Human contact, whether through professional networking, social connections, or by earned reputation still matters significantly and should in no way be minimized when describing the recruitment and hiring process. If anything, it is paramount. However, another very important track to cover when developing one’s career is the one driven by existing and emerging technologies meant to streamline and optimize the employment process. 

Today this ranges from online job boards advertising positions to Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) that parse resumes for HR and recruiters. Also, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning tools, designed to assess the employability of candidates, are now present.  

How to advantageously position yourself for these digital aides and gatekeepers needs to be a key component of a well-planned career growth strategy. Let us take a current look at each of these technical features. 

Online job boards are not very new, in short supply, or complicated. They are little more than interactive web sites that post job descriptions from employers. More recent are job search engines like Indeed and Simply Hired that rummage the internet aggregating job postings from a variety of sources. 

These sites are seductive in that they give the appearance of a job store with profuse amounts of positions just ready for you to pick up while shopping. A common and ineffective ploy is to spend hours responding to jobs on the boards with the only thing generated being recruiters trying to lure you to high turnover 100% commission sales jobs.  

Nonetheless, working with job boards is not a complete waste of time and decent jobs can be yielded. Recommended is to spend about 10% to 20% of your job search time utilizing the boards while being careful and discriminating about what you respond to. 

ATS software allows recruiters to organize vast lists of applicants and their pertinent criteria such as qualifications, employment history, degrees earned, etc., which are most useful to hiring managers when determining who to contact for interviews. For those of us trying to secure an interview we need to be mindful of preparing resumes (and LinkedIn Profiles) that are keyword-rich with contextually used terms aligning our skills and knowledge with responsibilities and deliverables mentioned in job descriptions. 

Therefore, given the need for an ATS-friendly resume that simultaneously is attractive for human readers the challenge is to strike a visually appealing format that won’t confuse the ATS. This can be tricky. If you want a designer resume that looks like those on Pinterest, then forget about passing ATS muster. And with so many companies employing ATS the best strategy may be to pay homage to the many conditions needed to not be digitally rejected in a millisecond, while adding enough optics, and of course solid content, to not have your resume look like just another slice of white bread. Achieving this level of resume optimization is a necessary goal. 

The latest trend, which is expected to proliferate in use and sophistication, involves the impact of AI in hiring decision making. There is a growing perception that relying on a candidate’s skills alone is not consistently producing better employees. The evolving thought is to assess personality more with the goal of finding a well-rounded and compatible colleague.  

To this end, AI is being deployed to identify personality traits gleaned from resumes, online profiles, social media presences, video appearances, you name it. Apparently, this is seen as less biased than human observers. We shall see. (Cannot algorithms be biased too?) 

At any rate, developing a consistent brand and value proposition that includes both your technical talents and your work style/interpersonal characteristics across all platforms may be wise for presenting to human and technological appraisers alike. 

Being prepared for the changes and encroachment of technology into hiring decisions, and by extension career development, has become imperative in today’s employment world. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much is made of the dearth of economic opportunity and income equality across the U.S. workforce. Though a perennial issue, the conventional wisdom these days more than most appears to be that there are segments of the American population for whom high paying jobs are elusive or non-existent. This belief persists despite the lowest unemployment rate we have seen in nearly twenty years. 

The primary reason, we are told, for this situation boils down to the fact that an automated, globalized, and corporate-led economy produces winners and losers — a somewhat different set of winners and losers apparently than the more nationally-based economy of yesteryear. 

Inequality, or even the perception of it, tends to raise the hackles of key constituencies such as left-leaning individuals and nowadays working class folks who find that many low to mid-skilled jobs are evaporating. These groups agree there is a fundamental unfairness to inequality, and they are inspired to fight against it, sometimes in dramatically different ways, whenever possible. 

One element of inequality that I do not see getting too much attention however pertains to the number of people with a college education vs. those without one. As we look over the last half century or so we can see that this is a significant economic phenomenon. Indeed, the discrepancy between those with and without higher education impacts a variety of inequality factors, including not just income, but housing, community makeups, cultural upbringing, socioeconomics, and social status. 

The number of working-aged Americans with college degrees is steadily rising and now is at or slightly above 40% according to the Lumina Foundation. That is ten times the number compared to a hundred plus years ago when Andrew Carnegie, of all people, claimed college was irrelevant and even damaging. Despite the high cost of college, projections are that attendance will continue to grow another 15% by 2025 (Inside Higher Ed). 

Bruce Cain, a Stanford University political scientist, points out that people with knowledge-based characteristics attributed to being college educated, such as professionally oriented behaviors, digital familiarity, an understanding of financial services, and innovative inclinations, tend to congregate residentially and in employment. In today’s world the “Haves” are most often the ones with a college education, and they like to stick with and hire others of their own kind. It is easy to see how this can appear unequal. 

Many Baby Boomers were raised with the notion that getting a college education would lead to greater economic gain. Although the message is more nuanced these days the central point remains the same. One unintended consequence of this virtue is that it also leads to economic inequality and resentment among those not sharing in the bounty. This acrimony can sometimes be heard among those who have taken an anti-intellectual / anti-education stance, such as when expressing skepticism (to put it politely) regarding the viewpoints of the “elites” and the “establishment”. 

Addressing this imbalance requires initially a level of respect and acknowledgement that we all have something of value to offer. Working toward an economic system that honors and tries to achieve an opportunity-for-all ethic could arise from such a belief. Those who benefit from the hard work and commitment of pursuing higher education can assist those for whom college has not been a viable option through assistance measures designed to encourage greater and more affordable college attendance. 

And for those not choosing to pursue higher ed? The means of providing employment training, entrepreneurial support, and apprenticeship alternatives, along with other opportunity options, could be made more available. Full employment across all socioeconomic groups should always be our collective objective. 

Sharing prosperity across all segments of a pluralistic society is a great challenge. Perhaps we need to see more committed action from those who have succeeded, many of whom profess liberal leanings, to drive opportunity-for-all programs so that no one’s economic prospects are left behind. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the Great Recession and ever since we have heard about a skills gap in America. This is in part responsible for slow productivity, and by extension, slow economic growth. There does seem to be evidence of an employment gap. There are currently 6.2 million jobs unfilled, up from 5.6 in 2016 (Forbes); 45% of small businesses cannot find work-ready candidates (National Federation of Independent Business); and the results of a January 2018 survey of 500 senior executives found that 92% think the candidate pool is not as skilled as it needs to be (Adecco). 

There is plenty of finger pointing going on. Some of the principal criticisms include: 

The education system is outdated and is poorly adapted to preparing students for a fluid economy — one that is heavy on technical and math-based skills. 

Employers at both the corporate and small business levels are not allocating adequate resources to training and apprenticeship programs, leaving workforces skill deficient. 

There is a growing cultural bias against the machine and tool-oriented skills useful in construction, manufacturing, and the trades, discouraging younger workers from selecting those careers. 

Increased automation is creating demand for a more technically proficient job candidate than the current labor market can supply. 

Old jobs are becoming obsolete while newly created ones are being generated at a brisk pace which the economy struggles to keep up with. 

Soft skills, such as those which emphasize collaboration, communication, and teamwork are not being acquired sufficiently at home, school, and in the community. 

Job creation is so fast and unemployment so low given the robust economy that labor does not have the time or means to adjust. 

The problem is unmotivated workers who do not want to take menial jobs or work the night shift, or who like their drugs more than work, or who are spoiled youngsters used to having everything handed to them. 

It is likely that all these factors play some role in why there are so many unfilled jobs. One would think this is a simple supply and demand problem to remedy. Identify the specific skills needed by most employers and then have the education and training providers upskill students and workers to learn and master the required competencies. But apparently doing so is not so simple. 

What strikes me in the research on this topic is that there are practically no lists of specific skills that are in short supply. We can find the career areas where there are shortages, for example in nursing, industrial technicians, computer network specialists, and so on, but exactly what the elusive skills are appears to be largely a mystery.  

This suggests to me that there may not be a skills gap at all, but rather a failing in the way individuals are aligned with work for which they are best suited. In other words, there may be a lack of fit between too many workers and employment opportunities. 

This lack of fit problem is not new. Over the past century or so it has been a challenge to match increased numbers of workers with burgeoning career options. Indeed, the career development field arose out of a need to address this issue.  

What is new, perhaps, is the escalating scale and scope of unprecedented numbers of prospective workers and career opportunities. The degree of guidance, counseling, and training by schools, businesses, professional associations, and other stakeholders to better improve aligning available labor with employment demand may need greater attention than has been accessible to date. 

If true full employment is to be achieved, and with it the benefits of economic growth and widely spread prosperity, then it seems it is in everyone’s interest to insist on refining the processes whereby workers can access high quality counseling and training to best meet employment scarcity. Government, education, and business could partner more effectively to forge solutions. 

The gap we are now facing may be more of shared commitment and engagement rather than of skills. 

As I pen this piece, during one of the final days of 2017, my mind reflects over the tumultuous year just passed. In my judgment, it has not been a good one. A dominant reason for my opinion has to do with what I see as stark evidence of the deterioration of civil behavior. 

This year exhibited degradation of civility on two fronts. One is the startling revelations in recent months of sexual impropriety in the workplace and beyond that are historic and pervasive. The second, which is relatively new to the scene, is the detestable leadership style being practiced and modeled by the President of the United States. 

The civility downturn issue I raise here elevates to a cultural level, but in keeping with the career and employment theme of these pieces, I’ll confine my thoughts to the effect declining civil discourse and offensive interactions are having and could continue to have in the places where we work. 

To begin, let us contemplate the monumental disclosures and resulting tolerance shift commonly known as the #MeToo movement. Since women increased the pace of sharing professional employment roles in far greater numbers than ever approximately fifty years ago, true workforce equity has been elusive. The combination of rigid gender stereotypes, the inherent inequality of hierarchical structures, and the sexual tension palpable among some co-workers establishes an environment in which predatory behavior occurs. Women who forcefully reject such treatment and men who understand its fundamental unfairness are now letting those in power know enough is enough. 

This social shift is long overdue and compels management across all industries, still mostly occupied by men, to participate and collaborate with female colleagues on equal footing and to dissolve outdated norms. It is hard to imagine that the clock will ever turn back. Managers and co-workers alike are on notice that behavior which violates basic decency against others in a sexual manner could well result in career ending consequences. 

The other and more recent challenge to our declining pattern of civil engagement with potential impact to the workplace is embodied by President Trump. To be clear, I am not interested in scoring political points and my claim here is not intended to be partisan, but Donald Trump’s model for success and leadership is debased, contrary to decency, and a disgraceful example of how those in powerful positions should act. 

The serial lying, bullying provocations, juvenile name calling, lack of intellectual engrossment, and pathetic narcissism represent leadership at its worst. Is there really a political ideology or set of guiding principles so valuable that it justifies these leadership behaviors? Having such a role model speaking on behalf of our nation, occupying a position that influences our youth, and demonstrating that this is what American success now looks like is an embarrassment and affront to our values as a country. 

It is imperative that Americans of moral character and basic virtue rise above the example set by our president and to show the true spirit of civility in the workplace and elsewhere. It can reasonably be argued that as a people over time we have abandoned shared responsibility in a move toward a selfish and a self-centered style of economic individualism. Perhaps President Trump’s mannerisms reflect how far this has gone. 

The year 2017 has given us a wake-up call. We can rally and repair by first admitting some deep-seated flaws exist in the way we interact in the areas of mutual respect and collective caring. The forces against us are formidable. Our positive tendencies are for the time sidelined. Let us not just hope for a better and more civil 2018 but let us actively work toward making it happen. We are better than this. 

Mobility has become something of a buzz word these days, particularly in the context of one’s economic and employment condition. Increasingly we see movement among people, whether in terms of place, jobs, education, or social groups as more common, at least among a growing segment of the population. 

There has always been the phenomenon of socioeconomic mobility, the upward or downward movement of economic status with its resulting standard of living levels. As Americans, we pride ourselves on having created a meritocratic system, in which ability and talent rather than simply inherited wealth and privilege, can lead to upward mobility. And ingrained in that potential is of course the risk of failure and descent. 

The mobility I am emphasizing, however, goes beyond this more historic form. It is a mobility that in part defines the changing nature of career and economic success in an evolving economy. It is mobility that is encouraged and motivated by discovering and acquiring that increasingly elusive premium known as opportunity. 

If the work you want to do is more likely to be found in Los Angeles, then you leave your home in New Hampshire. If hiring is more robust in accounting, then you do not follow your parents’ careers as teachers. If the variety of diverse lifestyle and work choices within a multicultural neighborhood is more appealing, then you leave your mostly white and Protestant hometown. If your impetus is to develop truly innovative and groundbreaking services, then you don’t follow the path of anyone else. 

As one prepares for adulthood and career there appears to be a fundamental choice to be made — opt for a career characterized more by features of mobility or more by tradition. Throughout much of our history we were content to stay close to where we were born and to do work, whether in or out of the home, that was done by our parents. We continued family farming, worked in the same paper mill as our father and grandfather, raised children full time at home, and provided goods and services for families much like ours in the area. There were social and economic benefits, in short the opportunity, to carry on these traditions. That continuity still has appeal for many, but perhaps for a decreasing number of people. 

Economic opportunity now is seen by an expanding number of people as requiring mobility. For home grown and newly arrived Americans the ticket to a broader range of career options is education. It may be difficult to know exactly what the right thing is to study at first, but a belief is widely accepted that continuing education beyond high school and indeed throughout one’s working years is necessary to keep one economically viable and marketable. Similarly, is the understanding that one’s career now has an inherent mobility with many twists, turns, and iterations. (For example, most CEOs did not major in business administration, but rather in subjects like history, political science, and communications, according to Investopedia). 

Immigrants continue to serve as examples of assertive mobility. Sure, the attraction of the US has long been there for those from abroad who have wanted to put America’s socioeconomic upward mobility reputation and principles to the test. Indeed, that continues to happen. But many of today’s immigrants to America also know that to achieve a decent or higher standard of living they need to more intelligently hunt for and snag opportunity. The word is that opportunity will not be handed to them. Immigrants disrupted their lives intentionally, leaving much of their past and what is familiar behind. Their energy, enthusiasm, and drive are worth paying attention to and perhaps emulating as much now as ever. 

Hopefully, we can make our world friendly and prosperous for those with inclinations toward both mobility and tradition. Collectively, we should not have to conclude one way of life survives and the other does not. Yet, the trend toward mobility is mobilized and gathering steam. No matter how you choose to engage your career and livelihood your relationship with mobility must be considered. 

A difficult career development concept for many to accept is the notion that networking, by which means the building and cultivating of a group of professionally oriented contacts, is necessary to grow and flourish a career. Many smart and valued contributors to the workplace are uncomfortable with an exercise that for them feels unnatural, contrived, and manipulative. There are of course those who are extroverted and who blossom at opportunities to engage in lively social interaction, but for many others the tedium of incessant outreach is viewed as an awkward burden and obligation. 

However, networking is not to be entirely avoided. One does not have to research too deeply to find that networking has powerful advantages such as increasing the amount of job, business, and advancement opportunities available; deepening one’s understanding of their profession’s best practices and current trends; and enhancing one’s reputation and status within their chosen profession. Taken together it is reasonable to say that networking leads to greater career satisfaction. 

So how can one bridge the gap between a practice that should be followed, but which also invokes such negative feelings? The answer may be in re-framing how networking can be viewed. Instead of seeing it as an inauthentic and unscrupulous display of self-promotion, try embracing one or more of several different outlooks. These can include: 

Networking as a learning opportunity: Approach interactions with fellow professionals and others related in some way to what you do as chances to learn. Other stakeholders in your career field have had similar, different, and varied experiences that together can provide you with valuable information and perspectives leaving you more informed and open to more possibilities. As you approach more knowledgeable resources for assistance to become more educated when needed, think of the individuals with whom you interact in networking similarly. 

Networking as sharing and teaching: The converse of the point made above is another method to be considered. You undoubtedly have information that can enrich and inform others in your field thereby initiating and establishing quality relationships simply through sharing. Be open to disclosing what you understand professionally in addition to what you do not know. Also, be clear in your own mind about what you have to offer others. Comprehending what you know that may be of value to others could be difficult, especially if you are reticent to recognize your accomplishments. Therefore, try to not hesitate to share your achievements in the spirit of helping others. 

Networking as finding common ground and shared concerns: It is a typical practice when we meet someone for the first time to look for a piece of information or experience that we have in common. Doing so gives us a connection from which we can build a relationship. Networking is no different. Reach out to others with the goal of finding common ground, areas of agreement, identical perceptions on trends, similar problems to solve, or networking contacts you both share. The list can go on. Finding where your spheres of experience intersect can make these types of interactions more pleasurable and productive. 

Networking as group representation: A significant part of the discomfort with networking is that it is seen as too self-centered. What if you engaged in the practice by seeing yourself as a proxy for your employer, professional association, or for your career field as a whole? By doing so your promotional oriented outreach becomes part of a larger goal or aspiration intended to benefit others on behalf of your profession and not just abetting yourself. While presenting yourself on behalf of others you will necessarily be authenticating your own position, standing, and reputation. 

In a world where extroverts are in the majority, it can be arduous for the one third to one half of the population who are introverted to function in highly social situations. Hopefully, re-orienting how you view networking activities can make them more positive and advantageous for your career. 

I recently conversed with an old friend who was transitioning into retirement from a lifelong career as a golf course owner and superintendent. He shared with me his observation of a decline in the golf business in recent years not only at his course, but at others in his region (South Coast Massachusetts), and indeed nationally. 

Not being a golfer myself I did a little research and found that the industry is either thriving or declining depending on who you talk to. PGA officials point to statistics that paint a rosy picture of the game’s future, but other sources, such as The Economist for instance, show years of net golf course closures since 2006 and a drop of five million players since the game’s participant high point. 

In the case of my friend there was an unmistakable reduction in players at his course. I asked why this was the case thinking that recreational activity in general seems robust. His unscientific conclusion is that younger game players are choosing online gaming over golf. 

Online or digital gaming is big business. In looking at sources that track gaming data I found the following: Worldwide revenues in 2017 reaching $109B this year with 42% coming from mobile gaming (Newzoo); $18.4B of those revenues are being generated in the U.S. alone (Statista); and in May 2017, 9% year-over-year market growth was measured (SuperData Research). Unless you live in a cave, it is obvious anecdotally that lots of people enjoy spending lots of time gaming on devices. 

To try getting a better understanding of this phenomenon and how it relates to current and future careers I spoke with Ryan Smith, a New Hampshire-based game programmer, consultant, and game design instructor. Before our conversation, my image of a video gamer was restricted to adolescent boys in front of a console tethered to the family television. Ryan, who has been a gamer all his life and who earned a degree in game design from SNHU, has considerable background in this field both technically and culturally. 

Ryan began by sharing that digital gaming is now an entertainment industry double in size to the movie and music industries combined. Increasingly, women and older players are indulging in digital gaming. Gaming devices are grouped into PCs, consoles, and mobile categories with the first two losing market share to mobile.  

As interesting as these facts are, what I really wanted was a sense of what motivated players to play. Not being a gamer myself, I was curious about what is so appealing about this pastime to produce such a high level of engagement. 

According to Ryan, the attraction rests in otherworldly immersion where one can live out dreams and fantasies not possible in reality. There exists a level of interactive control, instant gratification, and risk taking that is not possible in ordinary day to day life. This leads to an expressive activity that is more stimulating and satisfying than the passive receptivity one gets from watching movies or listening to music — and it would seem more provocative than trying to refine a physical skill such as golfing. This type of engrossment is centered around action themes, stories, and scenarios, but is so enthralling apparently as to become a unique experience not found in more traditional amusements. 

The industry is trending toward more social, networked, and global gaming experiences with platforms known as Massively Multiplayer Online or MMOs and identity/community simulations. The other game changer, if you will, is the introduction of Virtual Reality (VR), a technological sensation that places a player more realistically into an imaginary environment. 

There are benefits to gaming aside from entertainment says Ryan. Discipline, motivation, eye-hand coordination, faster decision making, brain training and yes, even social skills can be enhanced through gaming. 

Digital gaming is a classic case of a newly disruptive industry changing a traditional landscape and presenting new employment opportunities not previously available. Despite the playfulness implied in gaming, a market this big must be taken seriously. 

Many of us in the United States were educated as children and young adults so that we could succeed both as citizens sustaining our democratic way of life and as productive workers able to sustain ourselves and our families economically. For the most part, the combination of public and private K–12 schools and higher education universities and colleges has served us quite well. We are by and large a well-educated and constructive populace. 

But can we rely on the old-school methodologies to sustain us for a world of work that will be characterized as mercurial and erratic calling for agility, adaptability, and rapid evolution? There is reason to think not. An economy that is experiencing increased speed and transformation will not be well served by an educational structure and model designed to prepare students for a relatively static and predictable work world. 

Let us examine the existing paradigm that traditionally and currently defines most American high schools and colleges. There are two patterns at play based on the concepts of liberal education and career-focused education. By the time a student reaches high school they select or have selected for them one of these persuasions or the other. 

Liberal (or liberal arts) education refers to an approach that encourages a broad and diverse exposure to fundamental and diverse subject matter with the goal being to educate a student for a complex world requiring a variety of perspectives, skills, and areas of knowledge. When and if college is reached, the student fits into this mix a concentrated focus in one or more disciplines. 

A career-focused or vocational path on the other hand focuses much more on preparing the student for a relevant job that is in demand in the workforce. Breadth gives way to depth in that a craft or skillset demonstrably employable is chosen, studied, and eventually mastered by the student. 

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there is anything fundamentally wrong with these models. My concern is in the traditional modes of delivery of the designs. We are still under the assumption that a high school diploma and/or college degree program that terminates upon graduation is enough to provide a student for a lifetime career. It used to be. However, projections are that it will not be enough going forward. 

The workplace and its career needs are becoming increasingly digitized and globalized, resulting in an urgency for malleable, resilient, and entrepreneurial workers to address the ever-vibrant economic demands across the planet. To maintain these attributes workers will need to accept and embrace continuous lifelong learning, upskilling, and training to keep up and stay ahead. Schooling will never end. In fact, it will become an integral and ongoing part of any advantageous job worth having for most people. 

We will likely see a time when liberal and career-focused methods become more of an as-needed hybrid with a greater proliferation of skill and knowledge-based certification and training programs not necessarily tied to slow moving traditional education settings. Students, employees, and educators will begin migrating more intentionally into online, virtual, and yes, brick & mortar learning facilities that offer the highest quality, data driven, short and long-term instruction essential to the requirements of the emerging economy. 

As an educator myself with 31 years in public schools and 5 years as a part time college adjunct I can say with some certainty that this industry will not on its own move in this direction without a lot of resistance. There are many entrenched interests compelled to resist such changes.  

A more responsive and pragmatic instructional delivery will likely arise from a combination of innovative educators and demanding students and employees requiring relevant reactive instruction. We can all begin by getting our heads around the concept of lifelong learning. I predict it will be far more energizing and efficient and much less stuck and draining.