It’s happening again. One of the perverse hallmarks of the Great Recession ten years ago was the expulsion of many older workers from the workforce. A significant number of experienced employees found themselves forced into sudden unemployment or premature retirement. Many never fully recovered financially or emotionally and their careers were left scarred and lacking in dignified closure. 

The current Covid-induced recession is again presenting similar employment hardship for mature workers. Since March, the labor market has shed many senior-aged men and women, who possess both high and low skill levels. In other words, this elder layoff is widespread. 

Unfortunately, this is not turning out to be simply a temporary furlough for these workers, but rather a longer-term separation marked by an acceleration of egregious trends. Again, as during the last recession, newly trending labor shifts are weakening older workers’ employment security. 

Previous examples included labor-saving technologies and increased workloads for younger and less expensive staff, which combined to lessen the management need to restore previous personnel levels. Once again, mature employees find their bargaining power diminished when facing dismissal and rehiring. Weak or non-existent unions, the rise of the gig economy, and continued lenient enforcement of age-discrimination laws, not to mention the harmful economic disruption from Covid, leave senior workers feeling increasingly insecure and inadequate. 

The New School’s Retirement Equity Lab studies the factors impacting the quality of retirement, which necessitates an examination of when a retreat from work is chosen or forced. Their assessment of the plight of older workers is sobering. Even for those older workers who have not yet been laid off there is considerable uncertainty about their futures. This cohort more and more knows they are less employable than younger workers. Those over age 55 often realize that if they were to quit their current jobs the chances of transitioning to a job that is comparable or better is doubtful. For many, it becomes prudent to stick with a less than satisfying job, then to risk unemployment. 

Relatively robust earnings have traditionally been an expectation for long-term commitment to a profession and/or an employer. Seems fair, right? However, these days when an older worker is rehired after a job loss hourly wages are typically lower than with the former job. Workers aged 50-61 receive 20% less pay with their new job while workers 62 and older see a decrease of 27%. In addition, once a worker hits their fifties, periods of unemployment after a layoff are longer than for workers aged less than 50. 

The growth in ambiguity and low confidence older workers face add to the weakness of their bargaining power. Employers know in most cases that they have the upper hand with older workers, except for those situations in which the worker possesses a unique or hard to find skill. This is unfortunate. A lifetime of work deserves value and respect. Retirement in the modern era should be a reward for the toil, dedication, and achievement for decades of work, not an imposed isolation or banishment due to the vicissitudes of employment economics. 

As the Retirement Equity Lab points out, policy makers may need to intervene with schemes designed to lessen the hardships for prematurely laid off older workers. For example, employers could offer rainy day or emergency savings plans through payroll deductions, which become available when needed to augment unemployment benefits. Or the federal government could step in with a guaranteed retirement account savings option to supplement what retirees receive from Social Security. Of course, more stringent enforcement of The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 would help immensely. 

Careers for many are a vocation and a calling to develop mastery and contribute to society. For others, work is simply a means to a paycheck. Either way, growing old should not be viewed as a liability or a deficiency to take advantage of. 

Disruptions. Unforeseen events. Misguided strategies. All of these are possible for businesses. Also, for careers. In 2020, we do not have to look very far in the past to see how the best laid business and career plans can go awry due to a surprising and unpredicted event. 

We could conclude, well that’s life. No one ever guaranteed us long-term certainty. This is true. Unannounced and unintended curve balls are part of life’s churn, but that does not mean we cannot proactively prepare for sudden changes and develop an agility which may result in competitive advantages and success despite unanticipated perturbations. 

Many of us still operate by a model which views the most difficult parts of executing a career as first determining which career path to follow, followed by education and training, landing the great job, retaining employment, and staying current with best practices. As important as these features are, I would encourage the addition of at least one more — enhancing your ability to foretell where your career may be headed and what hazards may ambush your planning. 

Regarding our careers, it is wise to allocate time and energy to a style of future planning which embeds intentional forecasting of trends and movements that carry the potential for threat and disruption. Although no one can definitively predict the future, by practicing the formation of projections over time we can hone our capacity to more accurately make predictions, test our hypotheses, and peer ever deeper into what makes our professions tick. Sharpening our prognostication skill could be the difference between thriving or losing in today’s turbulent economy. 

Preparing for the future requires at the outset a shift in attitude and a challenging of our assumptions. Here are some basic conjectures I encourage shaking up. The good times do not roll forever. Luck can only carry you just so far. The world is more dynamic than static. That said, alter the way you plan for tomorrow. Future planning should not be confined to assessing the present and then looking forward. Rather, determine as best you can the most likely future prediction and plan backwards from there. 

Interpreting the future is a matter of creating a vision. This vision displays greater resolution the more in-depth is our knowledge of our profession, including the proclivities of markets and customers. Vision is not certitude, but an estimation of what is possible. 

The more we know the closer we get to refining our analysis. Therefore, structured ongoing learning is the core activity to practice. By looking at every angle of our profession, including the influences and disorders impacting our lines of work along with practice in making and reviewing our predictions, we better refine our ability to forecast. 

When estimating the direction of our professions, assume opportunities will always be out there. Become your own agent of change and a magnet for locating these possibilities. How best to proceed? Smart organizations deploy a strategic method known as scenario planning. It involves forecasting and integrating a large degree of flexibility into long-term planning. Scenario planning assumes adaptation is necessary for survival. 

The same mindset applies to our careers. In general, this process involves merging known facts about the future, such as demographics, geographic limitations, cultural characteristics, government structures, etc. with social, economic, political, technical, and environmental trends. From this blend we can formulate simulations that function as prototype strategies. 

For example, is it feasible to think climate related disruptions may manifest in novel ways over the next three decades prompting potentially sudden market fluctuations? Are you confident the U.S. has learned its lesson about pandemic preparedness and is ready for the next such assault? 

Developing a heuristic approach to prepare for uncertainty may very well be the necessary system to best weather whatever the future is going to throw at us next. 

Here we go again. Time for another national election to choose a new Congress and a new president. The feeling in the air is that this election is more urgent and consequential than our garden variety face-offs, particularly at the presidential level. This choice of president is viewed as fundamentally determinative of the direction of the country and with starker contrast than most such contests. Or so both Republicans and Democrats claim. Great attention is being paid to this election and hopefully significant participation will be realized, which together should lead to a substantive and declarative outcome — like it or not. 

Typically, “It’s the economy, stupid!”. This time the sense is, “It’s the culture, stupid!”. Without getting into the developmental concerns related to our civilization’s maturation or lack thereof, economic claims, projections, and promises will likely continue to drive much of the partisan discussion. 

Are we Americans going to orient ourselves toward the past in an attempt to retain economic successes driven by tried-and-true practices previously delivered by legacy-styled business operatives or are we instead going to innovate and design for a paradigm-shifting economic future characterized by increasing competition, transformation, and multiculturalism? The decision we make will have consequences for the vitality of the economy going forward and for the quality of the employment it will spawn. 

Conventional wisdom states that if the economy is sufficiently robust, then vigorous employment will take care of itself. Indeed, high employment levels are intrinsic to a strong economy. Widespread employment matters. So, it is worth examining the economic approaches both parties are offering to see who is most prepared to fashion a jobs-rich environment over the next four years. Here is my broad summary of the selection before us. 

Donald Trump has shown us his economic priorities through past performance, which included low unemployment rates. Given that Republicans did not present a party platform this year we have to assume they are thinking ‘steady as she goes’. 

The Trump administration’s economic focus has been on individual and corporate tax cuts, deregulation targeted primarily to the energy and financial sectors, trade protectionism, immigration restriction, and rejection of a federal role in providing universal healthcare. In recent months there have also been attempts to resurrect the economy from the devastation of the Covid-19 pandemic by promoting a reopening or ‘get back to normal’ agenda. 

Joe Biden, despite pressure from the Democratic Party’s left flank, is not proposing sweeping or revolutionary changes to the economy, but does advance ambitious federal interventions, nevertheless. Principally, he is centered on reinvigorating America’s middle class by encouraging greater inclusivity across lines of race and levels of education with less income inequality and a reclamation of optimism born of opportunity. 

He wants to expand Obamacare, impose a more progressive tax code, eliminate middle class student debt, raise the federal minimum wage, encourage low-carbon manufacturing, combat climate change, and much more. Biden/Harris also have a 7-point detailed plan to defeat Covid and plan for future such threats. 

Both the incumbent and the challenger want full employment. Which ideology is likely to produce this universally desired outcome? Excluding all other factors which will influence who gets my vote, I see the following as salient with regards to employment. 

The past 150 years have generated great economic advancements resulting in profound improvements in the lives of many millions, both as consumers and as producers. We have learned a lot about how to engender wealth and to provide life enhancing products and services. There are lessons from the past worth carrying on. 

But the past is gone. What we must look forward to is the future with all its uncertainty and ambiguity. Meeting this challenge requires a mindset that sees more opportunity than threat from the future. I think it is this frame of mind that impresses me more than candidate tactics and positions. Durable, but resilient employment will best come from an outlook that sees the world as it really is and that enthusiastically leans into the contest. 

We have heard in recent years the oft used terms wealth inequality and its subset income or wage inequality. Quantifiable evidence showing a multi-decade trend toward wealth inequality has been presented by left-leaning economists and think tanks fueling in large part the political activism of the left wing of the Democratic Party. An example of this type of data was released by the Urban Institute showing how in 1963 families at the top of the wealth distribution had six times the wealth of families in the middle, whereas by 2016 the rich families had twelve times the wealth of those in the middle. 

Currently, the Covid-19 pandemic is starkly revealing what can reasonably be seen as another economic misfortune of those on the lower end of the wealth spectrum. Many of the essential frontline workers, such as janitors, grocery store employees, health care workers, and childcare workers, among others, are those who have jobs that cannot be done via Zoom, email, and phone from home. They are at higher risk for contracting the virus given the in-person customer-facing demands of their work. This increased hazard in combination with relatively low pay for workers providing services we all need during these tough times bolsters an argument that this cohort deserves more respect and economic clout. 

It is hard to ignore how the decline of labor unions correlates rather neatly with the rise in wealth inequality. Many believe it is not just correlation we are seeing, but causation. The loss of a collective voice from the working class due to the long-standing chorus of anti-unionism has led to not only their diminished political leverage, but also to a drop in their living standards relative to more affluent sectors. Perhaps the income disparity argument is now poised to go beyond just a claim supported by longitudinal data and charts to one of fundamental fairness for workers who are crucial, especially during a national emergency. 

Now can be a time to talk about structural reforms that benefit the working class. The overarching goal should be to reorient the economic system such that everyone, no matter where they live on the wealth spectrum, can live healthy and safe lives while contributing to the common welfare of the country. This will mean examining and improving macro norms governing compensation, health care, the environment, safety regulations, family-friendly working hours, immigration, workplace grievances, and race relations. 

Increasing the power of low-income stakeholders need not be seen as a zero-sum redistribution simply for the sake of rebalancing a ledger. Instead, by empowering these workers we restore and reinvigorate a united voice among working people thereby enhancing overall prosperity and a strengthening of democracy.  

Working in concert to fortify one’s economic interests is widespread among the ‘Haves’. Chambers of Commerce, business associations, and national trade organizations fill this need for business owners and management. Why shouldn’t working people also be given capabilities to drive policy decisions through collective action? 

Unions fill this role. Many of the worker and social protections now codified into law which we enjoy today began as union initiatives. Social Security, child labor laws, antidiscrimination laws, workplace safety laws, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, 40-hour work week, and workers’ comp laws are just some of the now commonplace benefits realized because worker unions conceived, supported, and fought for these standards. 

It is unlikely we will snap back to the exact same economy we had before the pandemic. In the future we may look back on several social changes the virus will have jolted us into. Hopefully, one of these modifications will be a reckoning for how the working class portion of essential workers is to be treated and prioritized. A resurgence of unions for these workers is justified and past due. 

Recently I wrote a piece in which I lamented the condition of the hospitality industry as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. As of this writing, the economy is cautiously reopening around the country, including in both the hospitality industry and in the state of New Hampshire.  

However, it is also becoming clear there is a correlative rise in Covid infection rates following the reopenings. Whereas there is strong public sentiment to address both the public health and economic health of the nation and state, finding a satisfactory calibration benefiting both sides simultaneously still appears elusive. 

New Hampshire’s economy relies to a significant extent on the hospitality industry. This is not only to serve the state’s nearly 1.4 million residents, but to provide a backbone for the state’s lucrative tourism sector. Deterioration of hospitality services such as restaurants, hotels, resorts, amusement parks, theaters, and sporting venues will negatively impact tourism. The state of New Hampshire’s economy simply cannot afford to have that happen. Of course, we also cannot tolerate an adverse turnaround in the infection rate given the relatively favorable handling of the epidemic thus far in NH compared to many locations. 

Salvaging and rebuilding hospitality requires a management and employee workforce with agility, creativity, and resourcefulness exercising ingenuity and moxie beyond what has been required during past garden variety economic downturns. To get a sense of what this determination and imagination looks like on the ground I had the opportunity to converse with Lexi Townsend, owner of the Corner House Restaurant and Bar in Center Sandwich, NH.  

Lexi’s story is not only inspiring given the range of obstacles with which she was suddenly confronted, coupled with the ongoing originality she has had to muster to keep her business alive, but her situation and responses provide a glimpse into the kind of resilient decision making required to not only save a business, but an industry. 

Lexi Townsend is a long-term hospitality professional with restaurant experience that includes work as a server, host, manager, and owner. Most of her career has been in management of fine dining establishments in both urban and rural settings. Just before Governor Sununu mandated restaurants were to no longer accept on-site patrons in mid-March her chef resigned. After the shut-down order nearly all her service staff followed stay-at-home orders from the state government. 

Not wanting to close the business Townsend and one of two remaining employees took on chef duties and facilitated curbside pickup takeout orders from their website’s menu. Knowing many Squam Lake residents were shut in she offered local area delivery of both bulk and prepared food items. Many of these deliveries were done dockside, giving the service a Lakes Region flavor.  

Other events included “Feed the Frontline” serving care staff from Speare Memorial Hospital and a drive-through Mothers Day/Memorial Day barbecue involving community volunteers. 

Looking ahead to reopening, Lexi knew she needed to rebuild her server team. Offering employment and housing for J-1 visas to foreign nationals was considered, but that is now banned by the president. Instead, she has begun piloting a junior service program to train young staff members with limited server experience. Knowing the importance of safety, comfort, and visual communication she has purchased transparent face shields for servers in lieu of masks. The expectation is patrons need to feel not only secure, but also want to be understood and consoled by seeing the faces of their servers. 

Overall, Lexi is optimistic for the future of her business. Although her expectation is that once the Paycheck Protection Program is concluded the economy will plunge further. Nevertheless, she believes her restaurant’s good reputation and obvious commitment to survival will sustain the business. A new chef was recently hired and plans for a safe and enjoyable in-house dining experience are underway. 

Lexi’s advice for her fellow hospitality providers going forward is to persevere above all.  Be mindful of changing times, be adaptable, and know customers want protection in addition to a rich experience. Also, to understand and to accept recovery will take a long time. 

No question, these times are a stress test. Working smarter, not just harder, is essential. 

Such wreckage. Such devastation. Such uncertainty. The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted the present, shattered futures, and taken lives. In a quick couple of months life, as we have known it has been turned upside down. There is much to despair about this shock to our previously well-constructed world. Looking for hope can seem unattainable, especially for those whose careers, livelihoods, and businesses have been heavily damaged. 

I especially mourn for what is happening to the hospitality industry. Restaurants, hotels, resorts, amusement parks, theaters, concerts, sporting events and the like are where we go to refresh and rewind by enjoying time with friends and family, interacting with others, and being treated warmly by caring staffs. 

Hospitality is in many ways one of the most human of all career choices. Here is where your value is largely determined by how well you engage with others and how well you make others feel. Being socially distant is aversive to hospitality. It is like trying to paint landscapes with only two colors. The genial experience is catastrophically abridged when we are apart. 

Hospitality was to be the great redeemer for a world becoming increasingly technical, remote, and isolated. At its core, hospitality resisted the forces of automation and outsourcing, which is transforming so many other lines of work. It benefited from an economy relatively flush with disposable income. This industry really has made the world a better place to live. And now we ask ourselves, what happens to us all if our capacity to be social beings is painfully curtailed for the long term? 

In the US it is unlikely we will see the government stepping in to support hospitality for more than several months. Projections point to the second half of 2021 before a widely distributed and effective vaccine is put into place. Therefore, social distancing is expected to be among the chief tactics we have available to mitigate outbreaks during our slow build up to herd immunity. 

Then there is the very real fear people have about mingling as before. Think of the questions we could have while in crowds, such as who among these people is asymptomatic and carrying the virus? Why is that person coughing? Is it right to hug or shake hands with this friend anymore? How can I keep my glasses from fogging when wearing this darn mask? Many may and probably will opt for staying home. 

There are no easy answers or quick fixes for hospitality. That said, two broad ideas come to mind that may point to some sort of solution for the future of those whose hospitality jobs are evaporating. 

This is a time for hospitality professionals to reflect on their skills and the value they bring to the public. My advice is to inventory what it is about your engagements with people that activate your energy and bring deep satisfaction. Then think about other more employable areas where these talents can be expressed. For example, healthcare related services benefit from a workforce rich in soft hospitable skills infused with those of the technical expertise providers. Sales and customer services also are enhanced by those who can deliver personal, attentive, and solution-oriented care and advice. Think about it. There are many fields in which a hospitable mindset and presentation can find a home. 

Secondly, now is a time for the entrepreneurial, innovative, resourceful, and ingenious among us to design and develop novel ways of offering hospitality contributions that have not been tried before. The pent-up public demand is certainly there. Necessity is still the mother of invention. Let us please be pleasantly surprised by having creative hospitality professionals discover new and refreshing ways of building community, strengthening social interaction, and giving us respite from these stressful times, all while maintaining safe and prudent distancing measures. 

Times were dark in the economy ten years ago and they are even darker now. But if we are lucky, it may be our friends in hospitality who can shine a light when we most need it. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been fortunate to have spent much of the winter of 2019-2020 living along the southern coast of Spain. Occupying a rented casa near the center of an old town for an extended time, which inevitably involved engaging with locals, including commercially with shop keepers and the like, gave me a great opportunity to observe how daily economic life is lived in a place far from my New Hampshire home. 

To be clear, I really do have a life outside of economic and career monitoring, but for purposes of this piece, I will focus on a small anecdotal contrast between how people conduct commercial exchange in a corner of Spain and in NH. To further set this up, note that I deliberately lived without a car and had no data plan for 3 months, relying instead on public transportation and WiFi (or Wee-Fee as they cutely say there). 

These near-monastic practices aside, let me tell you a bit about my provisional Spanish hometown. Fuengirola, a small city of about 75K residents, lies along the Mediterranean coast about 25 miles west of Malaga, the big city in those parts. It is in the autonomous region of Andalusia (like a US state), which is the largest of these self-governing areas in Spain. Given that it was controlled by the Islamic Moors for about seven centuries the architecture and culture is a unique blend of Christian and Muslim influences not seen elsewhere in Europe. Andalusians have a reputation for being emotional and fun-loving. I concur. 

What is most evident commercially is how old-fashioned things seem, at least to a guy in his late sixties. In NH of course we get in our cars and drive to large supermarkets and big box stores to purchase our stuff, or as is increasingly the case, we order things online and have them shipped to our homes. But here, the small “Mom & Pop” shops are alive and seemingly well. The sidewalks each day, except Sunday, are teeming with people doing their daily marketing of fruits, vegetables, medicines, clothing, breads/pastries, alcohol, and lottery tickets (Really big here!). 

I must admit that despite an apparent inefficiency with going to one shop for your bread, to another for your vegetables, and to another for meat, I enjoyed the quaintness and personal touch of getting to know the people who worked at these establishments. Levels of personal service always seemed high, and I never felt rushed. Sure Amazon.es and big box stores like El Corte Ingles exist, but small brick & mortar retail is hanging on here quite well. 

The cafe culture of Europe is legendary, and it is in full swing in Fuengirola. People sit with family and friends for what seems like hours chatting over coffee and beer during workdays and weekends alike. Cafes and bars are everywhere spilling onto sidewalks. The jabber is lively and boisterous and leaves a Yank with the impression that life really should be fun and lived with gusto.  

I must admit I have wondered more than once, “How does any work get done around here?” But it does. It is a highly functioning, prosperous, and safe feeling community. Police presence is minimal. 

The Euro is the currency. And right now, its value is only about 10% higher than the US dollar. However, prices for most commodities seem lower here. I am often struck by how much value I am getting for so little money. Granted, gasoline is more than in NH and I do not have a good sense of the costs of other energy and big-ticket items, but overall costs seem cheaper in Spain. 

Also, this is a more cash-based society. My pocket often is weighed down with these heavy coins (a First World problem, I know). Sure, people use credit cards and phone pay apps, but cash is still quite prevalent. 

I could go on, but I will finish by saying that one expression of a culture is how commerce is conducted. In Spain, it is refreshingly traditional and effective indeed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve always been fascinated by personality tests, in particular the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). As a young education major many years ago, focused on the psychology of growth and learning, it seemed natural to accept a need to categorize people, whether students or employees with all their variability and complexity, into types, identities, and groupings. I came to believe that this knowledge could be used in many organizational ways including team building, workplace efficiency, student body cohesion, leadership training, personnel development, and general hiring to name a few. 

Today, there are many personality tests on the market with the MBTI remaining among the most popular in use with HR departments and management/training teams. DiSC, Color Code, CliftonStrengths, and Insights Discovery are also well known tools in this field. Other personality inventories are continuing to come on the scene as the science of type and application of AI becomes more refined. 

We are now looking at a $500 million industry with future growth rates estimated to be robust. Corporate, and in some cases small business America, are always in search of higher efficiencies. Some see personality testing as a means of achieving such an outcome. 

Business leadership may ask themselves, “Why wait for organizational culture to evolve when it can be shaped and structured according to my wishes?” As flippant as this sounds, there may be a sound rationale embedded in the question. Throwing a group of people together in the hope that company goals will be realized based on the strengths and experiences as seen on resumes and evaluations alone may be strategically weak. 

Individuals bring a myriad of personality characteristics, some of which may translate into positive contributions, while others may interfere with business processes. Applying tools that assist management in assessing their direct reports’ strengths and weaknesses more effectively could potentially result in more efficient sorting and assignment of talent. 

A doctrine underpinning personality testing is that there are no bad people, only bad fits of people. Someone who fits well with kindergarten students will probably make a lousy state trooper and vice versa. Cooperation, collaboration, and camaraderie are critical soft-skill practices for any workforce. Establishing conditions to encourage developing these soft skills can be a worthy management goal. If the edges of chaotic interpersonal dynamics can be smoothed and negative workplace politics mitigated, then why not intervene with data internally yielded by widespread use of personality inventories? It stands to reason productivity will be improved within a more satisfying work environment. 

A powerful criticism leveled for years concerns the lack of scientific validity of personality tests. Indeed, the MBTI is the least scientific of them all despite its prevalent use. Based on type theory developed by Carl Jung, a psychologist contemporary of Sigmund Freud, it can be said to be more art than science. Despite the MBTI’s uncanny ability to accurately identify a range of personal attributes as noted by the many people who have used it satisfactorily, including myself, there remains a persistent skepticism of its applicability due to a lack of experimental stringency regarding its claims. 

Additionally, there are claims by workers of being denied promotions, hiring, or leadership opportunities because of personality instrument results. Is it reasonable to expect there will be misapplications of these tests by managers whose skills lie in areas outside of psychology? As one who was trained in the interpretation and administration of the MBTI, I can attest to the deep levels of complexity and nuance to be considered in its use. Worth mentioning also is the likelihood of having employees who simply are uncomfortable with the ‘hocus-pocus’ of anything based on psychology. 

Whichever test is used, there should be trained professionals involved in an appropriate application of results. Regardless of potential downsides, personality instruments can occupy a favorable and constructive place in organizational management.