Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts

Is your career being put at risk by a toxic employer?


By Neil Patrick

Picking up my emails and messages today, I was struck by three in particular. Three very different stories, but one common aspect - a toxic employment situation.

A toxic employer

The first was a Twitter message in which a friend described talking to a senior manager. This boss was adamant that the way to ensure his team remained effective was to fire or demote his managers regularly. Promote 'fresh blood', squeeze them dry over a few years and then rehire newer, younger people whose eagerness and enthusiasm would inject new vigor into his operations. Ah yes. Burn and churn is alive and well...

A toxic industry

The second email which resonated was from a young man (well about 30) whom I’ve known since his youth. He was always smart and perceptive when we discussed business matters as we did many times. He is now a successful senior manager in the oil and gas industry. He asked me what he should be doing to develop his career in the future as the recent events in the oil market were causing him to worry about his long term career prospects..

A toxic boss

The third was a good friend in the legal profession who along with his colleagues has been so harangued and bullied by their control obsessed boss that several have quit and others are undergoing stress counselling.






Why these situations are career threatening

The first story above highlights the Attila the Hun approach to people management. Some organisations not only tolerate this, they demand it. If the culture is primitive, ie all we want is your maximum possible activity, then this type of behaviour is a fit with that ethos.

It’s often found in industries which require person to person contact and rapid and frequent interactions. In these businesses, it’s not quality of work that is paramount, it’s quantity and frequency of effort. Examples include call centres, contract catering, sales canvassing.

The oil and gas industries are on a slow but steady path to extinction as remaining fossil fuel reserves are consumed and renewable energies take their place (at least hopefully they will, or it’s curtains for the whole human race). Burning old brontosaurus skeletons is the way of the past not the future.

In the case of my lawyer friend, it was clear that the seniority of his bullying boss has provided her with an untouchable status within the organisation. Despite her behavior, the organisation is clearly not doing much to deal with it. Ironically, she's probably headed towards legal action against her from at least some of the people she has pushed over the edge.

In every case the solution is the same

So three very different cases, but for all of them, I think the answer is the same. It necessitates a planned approach to navigating your way from where you are today not just to your next job, but the job beyond that one.

The default for most people is to try and cling on as long possible to what we have. All the while hoping that somehow things will improve.

We all have power over our own actions, but little power to change the nature of our industry, employer or boss. So in this situation, all we can do is get away from the harmful environment we find ourselves in.

And this means accepting the reality and taking positive steps to  get ourselves to safety as soon as we can. Ultimately this means finding another job in a non-toxic environment even if it takes more than one job change to do it.

And the point at which you start this planning process to transition yourself into in a healthy environment should be now, not several months or years from now, when you have been completely poisoned and are at your lowest ebb.

The first step for all these situations is acknowledging the reality that the situation you face will not change. The industry, employer or boss is not going to suddenly stop being toxic. So you must remove yourself. But do this in a planned way not a knee-jerk complaining resignation tantrum.

The second step is identifying your pathway away from the danger. It may be sideways or even a little downwards, but getting yourself away from the poison has to be the priority.

And the third step is making it happen. Not next month or next week. But starting right now.

Before it’s too late.


Why we all need to rethink our career plans right now


By Neil Patrick

We all need to think differently about our jobs and careers in the 21st century. This isn’t something which is ever talked about in the mainstream media. They are too busy reporting job losses and hunting down stories about new jobs being created. At best you’ll find tips about interviews or resume writing. None of this information deals with the fundamental shifts in society that we seeing today and which will become more and more dominant in the future. Worse, none of this really helps people who are desperately searching for jobs and trying to figure out why even if they have great qualifications, they still can’t find work…

What is REALLY going on?


Part of the reason for this tragic state of affairs is that the world is undergoing a radical transformation. It’s a change so great that nothing like it has happened for over two hundred years. It’s the endgame of a complex interplay between technology, energy sources, demographics, communications, globalisation and the biosphere.

Jeremy Rifkin’s latest book, “The Zero Marginal Cost Society” has set out an immensely insightful view of what’s really going on in the world today. And it has nothing to do with selfish businesses, greedy bankers or corrupt politicians.



As Rifkin says, “We are just beginning to glimpse the bare outlines of an emerging new economic system, the collaborative commons. This is the first new economic paradigm to emerge on the world scene since the advent of capitalism and socialism in the early 19th century. So it's a remarkable historical event. It has long-term implications for society”.

Technology will continue to make goods and services cheaper and cheaper until they are almost free

The trigger for this global change is something called “zero marginal cost”. Marginal costs are the costs of producing an extra unit of a good or service after your fixed costs are covered. All business people are familiar with marginal costs, most of the public isn't. And as I discussed here, marginal costs have been falling consistently for decades as technology progressively replaced expensive human labor and drove down the cost of production. I distinctly recall wanting a flat screen television about twelve years ago. I never bought one then, because they cost about £15,000. Today I could buy a bigger and much better TV for less than £1000.

Books used to be another thing I would spend a lot of money on. It wasn’t unusual for me to fork out £20, £30 or even more to buy a printed copy of a book that really interested me. Today I can download an electronic version usually for around £5. CDs would cost me £10-£15 each back then. Today, most CDs are about half that price and legal downloads even less.

Endlessly falling marginal cost means consumer goods and many services will continue to get cheaper and cheaper, heading ever closer to zero. Zero or near zero marginal cost is going to dramatically affect every single person in the world in the coming years in every aspect of their life.

A new economic paradigm is on its way right now

There's a paradox embedded in the heart of the capitalist market system that’s pretty much never discussed. This paradox has been responsible for the tremendous success of capitalism over the last two centuries. But here's the irony; the very success of this paradox is now leading to an end game and the new paradigm emerging is what Rifkin calls, “collaborative commons”.

In a traditional market, sellers are always constantly probing for new technologies that can increase their productivity, reduce their marginal costs so they can put out cheaper products and win over consumers and market share and beat out their competitors and bring some profit back to investors. So business people are always looking for ways to increase productivity and reduce their marginal cost.

But they simply never expected in their wildest dreams that there would be a technology revolution so powerful that it might reduce those margins of cost to near zero making goods and services essentially free, priceless and beyond the market exchange economy. That's now beginning to happen in the real world.

And the internet is at the heart of this transformation

The first inklings of this zero margin cost phenomenon was with the inception of the world wide web from 1990. Millions of consumers became prosumers with the advent of the Internet. Today, they produce and share their own videos, their own news blogs, their own entertainment and their own knowledge with each other. In these lateral networks, this is done at near zero marginal cost. It’s essentially free, completely bypassing the capitalist market.

This zero marginal cost phenomena wreaked havoc first on publishing businesses. Newspapers went out of business; they couldn't compete with near zero marginal costs. Magazines went out of business. Record companies went out of business.

But free stuff cannot easily be converted into stuff which earns us money

The strange thing about it is that at first a lot of industry watchers said this was a good thing. They argued that if we give out more and more information goods free and people are producing and sharing it free, these “freemiums” will stimulate people's appetite to want premiums and then upgrade this free goods and information by getting more customized information.

Musicians gave away their music free when they started to see this happen hoping that they would get a big loyal fan base and then their fans would be enticed to go to their concerts and pay the premium in order to be there in person. We saw a similar strategy with newspapers. The New York Times will give you ten free articles a month, hoping that you'll then upgrade to premiums and join their subscription service. It just didn't happen on any large scale.

This was very naïve by industry watchers. Sure, some people have moved from freemiums to premiums but when more and more information goods are out there nearly free shared with each other, music, film, arts, information and knowledge, the attention span and scarcity is not there to motivate people enough to want to pay for the premiums when they have so much available already for free.

What does this mean for jobs in the future?

All the while that this has been going on, jobs have become scarcer for more and more people. Even where human skills are required to deliver services, like healthcare, the ever increasing efficiency of the technology they use to provide care, means fewer and fewer people are needed.

The implications of the zero marginal cost society are huge. We all need to think differently about how we will earn a living in the coming years. There are several implications as I see it:
  1. Even if we are working full time currently, it is almost certain that the number of people organisations require to do the type of work we do will continue to reduce. 
  2. As traditional jobs continue to become scarcer, competition for the remaining jobs will continue to become fiercer. 
  3. The loss of a job is likely to result in longer periods without work. The loss of income coupled with continuing outgoings, will continue to bankrupt many people. 
Placing our entire faith in our skills and qualifications that have enabled our careers until now, will therefore not guarantee our incomes in the future. We all need to plan for this eventuality and the start point for this planning is how we assess the personal assets that we have to deploy. And these may be very different assets to the ones which have enabled our careers up to now.

I believe that we can keep ahead of this tsunami of job destruction if we embrace three essential ideas about our careers in the internet age:

The importance of connectivity and personal networks. The internet facilitates the development of our personal networks. The largest numbers of opportunities will accrue to those who are the best connected people. This is why Linkedin and other social media is so important to all of us.

Collaborative approaches will yield greater returns than competitive ones. Building our opportunities will be less and less as a result of competition. More and more they will be the result of collaborations. People do business with people they like. And helping others out is the best way I know to develop the necessary goodwill for a relationship which has future value to both parties.

Personal intellectual capital and especially forms of creativity that cannot be easy replicated by technology will be the most resistant to erosion. We tend to think of intellectual capital as a very corporate thing. But every one of us has personal intellectual capital which is ours and ours alone. It might be great cooking recipes. Or a gift for oratory, or the ability to show great empathy. The list is endless. But more than ever before we need to clearly understand what our personal intellectual capital assets are. This will be the only way we can figure out how we can leverage our value and continue to earn money in a zero marginal cost society…



From slavery to technology – a brief history of jobs.


By Neil Patrick

How can anyone expect to sell their labor in a future world where machines will do all the work?

Human civilization goes back more than 10,000 years, to when the first Neolithic peoples emerged. Early humans had four over-riding needs to survive: food, shelter, clothing and materials to make tools and weapons. No-one had told them about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs of course. So they didn’t know what they were missing. Consequently, self-actualization wasn’t too much of a priority for early man.

Money also didn’t exist in pre-history. The level and range of consumption was so low that simple bartering sufficed for millennia. Today, it’s hard to even imagine a society that isn’t based on money. And whilst many of us wish we had more money, we don’t really think very much about what money actually is. Let alone about the monetary and central banking systems that prevail in the world today. Instead, we mostly think of money as a handy way of facilitating the exchange of goods and services by means of a convenient and universally acceptable token.

While early man worked digging, planting, hunting, foraging and building mainly to satisfy his own needs directly, today, we exchange our work for money from satisfying the needs of others on a daily basis. We go to work, and that work is usually a job.

A job, any job, is labor. Whether you sweep streets or perform brain surgery, you are engaged in labor. And every job trades money for labor. In general terms, the scarcer your labor is relative to the demand for it in the market, the more highly paid you will be.

But slavery not paid work was the basis for the world’s most successful civilizations.

The more work a society can extract from its population, the more successful and powerful it becomes. So, the powerful members of society in all civilisations were quick to spot the opportunity that was available if you could get labor for free. The means to obtain this was the exertion of force. Slavery was created. We think of this as an ancient and barbaric practice. But the world’s greatest empires and nation states from ancient Greece to Rome and Egypt all leveraged free labor to build their power.


Not many workers were actually paid for building this.


Slavery was so successful that it proved remarkably persistent through the centuries, including in the US and Europe. The thirteenth amendment to the US Consitution, abolishing slavery, was passed by the Senate in April 1864, and by the House of Representatives in January 1865. The amendment did not take effect until it was ratified by three fourths of the states, which occurred on December 6, 1865, just about 150 years ago, which is yesterday in terms of human history on earth.

But that was far from the end of it. More recently, slave labor was the chosen means to sustaining the power of the Third Reich and effectively prolonged WW2 in Europe. Not to mention directly bringing about the premature demise of millions of innocents who were quite literally worked to death. But looked at from a purely economic perspective, slavery is a very effective method for a group of people to acquire by force greater wealth and power than they would be able to do by legitimate means.

But slavery hasn’t really ended.

Today slavery is far from over. Its most loathsome variant has been given a rebranding for a start; human trafficking. There are many different estimates of how large the human trafficking and sex trafficking industries are. Kevin Bales, author of Disposable People (2004), estimates that almost 27 million people are in "modern-day slavery" across the globe.

Only a little less exploitative is the debt-slave or indentured servant. Largely made illegal almost everywhere, this practice remains widespread in many parts of the world today. In order to pay off debts (often incurred through nefarious means in the first place), a person becomes a virtual slave, working to pay off debts that never actually reduce enough to free them.

A less repellent form of indentured servitude is the apprenticeship, where an individual trades their labor in return for training. Whilst an internee may not think of themselves as a slave, they are still willingly participating in a form of indentured servitude. This is why internships are on the rise. They are no more and no less than a white collar version of indentured servitude.

And even the academic world exploits free labor. Here, indenture takes the form of the scholarship system used by most universities. Nearly all Ph.D. programs use graduate students as a supply of virtually free labor, assisting staff and professors to carry out their work on research projects.

Now even slaves are about to be put out of work.

Quite apart from the abhorrent human suffering created by slavery, it has profound economic consequences on the rest of the population. Slave or low paid labor lessens the demand for paid labour. Which in turn makes the rest of society poorer, with the critical exception of those who are able to derive benefit from leveraging slaves or low paid workers.

And right now there’s a whole new generation of slaves. Except they are not human. They are better and even cheaper than human slaves. They are machines. They are micro-chips. And they are multiplying faster than a virus.

And this is the problem with technology. We love the way it enables us to do tasks faster, cheaper, better than ever before. At home and at work. But technology is both a glorious gift and our potential nemesis. Just like slavery, technology is consuming the opportunities available for people to exchange their labor for money. And technology is destroying jobs at an unprecedented and accelerating pace.

Plenty believe that this is just scare-mongering. That there is absolutely no historical precedent when technological progress has resulted in anything other than increased wealth and prosperity. That much is true. But today isn’t yesterday. And here’s why. We cannot separate technology from two other factors which combine to make today different from any time before; finite natural resources and a monetary system based on ever-compounding debt.

Planes, trains and automobiles.

Whilst some will profit from the creation of new types of work created by the tech age, many more will be condemned to a life of exclusion and poverty. And it's not just low paid manual workers. High skill jobs are under threat too. Even with their lengthy training, professionalism and high status, pilots’ days as the rockstars of the world of transportation are numbered.


How long before an aircraft cockpit no longer needs windows?


Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are now flying all over the world every day. Not just as surveillance platforms and weapons carriers for the military. They are doing photography, crop spraying and rescue work. Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos announced in December 2013 that Amazon is planning delivery of some of its parcels using UAVs. This was met with skepticism, with perceived obstacles including federal and state regulatory approval, public safety, reliability, individual privacy, operator training and certification, security (hacking), payload thievery, and logistical challenges. But just 7 months later, in July 2014, it was revealed that Amazon was working on its 8th and 9th drone prototypes, that could fly at 50 miles per hour and carry 5-pound packages.

It can only be a matter of time before unmanned aircraft are carrying passengers and much bigger payloads. How many pilots will become unemployed as more and more aircraft become pilotless?

Calling an argument “Luddite” doesn’t refute it.

The fear that technological progress threatens jobs is nothing new. In 19th century England, the Luddites, a group of textile workers carried out violent protests against newly developed labour-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work. The artisan Luddites burned mills and smashed looms. Many were subsequently arrested by the government and either executed or transported to penal colonies.

How many people working as drivers today will have little or no work 10 years from now? Right now, every day, Google has driverless cars trundling round the streets of California 24/7. Interestingly, in August 2011, a Google driverless car was involved in a crash near Google headquarters in Mountain View, California. The neo-Luddite’s celebrations at this news were short-lived, when Google reported that the car was being driven by a human being at the time of the accident.

Economists apply the term “Luddite fallacy” to the notion that technological unemployment leads to structural unemployment and is consequently economically calamitous. Their argument is essentially that if a technological innovation results in a reduction of necessary labour inputs for a given activity, then the industry-wide cost of production falls. This in turn lowers the price of the goods or service and increases the supply. The combination of greater supply and lower prices pushes consumption higher. Theoretically, this higher production volume requires an increase in aggregate labour inputs and this extra labour requirement offsets the unemployment caused by the original technical innovation.

But this is where the economists have got it wrong. They are looking at the question from too narrow a perspective. Implicit in their theoretical viewpoint is that our capacity and appetite to consume is limitless. That consumption is potentially infinite and only price dictates how much we will consume. The Luddites existed at a time when scarcity was still a prevalent state of affairs. Today, scarcity of goods has become scarce. It's only the world's non-renewable natural resources which are getting scarcer.

Machine derived work has replaced scarcity with over abundance.

Today, technology means we can produce way more than we can consume. Technology has almost eliminated scarcity in the developed world. Prior to 1800, the world was a low energy society. And the primary unit of work was a human being. A working human can produce about 0.1 horsepower. During this time, around 98% of all work done was the result of human labor. The remainder was animal power and basic technologies like the waterwheel. Machines existed, but they didn’t replace humans, they merely assisted human tasks.

So throughout all of mankind’s history, until around 1800, 98% of all work done was done by humans. This ratio was a fixed constant and meant that while 2% of humans enjoyed wealth and comfort, 98% endured a struggle just to survive. For millennia, there was no absolutely change in the energy available to produce things and so scarcity prevailed everywhere.

In 1781, James Watt created the first steam engine. Since that time there has been continuous technological progress and machines have become more and more efficient at converting energy into work. These developments have spread throughout the world and the United States was the clearest leader.

James Watt's and Henry Boulton's steam engine, 1784
By Robert Henry Thurston , via Wikimedia Commons


Between 1800 and 1900, the use of human labour steadily reduced, as the proportion of non-human energy moved ever upwards. The continuation of these two trends predicted that eventually machines would be doing more work than humans. And this is exactly what happened. We can more or less pinpoint when it happened - 1911. At this point, the proportion of machine-derived work overtook human work for the first time. And its growth has continued exponentially ever since.

As of 1992, the USA had over 35.3 billion horsepower of work energy available from non-human sources. This was a gain of over 4000% in just 192 years, and represents 89,000 kg-cal of mechanically derived work energy per person in the US. Before 1800, this figure had been constant for all time at just 2,000 kg-cal per person – a growth of over 44 times! This made the USA the first country in history able to produce more than it could consume and was the foundation of the US becoming a global superpower in the 20th century.

Today it is no co-incidence that the US is struggling to recover from the reverberations of the 2008 financial collapse. But the financial collapse wasn’t the cause of the recession, it was a symptom of it. A symptom of a society in which the creation of abundance by technology has overtaken the abilities of people to earn money by selling their labor to a market where scarcity was disappearing.

This isn’t a prophecy of doom or neo-Luddite manifesto however. It is merely a description of why we all need to grasp a new economic paradigm if we are to survive and prosper in the 21st century. It’s not the end, rather it’s the beginning of a new economic era. We are on the cusp of a transformation of society which voids many of the ideas that underpinned all our thinking about how we earn the money to lead our lives.

I'm not the only person that thinks this. This TEDx talk by economist Andrew McAfee argues that that, yes, machines will take our jobs. The kind of jobs we know now. And here he thinks through what future jobs might look like, and who will become the 21st century's have's and have-nots.









How to spot character assassins at a meeting


By Neil Patrick

Ever wondered why you come out of some meetings feeling great and others when you feel completely dreadful? In the case of the latter, there’s a strong chance that there’s been some subtle character assassination going on. It’s often hard to spot, but I’ll reveal some of the giveaways in this post…

Yesterday I talked about the shocking story of how some organisations devote 300,000 man hours a year to a single weekly meeting at an estimated cost of £6 million. Today I’m going to look at another insidious characteristic of the meetings culture, which is how meetings are the number one forum for character assassination.

And more importantly, how you can spot when someone you think is being nice to you, is actually out to get you.

Power mongers disguise their tracks

Meetings have evolved to become complex and subtle forums where power plays are an ever present risk. We get so used to how our colleagues behave that the tactics of the power mongers often go unnoticed. But how people say things in meetings betrays their true agendas. And I’ve set out below how to read the subtext of the undermining tactics that the power mongers use to further their self-interest.

A meeting should be constructive, focussed, and extract the maximum value from all concerned. Instead, many meetings display Machiavellian undercurrents that involve obvious and not so obvious tactics by those present to further their own agendas, whilst simultaneously attempting to expose and belittle others. Meetings like this would quite possibly create better outcomes if they simply never took place at all.

If you think you’ve not come across this, think again…

Throughout my career, I’ve observed numerous things people say, which whilst apparently legitimate and innocuous are actually a dead give away that they are out to push themselves ahead while simultaneously putting others down.

And the more senior a person is, the more prone they are to do this. Its seems that seniority carries intoxicants and just like alcohol, the more that’s acquired, the more lax people become about what they say and how they say it.

Over many years I’ve seen what should have been positive and constructive meetings become psychological battlezones where no-one comes out feeling better than when they went in.

And in my book that’s the acid test. If everyone leaves feeling great and eager to get on with all the things that were decided, it’s been a good meeting. If they coming exhausted, stressed and just relieved it’s over, the meeting has been a failure.

So if these are the symptoms, what’s the disease?

If you have a lot a meetings that fail the acid test and you want to know why this is happening, pay closer attention not what people say, but how they say it. If you develop an ear for this, you’ll soon learn to spot who is up to no good.



But it’s important to take these points in context. Remember that none of these examples are absolute no-gos. It’s perfectly possible for any of them to be used legitimately without being evidence of a problem. It all comes down to a subtle blend of context, delivery, relationships and body language.

And the power monger’s first give away is body language. They direct their eye contact at whom they perceive to be the most important person. They more or else ignore everyone else.

But the real evidence is how they say things. They make statements and ask questions which are designed to undermine others whilst simultaneously attempting to elevate their own standing.

Here’s my list of 14 examples with the subtext provided:

“Why do you say that?” The speaker is expressing their defensiveness and probing the strength of your evidence. They are also questioning your reliability at the same time.

“This would be entirely inconsistent with…” The speaker is attempting to rule your view out of bounds by reference to a pre-existing value, policy or premise. It’s a disguised variant of, “That’s not how we do things round here.”

“If we do this, we’ll need to…” A last resort tactic when it seems a decision is going to go contrary to their preference. The speaker is insuring themselves by attempting to both pre-empt a problem and show that they are mindful of the potential negative fallout.

“Have you even thought about…?” The inclusion of just a single word, “even” turns a legitimate question into a complete derision of your statement.

“We don’t need all the details. The bottom line is...” A semi-polite version of “Let’s cut the crap here.” The speaker is implying that you are a pedant, while deflecting the need to involve themselves with trivial details. They are also implying that this is less important than other things they are concerned with.

“Well, these are the facts.” The speaker is emphasizing that they deal with the real facts, while implying that others are being misled by prejudice or invalid assumptions.

“We tried this once before and…(description of negative outcome)” The speaker is attempting to point out their superior experience and knowledge, whilst belittling the present idea by association with a previous action which may or may not be comparable.

“You did a great job on that!” A super sneaky tactic. The speaker is displaying a complementary attitude, while also implying that they’re in a position to judge you.

“Yes but how do we measure this?” The speaker is attempting to score merit points by highlighting that they are results focussed and suggesting that if something cannot be measured, it has no value.

“You might be right.” The speaker is adopting a disguise of open-mindedness while simultaneously patronising your authority and credibility.

“I think we’ve heard enough.” Probably for their own self-interest, the speaker is attempting to cut the discussion short and indicating their impatience to move on, whilst not very subtly highlighting that others are being unduly long-winded.

“I’m interested in knowing more about… Can you get back to us with....?” The speaker is highlighting the virtue of their receptiveness to ideas, while making you do the extra work required.

“I think what you’re trying to say is…” The speaker is attempting to convey that they give credit to others, while also demonstrating that they can articulate a point better than you can. It’s also a handy way to steal other’s ideas and adopt them as one’s own.

“I can see why you might think that.” Could also be phrased as: “I used to think that, too.” The speaker is attempting to veil their disagreement with a sympathetic attitude, while suggesting to the audience that they’ve moved way beyond your comprehension of the real issue.

Of course, a person can say any of these things without being ill-intentioned or wishing to undermine you. Everything depends on context, delivery style and motivation.

And of course, it can be perfectly legitimate to use any of these statements yourself. But they all carry a risk of antagonizing others, so if you are using them, it’s important to mitigate them with other clear qualifiers and cues that show you are not attempting to undermine them.

But to go back to the acid test of how everyone feels after a meeting, if you’ve come out a meeting feeling thoroughly demoralised, I’m willing to bet that you’ve just been exposed to a power mongers’ undermining behaviours.

I’m sure this list could be extended and if you’ve got any more examples to add, please post them in the comments below.


The dark side of positive thinking


By Neil Patrick

There’s power in positive thinking. But as dogma, it’s dangerous. It’s taken hold to such an extent that it risks blinding us to the reality of situations. Worse, when it becomes group think, that myopia becomes massively amplified. And the leveraging of delusion has created some catastrophic consequences.

In the world of work, positivity has become almost a mandatory pre-condition for employment.

It doesn’t matter how smart we are. How much experience we have. If we don’t fill the world with cheerfulness and positivity, employers don’t want us in their fold. The greatest virtue you can possess as an employee is the willingness to joyfully execute whatever task you are assigned.

The same mantra is provided to those looking for a job. Jobseekers are told that they must think positive. Their lack of a job is not a problem, it’s an opportunity. They should stride out into the world with a great big smile. True, but this is much easier said than done.

Freedom and blind enthusiasm cannot easily co-exist

This blind enthusiasm and mandatory cheerfulness is also a hallmark of the control systems of dictatorships. All that loving devotion to a leader and joyful exuberance at political rallies. We were mostly bewildered by the manipulated mourners at the funeral of Kim Jong-il in December 2011. But although more subtle, the same cult of positivity also underpins many codes of behavior in the west.

The statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on Mansu Hill in Pyongyang
 CC BY-SA 3.0 J.A. de Roo


The financial collapse of 2008 was foreseen by plenty of people. The trouble is, they were isolated, shut up and drummed out of the party by the rest who were just having too much of a good time to countenance any cautionary advice.

Too much positivity is as dangerous if not more so than too little.

I think of it as a continuum. At one extreme is the viewpoint characterized by thinking such as the cult of the power of attraction. The idea that we can have anything we want if we just want it enough and imagine it enough. This idea is that by some as yet unknown force of nature, we can have anything we desire – we just have to want it enough.

The power of attraction has found a convenient alibi in quantum physics. All those phenomena that fly in the face of conventional scientific thinking. If normal science cannot explain everything, anything is possible right? Well, no actually it isn’t. There’s plenty of stuff we cannot explain, but that doesn’t automatically prove the correctness of any random idea that comes into our heads.

At the other extreme is the idea that we are all victims of an inevitability that we are really powerless to stop. Forces which are so much more powerful than we are, that we are all doomed. This ideology of fearfulness is characterized by the survivalists – those folk that have abandoned all hope in the world avoiding Armageddon and have decided to take to their bunkers to survive whatever horrors are about to descend.

Both extremes are wrong. We can change things and we have a lot more power than we often recognize. But the key isn’t blind cheerfulness and all charging together lemming-like over the cliff, or self-isolation and hunkering down to ensure our families can survive the unimaginable perils of the future.

The power to effect change is by developing our abilities to discriminate between right and wrong. To vigorously pursue our ambitions and to engage with others with whom we can share mutual support and help. And to have the courage to confront and challenge our leaders when they are at risk of getting it wrong.

Sure, doing it with a smile on your face and joy in your heart is no bad thing. Just don’t place too much faith in group think.

My thanks go to Barbara Ehrenreich, whose RSA video here inspired me to write this post.




Are you self-employed or self-unemployed?


By Neil Patrick

As the economy improves, so too are the prospects for self-employment

The government has been making bold announcements about the fall in unemployment lately.

On the surface, the latest UK figures are very good news. Employment is up, unemployment and youth joblessness is down.

Almost a quarter of a million jobs were created in the three months to February a rate of growth which is easily outpacing the US, still the world's biggest economy.

UK self-employment has risen by more than 600,000 since the 2008 crisis to 4.5m. Some argue that this is a sign of entrepreneurship. This may be true in some cases. But my experience suggests something else.

I call it ‘self-unemployment’

There’s a whole army of professionals in the UK, who for years enjoyed well-paid secure jobs. Their skills meant they could be confident about long and rewarding careers. Then, in 2008 the tsunami hit.

That was almost six years ago.

In the ensuing collapse, hundreds of thousands of established career professionals watched helplessly as not just their jobs, but often their employers and even whole industry sectors were swept away.

If you are one of these people and if you’ve been largely unemployed for that period, even if you’ve called yourself ‘self-employed’, your chances of getting hired into a new job again haven’t improved much.

For a start you are six years older. And six years is the total career history of many of your younger, more up to date competitors for jobs. Whilst they have been growing their skills and experience and keeping up to date, what have you been doing?

I know dozens of formerly employed people who have lost their often well paid jobs in the recession. They are nothing like the traditional long-term employed, low on education, skills and motivation. They are used to getting up and going to work. And they have valuable skills.

They don’t like the stigma of being labelled ‘unemployed’. But they haven’t been able to find jobs. So they have turned to self-employment, usually trying to apply and sell the skills they have acquired during their career.


The reality of self-employment

When they did this they experienced a rude awaking. They discovered that earning a living in this way is much harder than they ever thought possible.

There are many reasons for this. The fact is that being highly skilled in your profession as an employee, doesn’t automatically equip you with all the skills you’ll need to do a similar type of work as a self-employed person.

For a start, some jobs just do not lend themselves to self-employed variations of what you did when you were employed.

Secondly the work will not come to you. You have to hunt it down, grow your network and opportunities. This work which of course is always unpaid, consumes a large part of your available time.

Third, when you find an opportunity, you need a whole set of sales and marketing skills to turn that opportunity into an income stream.

And you need to keep the work coming month in month out, just like your bills.

Overcoming these obstacles is a skillset all on its own.



But things are set to improve

Right now, the economic recovery is still fragile and organisations are cautious about any expenditure, often preferring instead to try and solve problems with their existing resources. However, assuming the economy continues to improve, this caution will ease, particularly in the private sector, creating a greater willingness for businesses to spend again.

Hiring extra full-time staff can be a big step for firms. Plenty of skilled work needs to be done which may not warrant a full time position, but which can be ideally carried out by a part time contractor, who is flexible on the hours they work and carries no overhead or legal and contractual obligations for the client.

Second, as employment levels rise, the available pool of talent will shrink, forcing businesses to look around more widely for the skills they need.

My feeling is that in the UK, the prospects for the self-employed are likely to slowly but steadily improve over the coming months.

So if you are currently self-unemployed, my view is that you should stay the course. The jobs market may be improving, but you will not be at the front of the queue when the hiring decisions are being made.

Play to your strengths, recognise the economic environment is changing and set out to capitalise on it. You may have been self-unemployed, but right now the prospects for being self-employed are looking better than they have for years.

Recognise this is happening and prepare for it. Revisit your contact list and prospects. Review and update your marketing. Attend more networking events. Step up your social media activity.

You’ve got this far and the tide is turning.

If you recognise any of these things happening in your business, do please post your experience and observations below.


Forget work-life balance - we're all crazybusy




By David Hunt, PE

It is perfectly understandable in hard economic times that companies ask for more effort from fewer people. But there are numerous, unquantifiable costs to this time-austerity.

I recently had lunch with someone I’ve been trying to meet for months; a C-level executive, he also had an extended period of unemployment and thus was sympathetic to my situation. Not only that but we shared two deep outside-of-work commonalities. The issue was getting onto his schedule.

During that conversation he mentioned this was the third time he had managed to get away from his office for a lunch outside the company… in almost three years of having been there. He said that he routinely is putting in 10-12 hour days, that his employer is running incredibly lean, and that most of the time lunch is eaten while working at his desk.

This months-long pursuit is similar to the dismal results of my other attempts to even have “cups of coffee” with people to create the beginnings of a face-to-face relationship which is so essential in networking. I finally had lunch with the CTO of a local company after half a year of trying. Too busy. I’ve stayed in touch with two people at a local company where I’d actually gone in for a face-to-face interview, only to learn later the position I wanted –and still want! – had been closed without hiring anyone for budget reasons. These two people know of my standing invitation to take them to lunch… and have recently put me off, yet again, until the end of the quarter. Why? Too busy. (Please note that I don’t blame them; work has priority over networking, and when things need doing, they need to be done – I just hope that things settle down enough for them to have time to take me up on my offer even if there is no open position.)

speed lines: night shot with speed lines

To be fair, I understand that if people indulged all the requests for their time, they’d never get their own jobs done… but my success rate, even with a warm referral from a person known to them, or knowing them already from prior face-to-face conversations, is staggeringly and depressingly low.

The hidden costs of crazybusy

So if you’ll indulge me… it is perfectly understandable in hard economic times that companies ask for more effort from fewer people. But there are several costs associated with this hyper-lean way of doing business that should, in the view of senior managers with perspective, be considered. Here are some of these unquantifiable costs to this time-austerity:

First, health

People need “down time”; between the commute, 10-12 hour days, chores, other obligations (e.g., family), and the need for sleep, working people this hard takes a physical toll. Add to this always being “connected” and the stress 24/7 access can create. Wringing people for more and more hours at work is a short-term payoff only.

Second, work-life balance

Many people, especially as they get older, have families, friends, and outside interests. It’s one thing to have a crisis at work, and need to put in extra hours – no white collar employee I know objects to this. Families understand. But when overtime becomes SOP children wonder why daddy or mommy can’t be there. And I guarantee you that there is not a person who, on their death bed, will think back and wish they’d spent more time at work rather than with their family.

Third, loyalty and retention

The internet is abuzz these days with increasing numbers of articles discussing employee loyalty and retention. One of the fears voiced by many such articles is that as the economy improves, people will seek to jump. Why would they want to jump? Among reasons given, like challenge and career growth, is a better balance between work and a life outside work.

Fourth, hiring

Yes, I said hiring. One of the things I and others have noticed is that job descriptions are getting ever-more-specific. Why? Because running lean means that roles overlap. In order to get things done, people take up responsibilities caused by things needing doing that are not done because of running so lean. This creates aggregate positions for which nobody can prepare, because each position is unique to the company. Along that line, when a person is in a position over time the role becomes customized to their responsibilities and preferences. When they leave, a hiring manager often views this as a need to find a replacement, not a successor. Not a mere semantic different, it means writing a job description based on the person who just left, a person who had grown into and customized that job.

Most peoples’ careers have grown at least semi-organically; the majority of my own changes have been involuntary, not planned. There is no “candidate factory” out there, yet job descriptions are written razor-sharp as though there were. Thus the Goldilocks syndrome is born. No wonder employers can’t find perfect fit employees, and leave jobs open for month after quarter after year – further creating the need for even more overtime. Which causes more stress. Which drives people to want to find a new job. Whose openings after people jump create more openings with Goldilocks job descriptions. And so it goes.

Fifth, most companies expect to grow sooner or later

While there are concessions necessary in hard times, when employees – and especially managers – have time to cultivate relationships with people outside, this reduces the risk factor in hiring by establishing relationships with potential candidates. Managers can thus, over the development of a relationship, vet possible employees over time. By working people so hard they have no time to do this, senior management actually increases the risk of making a bad hire when an opening is created and nobody internally has relationships with suitable people on the outside… because they’ve been too busy.

“What can’t go on forever, won’t.” – Glenn Reynolds

When things improve, company leaders need to make it up to those who sacrificed for the company’s sake – the “employment continuation award” is not sufficient. And one of the things those leaders need to do is to lighten the work load when economics allow it, and to make it clear they intend to do this as soon as feasible.

The harder companies squeeze to wring more productivity out of their people, the more resentment that squeezing will breed. Is this really the emotional state employers want their people in?

Update 3-3-2014: Thanks to Al Quadros, who commented on my essay when I posted it to a group; his post got me to realize there is another cost to crazybusy. Specifically, when one is judged by the hours one spends at the office, there is every incentive to be inefficient, thus generating the need to be at the office more. Aside from the obvious concern ofactivity vs. progress, this creates the habit of being inefficient… and if/when things return to a more normal pace, that habit will remain.

© 2014, David Hunt, PE

David Hunt is a Mechanical Design Engineer in southern New Hampshire looking for his "next opportunity" that allows him to design new products and shepherd them to stable production. His LinkedIn profile is: www.linkedin.com/in/davidhuntmecheng/; he blogs at davidhuntpe.wordpress.com and tweets at @davidhuntpe.



Why digital communications are making people less productive


By Neil Patrick

Why do 71% of US workers feel unhappy and unproductive?

The digital communication revolution creates an exciting new world of opportunity if we can harness it to achieve our goals.

But there is worrying data which shows that over two thirds of workers in the US feel unhappy and unproductive in their work and much of this can be attributed to digital information overload.

How can we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

It’s easier to understand this paradox if we accept that 20th century business models based on constantly increasing productivity and top down command and control no longer work at least for many knowledge-based organisations.

This way of managing organisations when combined with digital communications has a negative impact on both productivity and employee satisfaction levels.

How come?

Employee empowerment and lateral and collaborative ways of working are hugely valuable currency for the 21st century enterprise. This way of working is harmonious with the characteristics of the digital age. Just a few days ago, I reported here how Zappos is taking the bold step of removing managerial job titles and authorities in keeping with this philosophy.

To capitalise on this paradigm shift, an organisation needs to fundamentally rethink its values and culture. But many will struggle with the new levels of trust and delegated authority required to make this happen.



If we apply it to a 20th century culture based organisation, digital communication has as many or more negative impacts as positive ones. For example, at the sharp end, people are swamped with email. Instead of engaging in really productive work, they invest far too much time trying to appear that they are adding value by merely adding yet more to the communication overload.

They devote more and more of their time trying to appear productive, when in fact they are becoming less so. Open office environments, designed to lessen barriers to communication, have the opposite effect as workers pay more attention to trying to be seen to be busy than actually doing the things which really create value for the organisation and importantly boost their satisfaction and sense of self-worth.

Technology now means that most of us can work from almost anywhere for much of the time. In fact most people that work from home report that their productivity levels soar when they do this. But again, applied within a 20th century cultural framework, flexible working creates as many problems as it solves due to resentment and suspicion that co-workers are not working when they cannot be seen at the office.

I believe that most organisations have not yet fully grasped how to redesign themselves to accommodate the new open and collaborative models that characterise 21st century working. A perfect example of this was yesterdays’ post here about how JP Morgan got their Twitter strategy so catastrophically wrong. Essentially they were combining a 20th century command and control mentality with 21st century media and networks with disastrous outcomes.

In this brilliant RSA animate, Dave Coplin, Chief Envisioning Officer at Microsoft, describes what might be possible if more organisations embraced the full, empowering potential of technology and critically combined it with a truly open, collaborative and flexible working culture.

In other words, a culture which is consistent with the characteristics of the technology it uses.

It’s revolutionary stuff, but I suspect it describes not an imminent transformation rather the direction of evolution of the only the most enlightened organizations.

So whilst I share the vision, I think sadly we’re not going to see too many changes too soon.

And 71% of people are still going to be unhappy and unproductive for a good while yet…

What do you think?





Why managers are in danger of extinction


By Neil Patrick

A headline caught my attention this week that the online retailer Zappos, now owned by Amazon is in the process of removing managers and all job titles from its structure. Instead, the traditional top down hierarchy is to be replaced by a series of self-governing circles.

You can see the original news post by Jena McGregor on the Washington Post website here.

To quote from the original article:

"... this gives employees more of a voice in the way the company is run.

According to Zappos executives, the move is an effort to keep the 1,500-person company from becoming too rigid, too unwieldy and too bureaucratic as it grows.

“As we scaled, we noticed that the bureaucracy we were all used to was getting in the way of adaptability,” says Zappos’s John Bunch, who is helping lead the transition to the new structure. The company has become a force in online shopping as it expanded beyond shoes into apparel, housewares and cosmetics.

The holacracy concept is the brainchild of management consultant Brian Robertson, a serial software entrepreneur who says he launched the idea after realizing he was “more interested in how we worked together” than in his own job. The concept has a couple of high-profile devotees — Twitter cofounder Evan Williams uses it at his new company, Medium, and time management guru David Allen uses it run his firm - but Zappos is by far the largest company to adopt the idea.

At its core, a holacracy aims to organize a company around the work that needs to be done instead of around the people who do it. As a result, employees do not have job titles. They are typically assigned to several roles that have explicit expectations. Rather than working on a single team, employees are usually part of multiple circles that each perform certain functions."


This may be a portent of a much more general trend I think and here’s why:

Hierarchies prioritize command, control and consistency...and are slow Traditional hierarchies have been used for centuries to organize all sorts of human endeavors from military operations to the manufacture of goods to the delivery of public services. But I think we should at least consider alternative styles of structure for some organisations in the 21st century. For a start, a rigid hierarchy just cannot respond fast enough in a world where customer interactions are measured in seconds and minutes, not hours and days. Which is preferable for the consumer – a uniformly average service or one in which they feel perfectly satisfies their individual needs at that moment?




Businesses must reflect the nature of the environment in which they operate. We all know that digital media doesn’t work in a top down fashion. It’s the most democratic form of media ever created. And it scales laterally. Influence is gained or lost not by the endorsement of our superiors, but by our peers. The organisational corroborative of this isn’t a flat structure, it’s a democratic one. If we accept this, then why shouldn’t teams of professionals working together be able to choose who has authority in any given situation?

Hierarchies stifle dissenting voices AND suffocate innovation. A hierarchy ensures that positional authority trumps specialist expertise every time. Sometimes this is for the greater good. Sometimes it creates dissent, frustration and resentment. Depending on the culture and individuals involved, it can also lead to a clamping down on innovative thinking as responsibility for direction is always deferred upwards.

Hierarchies are too slow for consumers. Customers hate slow service and slow decisions. When you are trying to serve consumers, you are always going to have a minority who for whatever reason are unhappy. Whether their complaint is justified or not, the one thing you must do is act fast. And that means that your staff must be empowered to do whatever is necessary to rectify the problem without the delays imposed by referral up the hierarchy. The converse is that if your organisation is hyper-adaptable to customer feedback, you’ll be more agile and better able to capitalise on what they are telling you.

For these reasons, I think that the idea being implemented at Zappos, shows some real vision and genuine merit. It’s not without weaknesses too of course. Where does accountability rest in this model? If decisions are made more or less democratically, who ensures that the decision is consistent with the wider strategy of the organisation? For sure there are lots of operational practicalities to be ironed out.

But I do think this may be a glimpse of the future.

What do you think? I’d welcome comments below.

Why Baby Boomers and Gen Y need some mutual understanding


By Neil Patrick

Last month, my friend Marc Miller posted a timely and thought provoking piece on his blog Career Pivot entitled, Could you work for a Gen Y boss?

Gen Y, also known as ‘Millennials’, are those born between the early 1980s and early 2000s.

As Marc pointed out; “For most baby boomers, thinking about working for a Gen Y boss might seem like a nightmare. Could you work for your kid…or someone your kid’s age?

Projections show that by 2014 millennials will account for 36% of the American workforce. In 2025, that number balloons to 75% of the global workplace.

What does this mean?

You WILL eventually have a Gen Y boss.”


Marc’s piece prompted me to think about the attitude differences between Gen Y and the baby boomers. How the economic environment that each group has experienced has shaped their attitudes and ideas. And how both groups need to learn some mutual appreciation.

The emergence of Gen Yers into positions of seniority and authority is inevitable, so Baby Boomers need to understand them much better and what shapes their attitudes.

We are all victims of the economic crisis

Baby Boomers and Generation X have both been affected by periods of economic downturn at critical attitude development ages (18-25). On the other hand, Generation Y grew up during a period of exceptionally low interest rates and inflation accompanied by significant asset inflation.

This created a level of comfort with debt which was unheard of amongst previous generations.

Unlike the Baby Boomers and Gen X, Generation Y is a group of young adults whose financial attitudes are forged out of cheap debt and easy credit. They also view debt from a perspective of historically low interest rates, and struggle to reconcile this with an economic environment that has now transformed from everything they have ever known.

The explosion in higher education, largely paid for by student loans, has also created an additional debt burden on Gen Yers which was largely absent amongst their predecessors.

Given this, it is not surprising that a recent building society survey* indicates the vast majority of Generation Y who have access to credit, are in significant personal debt. This attitude to debt undoubtedly helped fuel unsustainable increases in consumption when viewed against a harsher economic outlook.

Generation Y is ill-equipped to understand the extent of the current financial turmoil and its potential implications. This financial illiteracy, coupled with extensive borrowing, leaves Generation Y particularly exposed to a recession that it is unable to voice its views upon, as it does not yet occupy sufficiently senior roles in the public or private sectors.



For their part, the Baby Boomers have been left chronically exposed to the aftermath of the credit crunch. Dramatic falls in the stock market have eroded the value of savings and pensions held by Baby Boomers and for most, this has happened at a pivotal moment in which they would have been anticipating moving to a position of asset divestment.

Other assets held outside financial institutions, most notably property, have suffered a fall in value after years of high growth. Ironically, the previous inflation in property prices has been fuelled by Generation Y’s determination to own their first homes, financed through high borrowing ratios and parental subsidies.

In contrast to Generation Y’s position of weakness, their parents are perceived (often wrongly in my view) to enjoy a position of financial strength and even culpability for the present financial crisis. Consequently, I have witnessed an attitude amongst Gen Yers which places blame for their economic frustrations firmly in the hands of the Baby Boomers. An example of this blaming attitude was posted by Australian blogger Mark Fletcher which I posted on this blog here.

Just because something is fast and free doesn’t mean it’s automatically better

Gen Yers have grown up in an age where instant communications and gratification have always been available to them online. Thanks to Facebook and other online networking, they are conditioned into the idea that anything you want can be obtained more or less instantly and often for free.

It’s a far cry from a time when baby boomers like myself were quite happy to save our money for weeks just so we could buy the latest album by our favourite group pressed onto a piece of black vinyl. I also have distinct memories also of doing my homework by candlelight during the power cuts of the 1974-5 brought about by the industrial action of the coal miners. TV companies were obliged to shut down at 10.30pm to conserve energy.

In terms of attitudes to work, Gen Yers unlike baby boomers are less inclined to see their work as the way they define themselves. Boomers when meeting new people habitually open their conversations with something like, ‘And what do you do?’. Gen Yers are much more inclined to discuss the things they like to do outside work. To them work is often nothing more than what they do to pay for their leisure lives.

It’s time for some mutual appreciation guys, or ‘group hugs’ if you’re Gen Y

So how can Boomers and Gen Yers each obtain a better mutual understanding? For Gen Y, I believe they need to appreciate that Boomers have been just as hard hit by the economic crisis as they have. And that they have much less time available to them to try and recover. But having experienced financial hardships before, Boomers are much more financially savvy and resilient than they are. Boomers may not be as comfortable with digital media, but they have an attitude to work which places quality over quantity and speed.

For Boomers to engage successfully with Gen Y, they need to improve their comfort and familiarity with digital media and communications and understand that the Gen Y attitude to their employers as more or less disposable is much more in tune with today’s fluid employment situation.

You also need to really get really comfortable with being a team player. Gen Yers have been conditioned by social media to communicate freely and laterally. That’s the nature of social networks which are digital. It’s not the rigid hierarchy that boomers grew up with.

So Boomers, if you do wind up with a Gen Y boss, you can fully expect them to be texting you with questions or demands at midnight…frequently.


*A report by the Skipton Building Society found that 73% of people under the age of 35 in Yorkshire have some form of debt, with the average person owing £8,477. Their biggest monthly expense on average, other than rent or mortgage payments, was servicing debt. 


How social media is helping employers clamp down on ‘sickies’


By Neil Patrick

Absenteeism costs organisations a great deal. In Australia, it is estimated to be $3,000 per employee, equivalent to $28 billion a year.

And it occurs for all sorts of reasons. Some are almost legitimate, such as family emergencies. Others less so like hangovers.

I’m not going to condone it, but I think like a lot of HR issues, it needs to be tackled with smarter solutions rather than simply more bureaucratic and punitive ones.

The reasons people falsify sickness to take paid leave are of course numerous. But we shouldn't stereotype all young people as lazy, drunken wasters, just as we shouldn’t assume all older people are automatically weak and unhealthy.

If you’d like to see statistics about who is most and least absent from work, data from these Canadian Government statistics in 2011 showed that women aged 55-64 had the highest incidence of absenteeism at 11.2% and men aged 20-24 had the lowest at 6.4%.

And employers have a part to play too; they shouldn't just treat it as a 'crime' which has to be detected and punished. They should look hard at how the organisation accommodates the fact that their staff are people not machines. However inconvenient it may be when you are trying to run a business, the reality is that people have complicated lives which are full of unexpected and unplanned twists and turns.

The problem in my opinion isn’t lazy people usually (although there will always be some). It’s much more diverse and multi-faceted. Basically, life has a way of never quite going to plan.

Sometimes a domestic or family emergency happens, which is certainly not grounds for calling in sick. But it may be difficult to try and negotiate a day’s unplanned leave and easier just to feign sickness. It may not be us that is involved, but rather someone who depends on us and really needs us to do something for them right now. It’s hard to say no to a friend in need and many people just opt for the simplest and least negotiable choice which is to call in sick.

If employers treated absenteeism as something they can accommodate with better policies and more flexible systems, I think they’d have fewer sickies and a happier workforce.

It just takes a little imagination and some creative thinking. Like what you ask?

If you watch this short news report, you’ll see how one boss adopted a creative solution to keeping tabs on an employee who’d been caught taking a 'sickie’.

He ‘friended’ him on Facebook!

Smart move.







Has the economic crisis changed the class structure?


By Neil Patrick

Which class do you think you belong to? The traditional 20th century view was you were either upper class, middle class or working class. The NRS social grade system defined five classes, largely based on based on income and occupation, which went like this:

A Upper middle class: Higher managerial, administrative or professional

B Middle class: Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional

C1 Lower middle class: Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional

C2 Skilled working class: Skilled manual workers

D Working class: Semi and unskilled manual workers

E Non working: Casual or lowest grade workers, pensioners, and others who depend on the welfare state for their income, this also includes students.

More recently, Mike Savage from the London School of Economics and Fiona Devine from the University of Manchester carried out The Great British Class Survey. Their results identified a new model of class with seven classes ranging from the ‘Elite’ at the top to a 'Precariat' at the bottom, reported the BBC here.

They devised a new way of measuring class, which doesn't define class just by the job that you do, but by the different kinds of economic, cultural and social resources or 'capitals' that you have.

They asked people about their income, the value of their home and savings, which together they call 'economic capital', their cultural interests and activities, known as 'cultural capital' and the number and status of people they know, which is called 'social capital'.

160,000 people completed the survey.

The full class survey was based on a theory developed by Pierre Bourdieu in 1984. This looked at a person's cultural and social life as well as their economic standing.

So what are these new seven classes?

Elite: This is the most privileged class who have high levels of all three capitals. Their high amount of economic capital sets them apart from everyone else.

Established Middle Class: Members of this class have high levels of all three capitals although not as high as the Elite. They are a gregarious and culturally engaged class.

Technical Middle Class: This is a new, small class with high economic capital but seem less culturally engaged. They have relatively few social contacts and so are less socially engaged.

New Affluent Workers: This class has medium levels of economic capital and higher levels of cultural and social capital. They are a young and active group.

Emergent Service Workers: This new class has low economic capital but has high levels of 'emerging' cultural capital and high social capital. This group are young and often found in urban areas.

Traditional Working Class: This class scores low on all forms of the three capitals although they are not the poorest group. The average age of this class is older than the others.

Precariat: This is the most deprived class of all with low levels of economic, cultural and social capital. The everyday lives of members of this class are precarious.

I think from a scientific and social research perspective, these findings make sense. But the findings concern me for several reasons.

First, the elite is quantified as 6%. And the ‘precariat’ is apparently 15%. So for every person who is enjoying a life of luxury and comfort, there are 2.5 people who aren’t really ‘living’ at all. Can we really consider that our society is a success with numbers like that?

Wealth inequality in Britain is continuing to grow at a frightening rate. A study entitled "Divided we Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising” by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported its conclusions on the causes, consequences and policy implications for the ongoing intensification of the extremes of wealth and poverty across its 22 member nations.

Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD, up from seven times 25 years ago.

Since 2008 and the start of the recession, in the United States, inequality has increased further from already high levels. Other traditionally more egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, have also seen the gap between rich and poor expand from 5 to 1 in the 1980s, to 6 to 1 today.

It’s my contention that the argument that having a wealthy elite inspires others to work harder and greater aspiration falls apart when we have a prolonged period of recession and job opportunities become scarcer. This leads to discontent and social exclusion, especially amongst the young.

But to return to the point about social class, I percieve a different structure of the working age population based on the day to day lives of people we see around us every day:

1. The media magnet. Whether you are a TV personality, a music or sports star, a politician, even a high profile professional, you are in the public eye. Fame whether deserved or not is the principal asset of this class. Perhaps when we hear kids say, ‘When I grow up, I want to be famous’, maybe isn’t such a dumb thing after all? Fame is an asset that delivers long term value often even in situations where a person’s real work dries up for whatever reason. There’s always, ‘I’m a Celebrity Get me Out of Here’ to turn a few weeks minor discomfort into a major stipend and restore your flagging profile…

2. The new working class. These are the people that do all the real work, what’s left of it that is. Whether they are a surgeon or a shelf stacker, a consultant or a call centre worker, their lives are so crammed with work that they continually feel stressed, exhausted and trapped. Their assets are dwindling thanks to stagnant or falling pay, spiralling costs of living and depleted pension funds. Their only hope is to cling to the job ladder until they retire at 85, or whatever age the austerity measures dictate.

3. The educated under-employed. These are the people who have fallen out of the new working class and been unable to find enough work to maintain the life they used to take for granted. Many are professionals who simply cannot find a way back onto the ladder they fell off usually through no fault of their own. They include a sub-class I call the ‘self-unemployed’ – people that are trying to earn money through their own enterprises, but are really struggling to get anywhere and make any significant amounts of money. Many are pinning their hopes on an economic miracle that creates well-paid professional jobs in the economy, instead of yet more low-skill jobs working for global corporations for pin money.

4. The under-educated and unemployed. These are the biggest victims of all. Vilified by the media thanks to the desperate and/or selfish behaviour of a minority that exploit the welfare benefits system, they have the worst possible outlook. Even if a jobs miracle happens, they will be the very last to benefit as the economy soaks up those with higher skills and qualifications first. For more and more of them, increasing amounts of criminality to scratch an existence and regular anaesthetic through drugs and alcohol, provides a temporary stupor of comfort.

To my mind, this is the real structure of society in the West today. Apart from the media magnets, everyone else is suffering if not financially, then at least in terms of their quality of life. It’s the outcome of failed leadership and an economic model that doesn’t work anymore.

We need new visions, better ideas, more competent leaders and we need them fast.


See the original BBC article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/21970879


Exodus on Wall Street


By Neil Patrick

Whilst some would have us believe it, not everyone working in the financial sector is a villain. To condemn a whole group for the misdemeanors of a few is naive and simplistic. The people who work in the financial centers around the world are a very diverse group. They include lawyers, analysts, compliance managers, IT specialists, HR and training people, accountants.

They compete to get and keep their jobs just like everyone else. They face demanding challenges at work just like everyone else. In fact the challenges they face are much more stressful than many. When large sums of money are directly involved, it’s a certainty that you will be under a lot of pressure to perform. Consequently, a good number of them are actually completely burned out by the time they are in their mid-thirties.

And much of the money that they earn is spent in businesses where they live, like food, services, retail, residential and cars. The money earned in financial businesses plays a big part in providing work for others - and is a big contribution to the city’s tax revenues.

Today, like many others, these people are seeing their jobs and prospects significantly downscaled. The savage cuts in headcounts in the wake of the 2008 collapse have left financial centers with their expensive offices much emptier than they were six years ago. And the remaining staff with a lot more work to do.

JSquish
Take Wall Street for example. The Big Apple’s fabled financial district is steadily becoming more of a tourist hub than a financial hub. New York’s share of jobs in the securities industry dipped below 20 percent earlier this year to an all-time low, according to government statistics.

Moreover, jobs lost after the financial crisis are being replaced in the city at less than half the rate of the rest of the country. Two decades ago, New York was home to 30% of all such jobs.

The securities industry has recovered just 54% of the jobs lost nationwide after the 2008 financial crisis, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But Wall Street has recouped only 23%. The workforce has been hollowed out - 167,000 employed at securities firms, down from 191,000 in 2008.

“The numbers say there are a lot of Wall Street jobs that don’t need to be in New York,” Barbara Byrne Denham, an economist who tracks the local business scene, told Crain’s New York Business. “That has all sorts of implications for the city’s tax revenues.”

Facing regulatory changes and with the advent of new trading technologies, the banks that long ago transferred lower-level personnel out of New York have started moving up the corporate ladder to put higher-paid people - such as investment bankers, analysts and financial advisers - in places like Tampa, Jacksonville and Salt Lake City.

So no-one is immune to the fallout from the collapse including the people who were closest to it. Perhaps it’s not altogether unlike what the military call ‘friendly fire’?



Some parts of this post were taken from an original article here: