I have to say I am pleased at the reactions and comments that these musings on the changing nature of work have generated. It's a tribute to our readers and to the whole blogosphere that we've getting so much thoughtful feedback on my earlier postings (Theses 1-7 are here, while 8-14 are right below).
And now, for the final installment:
15. We must master Ambiguity
We no longer live in a world of certainty—if we ever did. The illusion that Homo Sapiens controlled their fate has crumbled with the evolution of the industrial, mechanical age. This, coupled with the increasing velocity of nearly all human activity, has generated an era of constant and continual change.
Work projects will begin with some goals and vision, but will continuously morph as the projects rolls on, being responsive to external influences. This new reality means that project budgets will be moving targets, deadlines somewhat arbitrary, and final design impossible to predict. Managers who thrive on certainty must evolve into leaders of ambiguity – or be left behind.
16. Large Force to Special Force
The work world of the future will look more like a basketball game than a baseball game. Baseball is a methodical game with defined roles and a metered pace. Basketball players have defined positions, but when they stay in one place they fail. In fact, a successful basketball team constantly moves, shifts, and rotates the ball – and good players move constantly, even when they don’t have the ball.
Constantly shifting roles, responsibilities and required competencies will be the hallmark of the new worker. Brute force will be replaced by “brain force.” These changes imply the demise of the logic of “economies of scale” that characterized the industrial age.
Bigger isn’t better; and nimble is a good thing. Social interaction in the workplace will move from highly-scripted, stable interactions such as those found in a baseball game to the shifting, fluid patterns of a basketball game.
17. Multi-tasking
People will work on several “projects” at once (indeed, most knowledge workers already do). Some will even have several “jobs” and serve many masters simultaneously. Individuals will take on the responsibility of managing their efforts across projects, as well as within projects. New skills in project trajectory control will be required, as well as a higher-level executive function that balances capacity (what I can do today) with capability (what I need to be able to do tomorrow).
18. Multi-organizing
Organizational boundaries as defined by legal and accounting standards will begin to lose their meaning as more “projects” cut across these definitional and often arbitrary distinctions. The barriers or separations between “inside” and “outside” a firm will become highly permeable. The psychological impact of this new reality on workers will accelerate the demise of the “trust” bond between firms and their workers. At a minimum, this fluidity of organizational structures and relationships will require a major re-thinking of financial management systems.
19. Value in Social Capital
A key value added by any individual to a work effort (their personal brand equity) will be the amount of social capital they bring to bear on the tasks at hand. An individual’s social capital will be the extent and strength of social bonds that exist within his or her social network. These networks are now morphing from a village or office model to one of a “work unit,” and eventually to a completely networked individual. Status will be individually defined; social control will be more internalized.
Organizations must learn that the value in an individual will be through his/her social capital, and companies will develop these kinds of relationships with employees as well.
20. The Wild West
People will adopt a more singular, “I’m responsible for myself” attitude in their work and professional relationships. America will “de-cluster” its workforce and de-massify large urban areas, except for the new immigrants, marginalized sub-groups, and young unattached populations. Individualized action will be valued more than close neighborly patterns of highly dense locales.
21. Live to Work and Work to Live
The social context of the relationship between workers and employers will shift from a livelihood basis to one that focuses on enhancing the quality of life for the individual. This trend will cause a broad redefinition of the implied social contract between individuals and organizations that has been relatively unchanged for over a century.
22. Positive Corporate Branding
People will be attracted to organizations based largely on the company’s brand. The lack of a strong brand identity will make it difficult to attract and retain talent. A negative brand perception will actually repel talent. Branding factors such as providing interesting and varied work will be seen as positive. Similarly, the presence of other “cool” people and opportunities for personal and professional growth will attract highly motivated talent to an organization.
23. Social Context
Instead of having implicit rules of behavior and action coming from commonly accepted social values, business “molecules” will generate their own rationality. The texture of a work organization will come from its connectedness in action. Just like a crossword puzzle, the work unit will take on more meaning as it is “filled in” by action.
So - there you have it. Thanks for sticking with me all the way through. What do you think? What surprises jump out at you? What's ho-hum? My whole purpose here is to stimulate your thinking and develop a conversation that we can all learn from.
Tag: futureofwork
Giovanni Rodriguez
Elizabeth Albrycht
Dave Desforges
Jim McGee
Jim Ware
1. Chris Mitchell on August 2, 2005 8:08 PM writes...
Most of these ideas were covered by William Knoke in his book "Bold New World", published in 1996. He talked of the amoeba organization, constantly shifting and remaking itself in a series of project-specific teams. He also discussed the move toward a more meritocratic approach to business: talent becomes the key element.
I think we've come to accept much of this socially, but as a couple of other people have pointed out in previous comments, we are up against an entrenched class of executives who are short on understanding and ethics but long on clout and resources. They will continue to take personal credit for work done by the teams below them, to bilk individual contributors out of benefits, and to patrol the fringes of their class -- admitting only those willing to conform. They will call for accountability within their feifdoms, yet consider themselves above the rules. They will kill innovative projects that might "make waves" or that they simply can't understand.
This defensiveness is the reason that the technology market has basically been coasting along on old innovations. RSS and weblogging provide just two examples... these clearly promising technologies from the late 1990's had to be brought up by lone wolf developers and kids because larger companies were unable to see their promise.
Much of the real talent has taken their past rewards and migrated to a couple of interest areas the boneheads haven't yet been able to corrupt or destroy: design, and open source.
Thankfully, a few larger organizations such as Apple and IBM appear to have recognized this and gotten behind the shift. More power to them, I hope they win out over their FUD-oriented competitors.
Permalink to Comment2. Gus on August 4, 2005 3:07 PM writes...
It's interesting to read something like this and realize that it's missing a key concept:
What exists today will continue to exist along with the new.
For example, this segmented essay on "the new way work will work", addresses knowledge-work, but either assumes that more traditional manufacturing work will disappear completely or that the reader understands already that the traditional model will remain largely unchanged in the industries it is appropriate for.
For example, the industrial model has not eliminated family farms. Farms have not completely eliminated hunting for food. The old models, even some that date back to before civilization itself was born, still exist. When a person hunts for food (which does still happen even in industrial nations like the US), he doesn't form a corporation, set up a board and a chairman, get his stock sold on the NYSE, or anything of that nature.
So, the new model for knowledge workers has to assume that corporations of the industrial (current) model will continue on and knowledge workers will have to interoperate with that.
Why?
Because much "knowledge work" is in support of "production work". For example, even if a car factory is fully automated, with even the cleaning and routine maintenance done by robotic means, not a single living welder or riveter on the premises, it was still probably built by a company that owned construction equipment, it will one day be torn down and replaced by a company that can afford to buy or rent the heavy machinery necessary for such a task, and so on. The knowledge workers who design the factory or its replacement using advanced CAD programs on personal computers might very well follow a model as outlined in this essay, but the company that has the heavy construction equipment will probably follow the older model.
Individuals can easily get the capital together for knowledge work. A personal computer, an Internet connection and the marketing necessary to get work from those who can pay for it are not expensive.
But few individuals can afford the investment necessary for large machinery.
Now let's get back to the factory itself. It probably is owned by a traditional corporation of some sort. Again, the capital necessary for it, the legal costs of operating it, purchase/lease of enough land to build it on, etc., are not things that one person does alone. A corporation that pools many people's resources and spreads out huge risks into many much smaller risks, is the way to go.
So, think about new models for those who will need them, but keep in mind that the old models will continue with only minor modifications and that the new model will have to work alongside the old model.
Permalink to Comment