I've seen many individuals comment on the changing work landscape over the past several years. It's important to guage this in light of a consistent "white noise" behind all business and lifestyle changes- people don't like change. Particularly when they (or their friends and family) are impacted by change in terms of their work, compensation, or career options.
Still, the "buzz" around changes at work is a bit more strident and maybe it's driven by the fact that fundamental changes are currently underway. Check out this article (full disclosure: featuring comments from a friend and former employer of mine).:
http://www.ajc.com/business/non-employee-labor-a-848635.html
When a professor tells a reporter, “It’s about money. Companies want more flexibility and less risk moving forward. They want to hire talent as they need it and not be burdened with full-time employment costs. It’s cheaper to hire contingent workers” , I can see a lot of my networking contacts cringing. My compatriots in HR especially since they are focused on "engagement" and "teambuilding" and other such current flavors of workforce development.
But when you use the phrase "Human Capital" to bring your HR work closer to the core of your company's mission and vision, is it wrong to talk about this like other investments? Is the return on "regular employees" worthy of a capital investment? Or are they more productive ways to invest in project teams, functional collaborations, contingency plans and flexible workforce programs?
Don't get hung up on terms used in this article. "Temps" are not necessarily low-end, low-paid, low-educated entry level people who can't find real jobs. In the new work paradigm, we're all "project people" trying very hard to deliver a critical result for the company that hires us for that project.
And if it's all about money, then you know what you need to focus on. In your job search, interview, personality test, orientation, training and daily work, remind yourself (and your direct Supervisor) what specifically you are going to do to deliver better financial results for your employer.
Project or not, that focus will keep you "employed".
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Myths Of the Temp Worker World- My primary challenge
Business development in workforce management and project employment is not difficult. Identifying decision makers, calling hiring managers to offer a solution to their current and future challenges, mapping out the barriers to customer company success, presenting customized proposals, executing those plans. Maybe I'm jaded since this is not my first rodeo.
My biggest challenge is the "cubby-hole" people try to put me in when I make that first call. "Oh, you're a temp agency...". Or when I speak with qualified applicants about a new project assignment and I can see their body language and facial expression turn sour. Just before they say, "...you know I'm really looking for a permanent job....".
News bulletin: there's no such thing. If you're reading this on a computer (home or work) I'm afraid I have to tell you that your current job is not permanent. If you're unemployed right now, that's also not permanent. The chair you are sitting on is not "permanent" (as it will someday be sold in a garage sale and after that probably recycled or land-filled). Your car, your golf swing, your favorite restaurant, even your educational acheivement is not a "forever" proposition. The degree may go next to your name, but the value of that over time changes.
Likewise for employers. When someone tells me they want to hire someone with "long term potential", what I hear them say is "...we need someone adaptive to change, flexible, entrepreurial, and low maintenance to be able to be proactive in changing their approach to work...". You can develop humans all you want, but you have to know where that development project is going. In the 21st Century, it's frankly a moving target. So make sure your people can "move" with the times.
Here's a sample of what I deal with all the time. A self-serving white paper by one of my peers in the industry. Debunkng that "Temp" Designation
Welcome your thoughts and ideas on how this is wrong, dated, appropriate, or confusing. Your experience and knowledge is maybe even better than mine.
Just let me know.
My biggest challenge is the "cubby-hole" people try to put me in when I make that first call. "Oh, you're a temp agency...". Or when I speak with qualified applicants about a new project assignment and I can see their body language and facial expression turn sour. Just before they say, "...you know I'm really looking for a permanent job....".
News bulletin: there's no such thing. If you're reading this on a computer (home or work) I'm afraid I have to tell you that your current job is not permanent. If you're unemployed right now, that's also not permanent. The chair you are sitting on is not "permanent" (as it will someday be sold in a garage sale and after that probably recycled or land-filled). Your car, your golf swing, your favorite restaurant, even your educational acheivement is not a "forever" proposition. The degree may go next to your name, but the value of that over time changes.
Likewise for employers. When someone tells me they want to hire someone with "long term potential", what I hear them say is "...we need someone adaptive to change, flexible, entrepreurial, and low maintenance to be able to be proactive in changing their approach to work...". You can develop humans all you want, but you have to know where that development project is going. In the 21st Century, it's frankly a moving target. So make sure your people can "move" with the times.
Here's a sample of what I deal with all the time. A self-serving white paper by one of my peers in the industry. Debunkng that "Temp" Designation
Welcome your thoughts and ideas on how this is wrong, dated, appropriate, or confusing. Your experience and knowledge is maybe even better than mine.
Just let me know.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Five Unemployed for Every Opening- Credit Suisse Economist: "Something's Wrong Here"
Trying to explain employment trends in 2011 utilizing statistical models and metrics from the previous century can humble even the smartest economic minds. Todays New York Times, my favorite vehicle for explaining things in plain English, devotes an "Economix" article to the fact that trends in economic recovery are not matching up with traditional models.
Is something different about the employment world we all live in?
The gist of this story is the fact that the number of unemployed people per job opening should start trending down as the recovery takes hold. Unfortunately (if you believe numbers gathered by Bureau of Labor Statistics) the ratio of unemployed to job openings peaked at 6.3 in Q4 '10 and remains close to 4.7. Not a reflection of positive changes we hear about in the news.
What's the issue? Are we looking at the wrong numbers? Is the BLS using old methodology to try to gather new information? Last months crazy gap between the unemployment rate decrease and the low job creation figures was an obvious reminder that you can't compare two indicators when they come from two different survey targets: households (survey claimed over 600,000 new jobs were created) and businesses (who were responsible for the number used by our government in measuring job creation- only 36,000 last month).
My favorite part of this "Explaining the Science of Everyday Life" article comes at the end when VP of Economics for your run-of-the-mill international banking giant, Henry Mo, tries to explain why we're not seeing the trends we would expect to see when things start improving:
There are concerns that the widening gap may reflect rising structural unemployment due to skills mismatch, lower labor mobility resulting from the housing slump, and etc. Aside from these elements, we view the widening gap more of a result of employers’ reduced hiring intensity – employers seem to take advantage of the tough labor market and take time to fill the jobs that they advertised.
Or is it the fact that job creation is simply a different kind of function than it was in 1958? What does someone mean when they refer to "employers hiring intensity"? Or maybe, as Mr. Mo suggests, are employers sitting back, drinking Starbucks, throwing frisbees in parking lots, and waiting to make hiring decisions when they are forced into doing actual work?
The entire concept of "work" is changing now in real time. Traditional employment is morphing into "project work", independent consulting, "just-in-time" talent and a myriad of other new and still formulating models for business to get things designed, developed, produced and delivered. If you don't believe me, maybe you believe the VP for Economics from Credit Suisse. He says it's just an anomoly.
Right!
.
Is something different about the employment world we all live in?
The gist of this story is the fact that the number of unemployed people per job opening should start trending down as the recovery takes hold. Unfortunately (if you believe numbers gathered by Bureau of Labor Statistics) the ratio of unemployed to job openings peaked at 6.3 in Q4 '10 and remains close to 4.7. Not a reflection of positive changes we hear about in the news.
What's the issue? Are we looking at the wrong numbers? Is the BLS using old methodology to try to gather new information? Last months crazy gap between the unemployment rate decrease and the low job creation figures was an obvious reminder that you can't compare two indicators when they come from two different survey targets: households (survey claimed over 600,000 new jobs were created) and businesses (who were responsible for the number used by our government in measuring job creation- only 36,000 last month).
My favorite part of this "Explaining the Science of Everyday Life" article comes at the end when VP of Economics for your run-of-the-mill international banking giant, Henry Mo, tries to explain why we're not seeing the trends we would expect to see when things start improving:
There are concerns that the widening gap may reflect rising structural unemployment due to skills mismatch, lower labor mobility resulting from the housing slump, and etc. Aside from these elements, we view the widening gap more of a result of employers’ reduced hiring intensity – employers seem to take advantage of the tough labor market and take time to fill the jobs that they advertised.
Or is it the fact that job creation is simply a different kind of function than it was in 1958? What does someone mean when they refer to "employers hiring intensity"? Or maybe, as Mr. Mo suggests, are employers sitting back, drinking Starbucks, throwing frisbees in parking lots, and waiting to make hiring decisions when they are forced into doing actual work?
The entire concept of "work" is changing now in real time. Traditional employment is morphing into "project work", independent consulting, "just-in-time" talent and a myriad of other new and still formulating models for business to get things designed, developed, produced and delivered. If you don't believe me, maybe you believe the VP for Economics from Credit Suisse. He says it's just an anomoly.
Right!
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)