way in which you meet your employer’s goals.

Having a manager that is willing to engage in some employee development with you such that you can continue to satisfy the responsibilities for which you were hired, while also remediating the liabilities causing your discontent, could be a win-win.

Life is too short to feel stuck in a job that does not bring happiness. You owe it to yourself and your career to be placed in a position in which you can thrive.

 

 

 

 

 

Career Passion and Wellbeing

Posted on by Bill Ryan

It is a conventional understanding, sometimes expressed explicitly but often simply assumed, that if we are to work for a living, then our efforts yield richer rewards if we have a genuine passion for our career choice. Passion, we are told, is the greatest motivator. It is what compels us to willingly throw ourselves into our work and to perform at our finest with no external stimuli needed.

“Do what you love and you’ll never work a day in your life”, is the way the maxim goes. What could be better than to feel such fervor for your career?

It is easy to see how management would be delighted to have workers who are “naturals” at fulfilling functions necessary for the prosperous advancement of a business or organization. Such employees will require few if any performance incentives. They are self-motivated players who embrace being subject matter experts. In their hands, productivity should reign without the problems associated with someone displaying less ardor for their work.

Workers who view their careers as vocations rather than as jobs are a precious resource for any enterprise. Managers who realize this will do what they can to facilitate conditions designed to enhance employee wellbeing and sustain the valuable assets they have. Conversely, managers who see very dedicated employees as a never ending supply of production and who develop an attitude that these workers will always go the extra mile, because to go above and beyond is inherent in them, could very well find they have squandered an advantage.

Even for those for whom their work is their calling, respect and care must be regularly demonstrated by management if this talent is going to remain committed to the organization and to do their best work. The results of a research study on the topic of wellbeing released by Gallup, Inc. in July 2023 reveal pertinent findings that leaders should know if they are serious about holding onto their best and brightest.

To start, Gallup finds that only one in four workers think their employers are concerned about their wellbeing. This is true in the U.S., U.K., Germany, and France. The abysmally low number is historic as well. Except for a brief period at the beginning of the pandemic, when many workers thought management cared about their health and welfare, this only ~25% who feel cared for has been the norm.

It is simply good business for management to genuinely support their best workers. To quote from the authors of the Gallup research, employees who believe management is dedicated to their wellbeing are:

  • Three times more likely to be engaged at work
  • 69% less likely to actively search for a new job
  • 71% less likely to report experiencing a lot of burnout
  • Five times more likely to strongly advocate for their company as a place to work
  • Five times more likely to strongly agree that they trust the leadership of their organization
  • 36% more likely to be thriving in their overall lives

These powerful statistics strongly suggest that structuring a workplace so that all employees, and in particular the most valuable talent, are emotionally and substantively gratified goes well beyond just being a nice thing to do, but actively works toward fulfillment of an organization’s mission.

Wellbeing in general involves not just career, but other social, financial, and health related factors. And of course, it is ultimately up to each individual to shape their lives so they are living optimally. However, given the amount of time and energy careers require, this is an area of life demanding special attention. Wellbeing should be a fundamental organizational issue as well as a personal responsibility.

Even the best employees deserve to know they are truly valued. To operate as if it is totally up to each person to independently feel fulfilled by others while on the job, leaves the workplace vulnerable to low productivity and weak competitiveness.

The Data Dilemma

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Data-driven decision making has been the rage in business for some time now. The collection of data based on what are determined to be key performance indicators specific to a business is used to justify the outcome of higher quality organizational decision making, which in turn drives the formation and execution of business strategy.

Data aggregation can be crucial with tasks as basic as answering difficult questions to more sophisticated functions such as developing and testing hypotheses and formulating theories. Further benefits of having vital information available include risk evaluation, resource allocation, program and policy assessment, and performance measurement. The use of data is seen as a more efficient means of implementing these activities than would be the case in relying on intuition, hunches, and observation alone.

It is hard to argue against the utilization of data in running a business. McKinsey reports that data-driven organizations are twenty-three times more likely to attract customers, six times more likely to retain those customers, and nineteen times more likely to be profitable.

It is not difficult to find examples of how data-driven decision making has led to business success. Anmol Sachdeva, an independent marketing consultant, has researched several. For instance, Red Roof Inn positions their hotels near airports. They figured out how flight cancellation data and weather reports could be combined to increase their bookings. Netflix compiles user data concerning watch time, location, and programming preferences to predict which shows will become big hits. Coca-Cola leverages social media data to determine who mentions or posts pictures of their products. With this data, personalized and targeted advertising has led to a four-time increase in clickthrough rates.

In short, data collection has become the proverbial game-changer for business. By helping organizations pinpoint the factors that better address challenges and boost productivity and profits, data and its astute analysis, is now an essential component of business success.

However, despite the advantages of focused data there can come a point in which the zeal to collect information can become extreme and intrusive, particularly for employees. Of course, it is reasonable to expect that management would want data to make improvements in productivity among their workforce. Performance metrics can be used to spot shortcomings, training needs, and specifics for employee performance evaluations. An organization that leans toward a results-only performance model for their employees need objective data more than a manager’s potentially skewed or biased interpretation of how employees discharge their duties.

Quantification can be misused if it is used to go beyond the reasons stated above. There are now too many documented instances of employees being excessively monitored such that the workplace has become a surveillance culture. A career cannot thrive in a context where someone is always looking over your shoulder. Questionable monitoring may be the result of management wanting to identify organizing threats such as unionization communications. Or maybe the surveillance is used to spot ways of automating tasks so as to reduce the workforce. In extreme cases, data may be applied to limit wage growth, exploit labor, or even discriminate.

Amazon may be the poster child for such data fanaticism. Brishen Rogers, an associate professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, notes how in 2020 Amazon sought to hire two “intelligence analysts” who were to use data analytics and other means to find “labor organizing threats” from among the Amazon workforce. The company goes on to insist their outsourced delivery providers hand over geo-locations, speed, and movement of drivers to use however the company wants. Inordinate corporate surveillance has also been chronicled at Uber, Lyft, Tesla, and Apple.

Inappropriate use of data results in loss of privacy, greater stress. and increased pressure on workers. The workplace can become a place of distrust and fear, not an environment conducive to innovation, high morale, and career enhancement. Instead, let’s insist that data collection be ethically construed, transparent, and legally justifiable.

 

The Need for Versatile Leaders

Posted on by Bill Ryan

There is no shortage of disruptions to our workplaces and to our careers. They come in two styles, one transient and the other sustained. There are the short-lived perturbations, for example our current experiences with inflation, Covid, the war in Ukraine, and spotty supply chain shortages. Then there are the disturbances which have roots in recent history and continually transform, such as the evolutions of globalization and technology, including the advent of generative AI. Taken as a whole, it can seem as if there is little time for complacency or work that is of slow tempo. 

Managers seem especially exposed to the fluctuations and inconsistencies of the modern workplace. They are called upon to guide direct reports through turbulence and insecurity while attempting to follow strategic policies. This can be quite challenging. The way leaders handle threats and turmoil matters for the health of their careers and of the careers of workers who are impacted by managers’ approach to volatility. 

Versatile leaders have been identified as valuable resources for a workplace to have during times of upheaval. They can be beneficial when the need arises to manage resources efficiently to remain productive. Maintaining employee engagement and adaptability during periods of uncertainty requires a special kind of leader. Organizations are increasingly aware of how important it is to have versatile leaders. 

Rob Kaiser of Kaiser Leadership Solutions and Ryne Sherman and Robert Hogan, both of Hogan Assessment Solutions, have been studying versatility in leadership for twenty-six years. They note how from the late nineties to the mid-2000s co-worker ratings of leadership identified the trait of versatility as an important leadership trait 35% of the time. By the time of the Great Recession in 2008, versatility was seen as a significant leadership attribute in 50% of the ratings. And by the time of the pandemic, it shot to 63%. The demand for versatile leadership is growing in recognition. Given the rate of change expanding as it is, it is easy to see why. 

Kaiser et al define versatility as the leadership ability to function effectively in a context characterized as volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. Within that setting, versatile leaders can quickly adapt by applying a range of appropriate skills and behaviors that reshuffle and redeploy resources to preserve productivity. This type of leadership manifests in two distinct ways. One style is more forceful and direct as in a single point of command tasked with making the hard choices. The other approach reaches out to employees in an empowering and supportive way to provide tranquility and to ease concerns. The skilled practitioner of versatility knows how to shift between these modes as the situations dictate. 

In fact, a leader who may be well versed and experienced in one of these modes, but unable to adroitly shift to the other does not qualify as a versatile leader and indeed may be a lower quality leader overall due to their situational limitations. However, the good news is that versatility can be an acquired capability. Counterintuitively, versatile leaders are not correlated with any specific personality type. To the contrary, versatile leaders are represented across multiple personality types. Given that the research of Kaiser et al identifies fewer than 10% of the leadership workforce as versatile, the incentive is there for increased versatility training. 

Although personality alone may not be a strong predictor of versatility other background elements are. It has been documented that leaders who have had many kinds of work experiences requiring the development of a diverse range of skills in circumstances for which they were not already highly qualified can be de facto versatility training. The more a leader finds herself or himself faced with assignments that are a stretch, combined with an innate attitude that sees these duties as learning opportunities, then versatility is enhanced. Potential leaders who want to be relevant in today’s world should take note. 

Instituting Workplace Flexibility

Posted on by Bill Ryan

The demand for and expectation of workplace flexibility for employees is a construct that is not going away anytime soon, if ever. The confluence of ever-developing technological means, new generational expectations, particularly by Millennials, and pandemic-related work experiences is leaving business leadership with the challenge of meeting production goals with workforces yearning for more resiliency in how they operate on the job. This phenomenon provides individual workers like you with potential opportunities, but also possible obstacles, as you pilot your careers. 

This is a time to observe how your employers assess and manage workplace flexibility as you determine if your current employment is meeting the needs of your individual career development. 

Initially, ascertain if your employer even considers workplace flexibility a talent management issue. If not, then you will have learned a fundamental quality about your employer and should consider future employment with them accordingly.  

If, on the other hand, your employer demonstrates a willingness to engage the workforce with operational practices which attempt to satisfy both employer and employee needs in a harmonious way, then attempting to participate with management fruitfully may be warranted. 

Balance and moderation should be key features of any workplace flexibility set of policies and procedures. As many businesses realize, this is easier said than done. Flexibility practices can range from employee accommodations, such as allowing for an employee to deal with personal emergencies or other nonwork-related activities to negotiating with employees as full partners in designing an alignment that takes into consideration the interests of employers and employees. Widespread empowerment that results in optimal production and ideal proficiency throughout an organization is the primary goal. 

Practices like employee accommodation, mentioned above, and another now common routine, the always-on workplace, do offer employees adaptability compared to legacy workplaces, but have inherent risks associated with them which may be counterproductive. In accommodation scenarios, managers are in the role of giving permission to employees to take time off to satisfy an employee request, if the manager sees fit to do so. A hierarchical structure is assumed. 

Also, the workforce can become bifurcated between those who more frequently need accommodation, such as women with greater child, household, and elderly parent needs and men, who in general handle these demands less. Resentments from both groups can result. 

Problems surrounding the always-on or boundaryless workplace are now becoming well publicized. This is the type of flexibility in which workers can be engaged anywhere and at any time. Work-anytime arrangements can leave employees working longer hours and carrying more stress than if they remained in traditional on-site settings and confined to well-defined start and stop times. Employers too can be disadvantaged by an always-on model. Retaining valuable talent can be difficult when workers realize their work-life balance is too disrupted and a perception sets in that employers are over-advantaged in the flexibility configuration. 

Researchers Ellen Ernst Kossek, Patricia Gettings, and Kaumudi Misra reveal that superior workplace flexibility arrangements are achieved when employers provide structures comprised of a variety of flexibility choices, related equipment, and positive performance-management mechanisms within which employees commit to organizing how they can best work. Foundational to such an agreement is an intentional diminishment of the top-down hierarchical model to one honoring trust, power sharing, accountability, and respect for the contributions of everyone within the organization. 

Upon this groundwork can spring other necessary features, including universal flexibility for all employees; unambiguous policies and procedures regarding flexibility; better enabled employees and managers; a culture that does not discourage flexibility; and continuous measuring of outcomes with agreed upon policy alterations as needed. 

Above all, there is the need for competent leadership who can embrace workplace flexibility, effectively communicate its objectives, and practice the agility required to make the model work for all. An effective workplace flexibility reorganization can both enhance competitiveness and enliven careers. 

Flextime Workplaces: An Update

Posted on by Bill Ryan

As has been widely reported over the past couple of years, workplaces, particularly in the knowledge economy, have either undergone or are being pressured to add flexibility features to their operations. The combination of Covid-related adjustments and technical innovations has resulted in a reassessment of what productivity and by extension appropriate workplace agency looks like in the modern workplace. 

A 2021 Ipsos survey revealed that globally 30% of workers would attempt to leave their jobs if required to return to the pre-pandemic office setting. Many of the ever-plugged-in younger cohort of workers see only an upside to having jobs with flextime. Benefits such as managing the complex demands of modern living, taking care of children and elderly parents, reducing commuting time, and functioning when one is most energetic and constructive during the day are among the advantages cited as desirable with pliable scheduling and task requirements. 

Flextime features are now much more present in recruiting job descriptions. Some of this is undoubtedly because of the increased demand for flexibility from a workforce that seems to be sorting itself into those oriented toward results-only vs. traditional workplaces, but also due to the uncertainty of the future. Covid has not completely gone away and with further environmental changes said to be coming from climate change, who knows what is next? Disruption is at least as likely as stability when planning operationally. 

However, workplace changes of the sort being described here need to be assessed and designed thoughtfully. It can be easy to dump on traditional workplaces as having rigid, arbitrary, and ineffectual routines, like for example, habitually scheduled staff meetings laden with fill-in blah, blah, blah. Yet, as resiliency transformations occur it can be useful to see not only what is gained, but also what is lost by such modifications. 

A case could be made that as customary practices dissolve not all the consequences may be necessarily positive. Of key importance is what it means to be professional. Parameters were established over time to separate work life from non-work life. We got used to sliding in and out of work modes with a regularity that brought predictability, certainty, and some semblance of balance. 

One negative element of blurring the distinction between work and leisure time is the always “being on” phenomenon. When flitting in and out of work mode multiple times per day, including answering supervisor emails at 8:30 pm and being ready to respond to the Amsterdam office at 6:30 am, cumulative work time can approach 10-12 hours. It begs the question of who benefits. Probably not the worker. 

Also, professional norms and protocols used in performance reviews and advancement decisions have been based on an in-person work context. Are the expected actions of workers who work from home holding up fairly to legacy achievement standards? Managers still wedded to the notion that time on task always equals productivity may be less inclined to favorably view fragmented work as effective, even if the results are of similar quality or perhaps even better than before. 

This can be especially problematic for new hires onboarded with a company practicing flextime. How well can management really get to know their direct reports when they are working remotely? Perhaps fine — or perhaps not. New workers are motivated to do well at their new jobs and are trying to navigate expectations and learn company culture digitally. Might they be ripe for various types of exploitation, such as working exceptionally long hours or having to face other unreasonable demands from management or co-workers in a flextime environment? The possibility is certainly there. 

Decentralization does have its benefits. But it also could have liabilities. As we redefine what it means to be professional in a flextime world, we need to be mindful of how to achieve efficiency in a way that rewards both management and front-line workers. This challenge is a subset of organizational agility and a crucial one going forward. 

A Coming Workforce Transformation

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Career prospects for women during the economy of the past couple of years show significant disillusionment. By the end of 2020, 140,000 jobs in the U.S. which had been held by women were lost in female-dominant industries like education, hospitality, and retail according to Business Insider. The National Women’s Law Center reported in 2021 that about two-thirds of all minimum wage jobs are held by women. Unemployment rates remain high for women of color and women with disabilities. 

The past years have also not been encouraging for professional women seeking to secure leadership positions, particularly in highly capitalized businesses. Julia Boorstin of CNBC reported in 2020 that of the 500 largest American companies only 6% of CEOs were women. Not only that, but there is this occurrence of women being placed in CEO positions of troubled companies struggling to hang on. The phenomenon is known as the “Glass Cliff” problem. If the ship cannot be quickly righted to profitability, then it can be easier for some to say how a woman was given a chance to show leadership, but it just did not work out. 

McKinsey reveals another stunning circumstance. The proportion of women in jobs declines as the amount of responsibility embedded within these jobs increases. Women make up 50.8% of the American population, but account for 47% of entry-level positions, 38% of management assignments, and 33% of senior management occupations. For every 100 men who move into management roles, there are 85 women who do so. 

The history of women in the workforce facing discrimination, unequal pay, and harassment in one form or another is a painfully long one. However, there are some other statistics which curiously suggest more positive changes may be coming for women in the workforce. 

The writer David French points to some recent education stats showing men are slipping in acquiring the schooling necessary to stay highly qualified and competitive for the good jobs, and for leadership roles particularly. For example, at the end of the 2020-2021 college academic year women comprised 59.5% of the overall student body, the highest ever, and men only 40.5%. This data is from the National Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit research group. 

Furthermore, the 2020-2021 school year showed a decline of 1.5 million students relative to five years earlier. 71% of that drop was in men leaving U.S. colleges and universities! For a reason I cannot explain, men’s attendance has fallen such that they have become a minority cohort in higher education. Can a drop in men’s career prospects relative to women, including in leadership, be far behind? 

One does not have to look far to notice an unmistakable correlation between levels of education and career success. Acquisition of knowledge, skill, experience, contacts, and confidence are all derived from furthering one’s education. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent data concerning earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment show median weekly earnings for those holding only a high school diploma to be $781, but with an unemployment rate of 9%. The bachelor’s degree college graduate in comparison earns on average $1305 per week with an unemployment rate of 5.5%. 

To be sure, the traditional four-year college degree program model is under serious review, as it should be, by those who foot the high cost. More targeted and lower cost education and credentialing options are providing increasing competition to legacy college and university programs. That’s fine. But if men think the good jobs and leadership positions will always be waiting for them as in the past, while women are actively preparing to compete and hold those occupations for themselves at rates superior to males, then men may be in for a rude awakening soon. 

As women gain more of the good jobs and leadership roles, they are likely to open more doors for other women to participate more fully in quality education and work opportunities. As education attainment shifts more to women, so too will their employment and leadership strength. 

Career Adaptability in a Time of Economic Resilience

Posted on by Bill Ryan

As a people, we habitually want to return to normal after a sudden disruption. To seek stable ground after a storm is what we are hard-wired to do. The pent-up desire to reclaim regularity throughout this pandemic is palpable. We want so much to snap back to a 2019-era lifestyle that it may be hindering our capacity to plan for what increasingly looks like an uncertain future. 

A combination of Covid’s aversion to disappearing and more general workforce changes promote doubtfulness in the minds of many about future economic, and by extension, career directions. Questions as basic as, will my job be permanently home-based and remote, or will my job, which is centered on being face-to-face with many people, forever now to be risky? These are existential questions. 

Career resilience, or the ability to navigate one’s professional life through the turbulent vicissitudes of the 21st century employment environment, is not a new topic. Remaining nimble and adept enough to reapply one’s skillset to changing situations has been advised by career professionals for years now. Of course, such advice has most often been given in the context of technological automation and cross-market globalization. 

The unsettled world of Covid, however, only adds to the urgency. Emerging variants of the virus and the patchwork way nations and regions respond to the emergency leaves Covid-fatigued people feeling discouraged that we can get past this anytime soon. Optimism rises and fades like the graphs of infection rates. As far and as wide as we can see, the economy is being buffeted by winds of Covid-generated incertitude. Career resilience becomes but a subset to the larger challenging phenomenon of economic resilience. 

The National Association of Counties identifies economic resilience as, “a community’s ability to foresee, adapt to, and leverage changing conditions to their advantage”. The U.S. Department of Commerce is more blunt in its description. Commerce questions an entity’s proficiency to endure and to rally from a severe disruption, and its ability to avoid crises in the first place. The take-away inference is that acceptance of the proverbial new normal and requisite mitigation planning is to be standard operation. 

The interests of non-entrepreneurial workers are served when employees understand the sustainability planning and related past practices of the employers for whom they work or want to work. If an employer is overly relying on luck to get them through or is in denial about change occurring, these should be warning signs. Do not let the miscalculations of others derail your career. 

What we want to see instead are signs of employers envisioning and assessing risks to their markets and assets. These are sometimes known as steady-state actions. From there they should be prepared to deploy a response strategy when crisis strikes.  

Included in this overall approach can be interventions such as sustainability budget planning; diversification efforts to reduce exposure to high risk sectors; gardening of workforces which will ride out disruptions and not quickly bail; alignments with business, government, and educational resources to keep forecasting and preparedness skills sharp and ready; and agile management capable of shifting available talent to meet unexpected needs effectively. 

Continuity planning for an organization or an individual share certain processes. Key among them is to know the weak areas. Where are the shortcomings? How can they be managed or strengthened? Which metrics apply to indicate success is being achieved? 

Another key process is in knowing the threat indicators early on. Take advantage of utilizing a natural or trained inclination to be preventative and farsighted. 

Above all, establish systems, procedures, and habits, which have resiliency built into them. Facing turmoil requires a degree of fortitude. Until Covid is somehow controlled worldwide the economic and career challenges related to the virus will continue. Confronting the menace clear-eyed and purposeful is a potent response. 

Revitalizing Meritocracy

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Merit denotes goodness. It is a word synonymous with excellence, value, and quality. We strive to live meritorious lives, because to do so brings happiness to others and distinction to ourselves. When society thrives, it does so largely due to the actions and contributions of people displaying merit. 

There is no hotly contested debate about the virtue of merit. It is generally thought to be a desired attribute, particularly among employees. What boss would not want to have positive, reliable, and worthwhile workers on her team? And yet, another term derived from the word merit, meritocracy, seems to be under fire. 

Broadly speaking, meritocracy refers to an institutionalizing of talent, ability, and skill which when present and operational results in optimally run organizations, whether in business, government, or the nonprofit sector. Compensation and power are steered toward those individuals who best demonstrate the desired traits of a meritocracy such as intelligence, valued credentials, and solid performance. 

I always thought meritocracy was an affirmative construct, so I have been surprised to see that meritocracy has now become, counter-intuitively for me at least, a controversial concept. To see why, I decided to examine what the dispute is all about. 

Examples of meritocratic administration are historic reaching back millennia. More recently though, it turns out the word meritocracy was originally coined and used derogatorily in 1958 by a British politician who was criticizing the British education system as overly favoring student intelligence and aptitude above other characteristics, leading to elitism. 

It was not until 1972 when Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell put a positive spin on the term by championing a combination of intelligence and energy as ideologically desirable. Today, there are many proponents and critics of meritocratic systems. Their divergent views seem to rest on differences in how one determines what is fair in an organization or institution. 

For example, Jim Whitehurst, who is now president of IBM, is bullish on meritocracy. He sees only advantage in strongly rewarding the best people with the best ideas. Establishing a culture that encourages listening and sharing and where every associate can contribute makes it easier for management to discern which inspirations result in high end gains over time. By enabling leaders to spot emerging talent and to position this ability where they can create the greatest value, followed by generous compensation for the quality influencers, is the hallmark of a highly functioning meritocracy. Keeping associates engaged and identifying in-house leadership makes for a stronger organization. 

A recent significant criticism of meritocracy was released in 2019 in the form of a book, The Meritocracy Trap by Yale law professor Daniel Markovits. He sees meritocracy as “a pretense, constructed to rationalize an unjust distribution of advantage.” According to Markovits, meritocracy has two profound liabilities — it is often an unfair system that benefits those of a certain traditional type of leadership, say white males over women or minorities, and that those seen as meritorious find their lives consumed by competition and long hours devoted to the company. Hence, the trap. In practice, not all talent really percolates to the top and if one is “lucky” enough to be among the chosen, then one’s life becomes less than satisfying. 

So, does meritocracy need reform? It depends on how “fair” is defined within an organization that purports to practice it. The style of meritocracy described by Whitehurst sounds fair to me, if and only if, the culture is truly open to high quality ideas no matter who puts them forth and that selection of those with desired aptitudes are chosen for their skills and abilities alone and not for extraneous considerations. And Markovits’ point about exploitation of expertise is also in need of monitoring, primarily by those whose careers and lifestyles are most affected. 

One thing advocates and critics alike can agree on is that merit is a virtue to be promoted and defended. We all benefit when it is. 

The Post-Covid Office

Posted on by Bill Ryan

The knowledge economy office workplace got a sudden shake-up over the past year plus. At its peak, not that long ago, the pre-vaccinated office-based workforce (March 2020-March 2021) was functioning more from home than from the traditional office, approximately ten times more so than pre-pandemic rates. According to the University of Chicago, as recently as March 2021, 45% of work services were still being performed in home environments. 

This begs the question, is office work going to snap back to the way it was with workers committing to long hours away from family spent in bustling office buildings arrived at via thick commuting traffic? And if so, why? 

Whether or not the Covid pandemic has unwittingly ushered in a paradigm shift in how work is dispensed over the long term is yet to be determined. It will certainly be one of the interesting trends to observe over the next few years. At present, a look at some of the currently available, albeit sparse, indicators seem to show some degree of change in how work operations are conducted. And they may be with us for the foreseeable future. 

It is fair to assume most management desire a return to normal times, during which management practices they were accustomed to can be resumed. If there is to be a more permanent realignment to include more flexibility such as remote work activity it probably will not willingly come from supervisors. To dust off that old business expression from the 20th century, it will come from the rank and file. 

A Microsoft WorkLab report from earlier this year reveals some pertinent findings. Nearly three quarters of employees wish for an option to work remotely. Although remote work has its downsides, enough workers have experienced that productivity can still be maintained by way of technological means in a comfortable environment with less stress and less exhaustion. Demand for a more permanent flexible, distributive, blended, or hybrid production model has arisen among office employees, according to this report. 

Older Gen Z and younger Millennials form a cohort that may be informative here. Living and working from devices is second nature to them. It is reasonable to expect the momentum for more flexibility will come from them. If their resumes and LinkedIn profiles start showing more quantifiable accomplishments derived from working remotely, they will be communicating not only that they can do it, but that they want to be hired for positions honoring such skills. Balancing productivity with wellbeing in the modern era will only grow as a necessary calibration and younger workers are likely to show the way in the context of adaptable workstyles. 

Business need not be driven into this transformation kicking and screaming. Signs are emerging among C-levels showing a recognition of the likely changes to come. A Work Trend Index survey conducted by Edelman Data & Intelligence discloses that 66% of business leaders are contemplating refashioning office space to allow for more flexibility.  

Reasons are twofold. As implied earlier, the workforce appears to be increasingly desirable of workplace flexibility. This could likely become an incentive for luring needed talent not wanting to be bound by traditional institutional rules. 

Additionally, business is identifying some benefits as a result of the Covid-induced remote working experiment in terms of lower overhead, as reported by NPR, and increased productivity, as claimed by Harvard Business Review. 

It is likely multiple variations on a hybrid model will become established moving forward that incorporates combinations of conventional office-centric requirements with increased distributive or remote work options for employees.  

Although no one could have reasonably predicted that a congruence of modern communication technologies with a global pandemic would steer this trend, the result could ultimately be a boon for workers and their bosses. Let us hope employers give such changes serious consideration. 

Gender Discrimination in the Workplace

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Here it is, the year 2021 and gender discrimination is still, unbelievably, an unresolved issue in far too many workplaces. Despite attention being drawn to the issue for nearly fifty years there still exists a fundamental unfairness in how women are treated in employment environments that are either directly dominated by male senior management or at least influenced by the attitude, mindsets, and practices of traditional leadership. 

Although women make up about 50% of the workforce, they still experience discrimination in several significant areas. These include unequal compensation, a dearth of organizational upward mobility, a paucity of key decision making power, and sexual harassment.  

These are profound work culture deficiencies and injustices. The time is now to eradicate these stubborn blemishes from our workplaces. Such defects are not only ethically unrighteous, but they depress productive potential heretofore unrealized from among half of the workforce. 

It is not as if there have not been attempts to remediate workplace gender inequities. Many senior management teams acknowledge the historic existence of male-oriented favoritism and sexism embedded in their workplaces and others. This recognition has been acted upon with initiatives to make their businesses and organizations fairer and more equitable. 

Yet the problem persists. Instances of gender discrimination continue to be documented and contested within management offices, HR departments, and law firms, resulting in deployments of considerable resources for a seemingly unending management of the consequences of bad behavior. 

Elisabeth Kelan of the University of Essex in the UK has been researching gender equity issues for over twenty years. She has determined that there is widespread agreement gender inequity is prevalent overall, but interestingly these same individuals will not admit to such incidents occurring in their own specific workplaces. 

Why is this so? Dr. Kelan sees several reasons for this. To begin with, many see discrimination as the fault of their competitors or of other companies, but not of their own more virtuous workplaces. Secondly, there is a belief the issue was worse in the past, but is largely being resolved, affirming that all the mitigation efforts made thus far have worked to reduce it to a minor issue. Finally, there are those who do not fully appreciate gender equity as a big deal and if it occurs at all it is not their fault. 

If we accept Dr. Kelan’s findings as authentic it begs the question, “What are people thinking?!” What I think they are thinking is what has always been thought. At levels great and small men see themselves as better leaders, sharper decision makers, keener managers, stronger deal makers, and superior competitors. And let’s face it, there are some traditionalist women who think these roles are more masculine in nature as well. 

Even if one sees the data and intellectually accepts gender discrimination as a problem it does not automatically follow that requisite behavior changes will occur. When I reflect on my own past, I see pertinent examples. I have long believed that gender equity in the workplace was a quality worth pursuing. It is a no-brainer. 

However, have there been instances where I was more inclined to accept a fellow male’s opinion over a female’s during a meeting, or thought a woman colleague was too sensitive and not tough enough, or paid more attention to a woman’s looks rather than listening to her thoughts? Embarrassingly, the answer is yes. It is these small, but meaningful actions that keep us from achieving progress in accepting women as full and equal partners at work. 

Anti-bias training programs and the like may make some difference in altering operational behaviors, but greater progress may result from each of us looking more deeply into how we interact with each other beyond surface manners. Clarifying the personal values that motivate our behavior patterns may reveal more to us individually and strengthen needed improvements than any mission statement or management protocol might. The time is now to end gender discrimination. 

Self-Awareness and Your Career

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Psychology plays a significant role in the development of our careers. It starts with identifying our work interests when we are young and expands over time to include interpersonal relations, self-motivation, passion for what we do, attitudes toward superiors, team cooperativeness, and many other job-related aspects. Perhaps most importantly psychology speaks to how constructive we are on the job and the way we manage our mental well-being and stress levels while on the road to productivity. 

Effective performance is dependent on how a worker feels at work. Safety, security, and freedom from harassment are basic. Beyond that, feeling appreciated and being prepared to work efficiently sets up an employee to be a valued contributor. Quality management can be instrumental in establishing and maintaining such workplace conditions. But realizing the benefits of positive psychology is not just the responsibility of management. The state of our psychology is ultimately up to each of us individually — in life as well as at work. 

Perhaps the key psychological quality determining how well we will flourish in our careers is self-awareness. Individuals with keen self-awareness possess a nearly full perception of their emotional makeup, potential, imperfections, requirements, and what energizes them. They are well equipped to capitalize on their strengths while managing their weaknesses. Self-aware professionals carry with them a quiet self-confidence based on honesty and realism knowing they do not have to fake it to make it. Their success results from a work product competently delivered, but not exceeding their capacity to perform effectively. They know what they know and “know” what they don’t know. 

Self-awareness need not be thought of as some metaphysical trait held by only a few anointed people. We all practice it to some degree. For example, if we know that too many scheduled meetings packed closely together stress us out, then we work to make sure the meetings during which we are expected to participate are spaced such that we can contribute optimally. 

If we get anxious when seeing our email inbox overflowing with superfluous messages, then we let our co-workers know to only send messages of significant importance. If we know our best work comes from meeting deadlines, then we structure our workflow such that tasks needing completion by a specific time are stacked accordingly. (You don’t have control about such conditions with your job? You may be in the wrong job.) 

An additional benefit of self-awareness is its extended usefulness to co-workers. The self-aware colleague is less likely to lash out in frustration or to make unreasonable demands of others. They have a leg up on assessing the capacity levels of their fellow associates and can sense how each best accomplishes their assignments. Team functioning and work yield are enhanced the more self-aware team members are. Self-aware coworkers and managers can serve as models, if not unofficial mentors, thereby improving the overall workforce. 

Self-awareness is internally cultivated over time. Developing this ability is largely linked to how reflective we each choose to be. Reflection is a chief component of critical thinking. As we refine our reflective skill, we find ourselves more adept in examining, analyzing, and assessing experiences, which better informs how we address future challenges. 

For some of us, building in time and effort to be reflective may need to be more intentional. If we observe that our default mode is to keep plowing through the details and minute-by-minute demands of our jobs without purposefully reflecting on what insights we can gain from the approaches we take, then we deny ourselves the richness that can come from reflection and by extension self-awareness. 

In short, self-awareness brings increased clarity to our work values and goals. Our decisions are improved and our objective of strengthening and deriving more satisfaction from our careers becomes more likely. 

Don’t worry. Very few of us have reached self-awareness nirvana. So, give yourself a break and start or continue to polish this aptitude wherever you are on the spectrum. 

Assessing the Dignity of Work

Posted on by Bill Ryan

A lofty phrase that has been around for a while, but has gained newly found prominence in recent years, is the term “dignity of work”. It is uttered across the political spectrum, because it is widely thought to have universal respect and acceptance. Who could possibly argue with a concept which conveys cherishment of commitment, skill development, and above all personal responsibility to provide for oneself and their family? Dignity of work harkens not only to a pride of traditional labor honestly performed but can also inspire and motivate all working-aged adults to do their part for the economy and community. 

The dignity of work is seen as a sublime end in itself. We were raised to accept a lifetime of work. Work is contributing. Work is doing your duty. Work is good and more selfless work is better. Achievement of a profound sense of satisfaction that comes from doing a job well is the ultimate reward for our labors, or so we are told. The grateful pat on the back from a coworker, the smile and nod from the boss, the eloquent testimonial from a delighted customer together represent just some of the energizing commendations that make work invaluable. 

So, why then is work not felt so favorable or worthwhile for so many? We do not have to look far to see people unhappy with their work. The dignity of work is elusive for more workers than it should be. A Harvard Business Review survey in 2019 of 500+ workers found the vast majority (90%) expected to find joy in their work but given time on the job only 37% experienced joy. A few years ago, Gallup reported only 30% of workers engaged with their jobs. Forbes cited a survey of 411 workers, 19% of whom were satisfied with their jobs. I could go on. 

Dignity is not inherent in work. Labor cannot be dignified unless some basic conditions are met. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops advocates for fundamental worker rights as a prerequisite for work dignity such as availability of productive work, fair and sufficient compensation, and a permission structure allowing for organizing and unionization among other rights. 

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio calls for enhancements of wages and benefits, healthcare costs, and retirement programs as a way of assuring dignity. Ezra Klein in the New York Times points to elimination of harmful and oppressive workplaces and for management to encourage workers to remain healthy and have leisure and family time. 

I would add removal of tyrannical management, toxic coworkers, and workplace cultures that devalue portions of the workforce. 

However, beyond stating what is not wanted to engender dignity in work, let us focus on practices likely to lead to dignity. Workers by and large want the chance to be self-motivated. There are three key situations which encourage this. As pointed out by Daniel Pink in his book Drive, fostering an environment where workers are urged to develop mastery of their profession, exercise autonomy in decision making, and define personal and professional purpose in what they do all matter greatly. 

Workers want to be respected and given the freedom to grow. They want to be able to sustain reasonable financial needs by working only one 40-hour per week job. They want executive management who understand the principal capital in their firms are their employees, who need to know they are valued. They want the support of customers who intentionally direct their dollars toward businesses that treat their employees with dignity. (It begs the question, is a business model that requires employees working for only $7.25 per hour worthy of staying in business in this day and age?) 

Dignity of work should continue to be a universal value, but let’s not cling to some notion it arises spontaneously, especially under adverse conditions. It does not. Dignity may be felt individually, but it takes a community to see it is broadly shared. 

Distributive Work Gets A Boost

Posted on by Bill Ryan

One of the significant consequences foisted upon the economy during the Covid-19 outbreak has been the rapid scaling of work completed outside of the office, i.e., at home. What is commonly known as remote work, now increasingly being referred to as distributive work, has been increasing over the past twenty years or so. But in its short history it never has experienced a shot of practice like it is getting now. 

My guess is that distributive work is conventionally thought of across most businesses as secondary in its productive impact relative to being onsite, not unlike the way online courses have tried shaking off their reputation of being course lite. However, the severity of social distancing to break the chain of virus transmission is forcing the knowledge economy to rely on high quality distributive work to stay alive as never before. Indeed, it is in the knowledge economy, comprised of smart and skilled workers producing goods and services worldwide, where distributive work holds its greatest promise. 

It may be useful to know the thoughts of someone who has pioneered and cultivated distributive work for years and is now a leading voice in the movement. Matt Mullenweg was one of the founding developers of WordPress, the digital content management system, and founder of the diversified internet company Automattic with ~1200 employees distributed over 70 countries. He continues to not only evangelize distributive work but leads a set of companies that practice it daily. 

He is also convinced distributive work need not be just an off-the-shelf option management reaches for during times of disruption, but a model of productivity capable of surpassing the performance of traditional office-setting work. 

Mullenweg promotes worker autonomy as key to motivation and efficiency and is much more concerned with worker output than input. While retaining some in-person collaboration, but in a much more reduced and targeted manner, he recognizes the impediments of cramming a lot of people onto a single site. A myriad of distractions such as office politics, intrusive co-workers and managers, long off-topic chats with co-workers, shared facilitates, a narrow set of expected in-house behaviors, and a feeling of having little control over likes and dislikes from the office temperature to the smell of someone’s lunch can all negatively factor into the worker feeling a lack of autonomy. 

With that in mind he identifies five levels of distributive work from low to high effectiveness. To quickly summarize: 

  • Level 1, which is now old-school, has workers using telephone and email offsite to augment their work, but with the belief that the “real” work is done at the office. 
  • Level 2 is an attempt to recreate the office elsewhere by use of VPN and conferencing software to supplement voice and email. Most business is still mired in levels 1 and 2. 
  • Level 3 demonstrates an intentional effort to adopt the best software and equipment available to share knowledge seamlessly and transparently across the organization. This can include good lighting, microphones, and communication tools like Zoom, Slack, and P2. 
  • Level 4 places a premium on asynchronous and written communication, meaning to move away from an over-reliance on live interactions. The goal here is to improve the quality of decision making even if its pace is slowed. 
  • Level 5 is where production capability is shown to be measurably improved over traditional work methods. 

Mullenweg contends the manufacturing factory model of all employees looking busy at the same time and in the same place does not always translate well into the cognitive economy. By valuing quantifiable and qualitative output primarily and providing workers with the means necessary to cooperatively join forces across distance the “workplace” can be not only redefined but rendered more fruitful. 

Looking for a humane and profitable opportunity amidst a global contagion may be difficult. Perhaps, refining distributive work is one such occasion. 

The Impracticality of Too Much Socialism

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Socialism as an answer to our nation’s economic problems just will not go away. And it is not likely to during any period, such as ours, when there is a widely accepted view that wealth inequality is too flagrant and demeaning to lower- and middle-income Americans. 

Inadequate social cohesion or a feeling that society is too fractured between those that have and those who do not have enough wealth and resources, leading to a lack of shared prosperity, continues to fester in the public mind. A strong case can be made broadly identifying economic collectivism as a unifying principle, which best ensures financial stability across all class and demographic sectors. If we agree societies are best measured by how all people are treated, particularly those at the edges, then an economic system, in which production and distribution of goods and services is a collective responsibility, as socialism claims to be, can look appealing. 

However, there is a serious theoretical disconnect between the widespread ends socialism proposes and the practical means of getting there, especially given the American values mindset and economic tradition, based as it is on capitalism and individualism. 

Socialism prides itself on believing there really does exist a profound rational approach to achieve a moral objective. Well defined policies, detailed planning, targeted interventions, distributive actions, and data-driven predictions, all executed by like-minded proficient and professional managers will achieve universal goals from which all will benefit. All that is needed, we are told, is for the country to place its trust in a single administrative class of skillful specialists and what will follow are resources being allocated reasonably and wisely, thereby eliminating all want and suffering. 

Of course, this socialist managerial group of supervisors need unfettered power and control to achieve these ends. They cannot have their time interfered with by negotiations and compromising with others who may disagree with their approaches. To do so would dilute the effectiveness of their policies. Insular command and control of the nation’s decision-making apparatus must be maintained if progress is to be realized. Indeed, a unified rationalist process is foremost in a socialist governance structure. A single on-high leading voice must be heard for economic benefits to best be disseminated. 

Socialism is highly concerned with distribution. In fact, apportionment of wealth would appear to be the only concern we need to address. What is glaringly absent in socialist rhetoric is barely any mention of production. Where does the money to be distributed come from? As best I can make out, socialist production is to come from mandated and deliberate economic planning, supported by a commonly accepted ethic stating we are all in this together and therefore we will all work for the common good, like it or not. Can we look to examples throughout history where this has successfully worked? China and Vietnam, maybe. Are these realistically models for the United States? 

There are those who give rise to wealth. Entrepreneurs, corporatists, and businesspeople generate economic value, but they are disparagingly referred to as the problem, because they hoard wealth for themselves and their ilk. Raiding their coffers is just and fair, because they are greedy and self-interested, or so the rationale goes. 

Perhaps socialists and far-left liberals should find solace in the meaningful ways socialism has already permeated our lives at a policy level. Let’s face it. We already are partly socialist. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, labor protection laws, minimum wage, industry subsidies, government mandated work standards, and soon to be universal healthcare are obvious examples. The political debate is about balancing socialism with free-market neoliberalism, not choosing one solely over the other. 

No one ideological group holds the all the required reason and knowledge to dictate a one-size-fits-all economic order. A mix of views debated vigorously brings any hope all constituents’ interests will be addressed. 

Shareholders, Stakeholders, and Careers

Posted on by Bill Ryan

When an assessment of a long-term economic operating procedure and theory becomes a key element of debate during a presidential election, then the practice in question, and its rationale, has reached a level of weighty significance. Such is the ongoing case of a possible post-neoliberal corporate economy. Neoliberalism, a commonly used term by economists referring to the late 20th century style of free market fundamentalism, is facing its biggest challenge to date. 

Going back to the mid-century writings of Milton Friedman, which focused on monetary policy, taxation, deregulation, and privatization, there has been widespread acceptance of his economic philosophy of unfettered free markets as the best way to support both a free society and national economic wellbeing. The economic low tax, low regulation, and small government principles of the Republican Party continue to be driven by the Chicago school of economics, of which Friedman was a principal contributor. 

A current widely held view, particularly by the political left, and increasingly the center, is that this neoliberal style of capitalism has led to well documented wealth inequality being blamed for much of our economic and political angst today. It is argued that despite the claim of free markets as best providing economic expansion, the benefit of such growth is limited to a small and wealthy segmented slice of the population and therefore is an inadequate model for the greater good. 

To a large degree, the public debate emerging in the presidential election race is a referendum on whether free market economic conservatism first preached by Barry Goldwater, a Republican presidential candidate in 1964, is relevant any longer when so many Americans are struggling to maintain a middle-class lifestyle. 

Shared prosperity is the new buzz term. It suggests that a system, including government and private business, should together have a more inclusive outlook about how generated wealth should be diffused across the country and citizenry. This contention goes on to state that wealth inequality is not just unfair, but contrary to robust economic growth, because most of the people who would spend broadly for goods and services are unable to do so if capital is sequestered to the richest top strata. In other words, there is a call for both social responsibility and economic invigoration. 

To take this thinking to the employment level, especially among corporations, it is enlightening to look at the production and governance paradigm used by many large businesses. Friedman advanced the notion of shareholder primacy. Shareholders assume the greatest risk through their investments and therefore should receive the largest reward. Employees and management exist to create wealth for shareholders. Plain, simple, and very hierarchical. 

It turns out however, there are other stakeholders within or close to a corporation who also have a vested interest. They include employees, management, and the ancillary businesses relying on corporate success in their communities. Marginalizing these other stakeholder groups can minimize the financial gain they receive. 

Milton Friedman once said, “Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility…” (Adam Smith Institute). Extrapolating from this belief to the practice of shareholder primacy is not hard to do. Could exceptionally high executive compensation also stem from this persuasion? 

And what of your career? I hypothesize not many employees are content with simply serving shareholders. True, shareholders make possible their very jobs, but would not productivity, innovation, and morale be enhanced if there was an ethic of shared gain in corporations’ achievements? Perhaps, a more intentional perspective of collective advantage could boost profits for all involved. 

The election appears poised to devolve into a silly, “Which is better, Socialism or Capitalism?” debate. Let’s not get caught up in that bumper sticker. This is a time for a serious and measured examination by all of us to decide for whom an economy is supposed to work. 

The Impact of Cannabis on the Workplace

Posted on by Bill Ryan

I observed some tree service experts helping me to steward a 200-year-old white oak on my property recently. This involved bringing into a tight spot, which was occupied by my home, a fence, and accompanying power lines, a huge crane and bucket loader. As I watched them perform dangerous work skillfully and carefully to remove and lower many hundreds of pounds of wood that was suspended over my house the thought struck me that this is not work for stoners. 

Given the proliferation of states moving toward liberalization of cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes employers are faced with a new reality that many of their employees, if they aren’t already, may very well become users of cannabis, raising questions about what that will mean for workplace safety and productivity.  

Despite the federal designation of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning a substance with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, the states in their role of democracy laboratories are rapidly adopting legalization of pot and with it a predicament for employers in these states regarding an appropriate response. 

To be clear, I get the reasons for the termination of the cannabis prohibition. The number of incarcerations, money spent dubiously on the war on drugs, lost employment, and lives ruined resulting from over-punitive measures for use of a relatively inoffensive intoxicant has finally caught up with outmoded cannabis laws. Citizens are increasingly being given a choice, as they have been with alcohol and tobacco, to indulge free of legal encroachment. Seen from a libertarian perspective, this is progress. 

However, there is a growing sentiment that with cannabis deregulation comes a belief that the drug must not be so bad after all. In other words, there is a declining perception of risk with marijuana. This sense itself carries a hazard. Alcohol and tobacco, despite their legal status, are still dangerous substances that can endanger lives and negatively impact places of work. Cannabis usage as well involves potential jeopardy, and its legalization should not imply its consumption is merely a docile activity. Despite expanded social acceptance of cannabis its downside should not be marginalized. 

In the context of employment, management is clearly justified in seeking to maintain a safe and productive work environment. Problems associated with cannabis in the workplace include increased accidents, injuries, absenteeism, worker compensation claims, and staff turnover with a corresponding decrease in productivity according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Maintaining a sober workforce enhances professionalism and efficiency. An erosion of this standard should not result from greater cannabis availability. 

Drug screenings have been around a long time and the drug most often detected is cannabis, leading to non-hires and terminations. Fairness questions arise though when employees are legally entitled to use cannabis either medically or for leisure.  

If intoxication from alcohol is evident on the job, then dismissal becomes straightforward. Cannabis on the other hand can stay in the user’s system for up to two days and up to a month for chronic users. Should employees be disciplined for indulging legally during their off hours even if residuals can be discovered long after the event via employers’ drug tests? Balancing clearly defined usage parameters in the workplace with employees’ legal rights is becoming trickier in this new age. 

Nevertheless, employees who work in positions requiring focus, concentration, and astuteness should feel obligated to self-monitor their cannabis usage free of external guidance. If you want to fly a plane, operate precision machinery, or lower 1800 lb. tree limbs over a residence, then you are choosing to sustain an alert and highly functioning mind without the desire to get stoned. The desire to master jobs of these sorts and to be counted on as a go-to expert in your field should hopefully provide enough incentive to self-regulate and maintain high standards of workplace conduct. Safety and effectiveness should be a shared concern among stakeholders across any workforce. 

Entrepreneurism’s Evolving Promise

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Entrepreneurism has a strong and positive brand…and it should. Its contribution to the growth of the economy and by extension to the betterment of lives is immeasurable. Counting the total costs of national goods and services only begins to calculate the value of entrepreneurial activity. 

A harder metric to identify, but no less important, is the qualitative significance of longer, healthier, and happier lives we collectively enjoy due to the innovation, risk taking, and intelligence of successful entrepreneurs. 

It could be said that the popular image of the entrepreneur is the self-confident driven performer productively balancing inspiration and perspiration, flawlessly timing the market, persevering with a laser-like focus, and venturing forward willingly into uncertainty, all leading to the realization of sweet success and generous profits as a just reward. We value that illustration. It is reassuring. It goes a long way to shaping our national and cultural identity. 

It is known too that start-ups with an eye toward growth furnish boosts in hiring, strengthened competition, and improved productivity by injecting fresh products, services, and business designs into new markets. 

Given the near universal gains we receive from entrepreneurism what possible improvements can be expected from the practice? Well, I can suggest one. A quarter in which we desperately need entrepreneurs’ creative problem solving is in the promotion of shared prosperity. The time is right for an entrepreneurism that cares less about concentrated wealth and more about dispersing capital, particularly to key stakeholders such as employees and citizens of communities in which businesses operate. 

We do not need corporate social responsibility manifestos to get there, just energetic, aware, and engaged business owners who choose to direct their talents toward providing a greater degree of distributed benefits over the more common asset consolidation we more typically associate with entrepreneurs. An alternative form of enthusiasm and sense of reward can be derived from constructing enterprises that intentionally advance expanded economic growth and strong job creation among the greatest number possible. 

The political pressure to confront wealth inequality is growing and looks to be a key issue in the upcoming election season. If the current trajectory of wealth amassing does not change, then the call for government intervention will only increase. Some or most governmental intercessions will undoubtedly be seen as interference and obstruction among many in business. Encouraging executives both young and old to integrate into a shared prosperity ethic may mitigate policy making coercion. 

It is not as if entrepreneurs and business leaders have not practiced this approach before. It has been widely reported that the period from the end of World War II until the 1970s was more economically stable due largely in part to the relative lack of discrepancy between management and rank & file. Granted this was a time of strong unions and more widespread political endorsement of income flattening approaches by government. However, one cannot help but wonder if the shared sacrifice evident during the war spurred a nationwide value system whereby wealth distribution was more easily realized. Can we care for each other similarly now? 

Perhaps the most endearing gift entrepreneurs give us is tangible creativity. They model and encourage thinking, which develops into options from which consumers can select the most solution-oriented or life augmenting potentialities. This has historically sparked human progress. It continues to do so.  

Given the current and ever-present range of problems in the world calling for answers and resources we look to the influencers, thought leaders, and groundbreakers to develop and implement transformative strategies, services, and products. 

Purposely including and addressing those Americans being left behind by a shifting and segregating economy could turn out to not only be nationally unifying, but also good business. 

Is an MBA Worth Pursuing?

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Earning a Master’s in Business Administration or MBA has long been considered both a difficult challenge to confront, but also a career boosting achievement. An MBA has been shown to increase promotion and employment opportunities and to jump start compensation. However, by the time most business professionals consider returning to school to earn the degree chances are good there is a family with children in place needing considerable attention and a mountain of bills to juggle, including a mortgage. Not to mention, MBAs can cost from $25K up to $100K in tuition, fees, and transportation costs. 

The inevitable question business managers ask themselves is, “Is this worth it?”. Don’t you hate it when someone answers such a question with, “Well, it depends.” So here goes, the answer to whether an MBA is worth pursuing or not is, “Well, it depends”. 

The value of an MBA should depend on more than compensation and promotions as alluring as those are. To obtain the most benefit from the work and expense of earning the degree largely comes down to if you think it is in your career’s interest to develop your talent in several key areas. And it turns out, these are the same attributes many executive managers look for when considering whether to hire a candidate who holds an MBA. 

You probably think I’m talking about astuteness in topics like organizational behavior, finance, accounting, supply chain management, enterprise IT systems, and economics. Of course, these and other subjects comprising an MBA curriculum are important, but what really sells the executive hiring managers are competencies like leadership, communication ability, strategical thinking, interpersonal relationships, and entrepreneurial spirit. These traits can be thought of as the building blocks to managerial excellence. Therefore, it is important to select an MBA program that assists you in developing these strengths. 

Some other useful facts about MBA programs can assist one in their decision making about whether to take the plunge or not. MBA programs most often occur over 18-month to 2-year time periods with students typically earning approximately 40−60 credits representing about 500−600 class hours of graduate-level work. Some programs allow up to 6 years to complete the program. 

A full time student must be dedicated to a concentrated approach but given that many mature MBA students are full time employees there are several alternatives. These include: 

Accelerated: Fast-tracked program with a greater course load and more condensed class and examination schedule over one year. 

Part-Time: Taking three or more years students attend classes after usual working hours, including weekday evenings and/or weekends. 

Modular: A tightly prescribed approach involving a progressive curriculum of class components presented in one to three-week segments. These programs seemed most often to be aligned with EMBA degree programs (see below) or Accelerated programs and are most often to be completed within one to two years. Also, modular often means on-site residency for the length of the given module. 

Executive MBA (EMBA): Designed for working professionals with 10 or more years of management or executive experience. These programs allow earning the degree in two years or less while working full time. 

Distance Learning: Involves classes held off-site from a campus and can include courses held via correspondence, broadcasts, videos, teleconferences, videoconferences, and online formats. 

Hybrid: Also known as blended programs these are a fusion of distance learning with traditionally styled face to face classroom instruction. 

Mini-MBA: This method combines on the job training regimens and requirements that can also be counted as credit-earning coursework toward a university MBA program. Typically, this requires a partnership between a work setting’s training program and a university MBA program. 

Finally, it is important to make sure the program you select is reputable within your industry. Not all MBA programs are of the same caliber, and you do not want to work hard only to find out later that your degree is not enthusiastically embraced by your superiors. 

It is a lot to consider but seeking this level of mastery may just lead to the breakthrough your management career needs. 

Avoiding Employment Burnout

Posted on by Bill Ryan

It is widely agreed that burning out on the job, any job, is anathema to a satisfying professional life. To be clear, by burnout I am not referring to boredom or lack of inspiration with work, but rather the fear-based high anxiety and psychological debilitation that is the result of overly stressful attributes associated with your job. 

There are some broad points to highlight about employment burnout. For starters, it leads to depressed economic activity. Also, it arises following repeatedly demoralizing dynamics that taken together is negative for the individuals involved and for those close to them. Finally, efforts to structure workplaces and assist people in making wise career choices so that burnout does not occur is progressive. 

I suggest approaching the issue by looking at mitigation solutions that can be practiced by both employers and employees. My premise is that employment burnout is transactional, meaning that both parties play significant roles in its emergence, and they can also collaborate to see its demise. 

It is in employers’ interest to not contribute to the burnout of their talent. Employees cost money to recruit, onboard, and train and they provide the productivity skills needed to keep an enterprise profitable. What employees are not is a consumable resource. Yet, this is how they are often treated. Too many workers toil for longer hours with no appreciable boost in compensation. This includes receiving after-hours emails from management. 

A downside for technology is the way it allows for the workday to be extended and therefore the workload to grow. Reasonable limits on work-creep need to be instituted or employers will see their workforce turnover rate increase. 

In addition to management exhausting their labor pool there is the issue of too many employers not showing adequate understanding of what motivates and energizes employees. High compensation and judicious work hours certainly help, but also to be considered are the conditions that feed the career aspirations of workers, and by extension the profits of companies. When management recognizes the synergy between employee career development wishes and how those can best align with company productivity or organizational mission, we create a win/win situation. Such a happy union is not fertile ground for burnout. 

It is easy to pin all the blame on employers for employee burnout. But that is not entirely fair. When a worker goes into a job with their eyes wide open, knows clearly what is required to succeed, and intentionally tries to find the alignment between their own career development needs and employer enrichment they take ownership and responsibility for avoiding their own burnout. 

I recommend that an employee be guided by some fundamental principles when deciding to select and sustain a particular job. One is to always try to put yourself in a context where you are capitalizing on your strengths and managing your weaknesses. Do well what you are best at doing and allocate as little time as possible to handling those aspects of the job you just are not that good at performing. If these priorities are out of balance in your job, burnout is sure to follow. 

Also important is to make sure your job allows for and hopefully encourages you to continually develop your professional skillset; to interact and collaborate with colleagues and partners such that you are contributing optimally given your talent level; and that you leave each work shift feeling as if you are making a significant difference for yourself, your employer, and the world. With these arrangements in place, you are unlikely to feel the drain leading to burnout. 

Jobs, markets, competition, business success, and profitability are all tough to get just right. It can often seem things are beyond our control. But reducing and eradicating employee burnout is a goal employers and employees can achieve together and prosper from mutually. 

The Hard Truth About Soft Skills

Posted on by Bill Ryan

As a former schoolteacher I occasionally run into former students, who are now all adults. If time allows, the conversation naturally turns to memories of when we spent time together in a teacher-student relationship many years earlier. 

Over the years I have noticed an unmistakable pattern — what the former student remembers and recalls has nothing to do with lessons taught, curriculum goals, or academic achievement, but rather what I was like and how I treated them as their teacher. In short, their remembrances are rooted in soft skills I demonstrated (or did not), not so much in the pedagogical skills I was working hard to practice. 

Soft skills, a somewhat unfortunate term because it implies to many people weaknesses, is a reference to a vitally important set of personality and emotional attributes that we display daily to those around us. It points to our character traits, style, and habits we exhibit when communicating and interacting with others. Our social reputations are largely comprised by what people think of our manner and individual qualities that are determined by our behaviors and emotional makeups. 

Sure co-workers, when reflecting on each of us, will think of the proficiency or lack of competence we display when doing our jobs, but they will just as much, if not more likely, consider the type of people we are.  Are we kind, considerate, communicative, and in control of our feelings or are we not? Do not underestimate how much that matters in the success of our careers. 

Management knows that a nice guy who does not have much talent to contribute does not bring any more productive value than a highly efficient guy who cannot get along with people. Finding that right balance of hard and soft skills is a crucial challenge for those tasked with employee hiring, appraisal, and retention decisions. So, expect that when interviewing for positions or when it is your time for a performance review to be conducted your personality characteristics will be factored in along with your technical qualifications. 

The set of skills we call “soft” covers a lot of territory, everything from punctuality to empathy. However, there are some critical personality qualities that employers want and need in their employees to build truly high functioning workforces. Having employees with these soft skills can bring a competitive advantage given how many workforces across multiple industries are riddled with workers and managers who are too engaged in dramas, politics, and divisiveness at the expense of cooperative action. 

Among the many soft skills we each should be trying to strengthen here are three that I think may universally advance our careers: 

Adaptability: Given the rapidity with which change is occurring in almost all areas, having a flexible nature implies a willingness to learn and grow to meet demands in new ways when necessary. We will encounter ever more new co-workers as employment becomes more mobile and short-term, so knowing how to accommodate a wider range of people helps our ability to work with them. 

Collaboration: Knowing how to be a team player when times call for such a skill has only grown in importance in recent years. It is not unusual to hear employers say that they are willing to train new hires in the specifics of how to function within a company or workplace culture if they get people who are eager to contribute and know how to get along. 

Conflict Resolution: Clashes and strife of one sort or another are unavoidable, but these instances need not disrupt productivity if co-workers are enlightened enough to understand the value of systematically working out differences. Ever notice how invigorating a relationship with someone can be when you have both struggled with one another and have then mutually resolved your disagreements? 

The good news is that we do not have to be born with soft skills to demonstrate them. They are largely learned behaviors. And since learning never stops there is still time for all of us to enhance our basic interpersonal expertise.