Tag Archives: Globalization

American Business Needs Good Teachers

Posted on by Bill Ryan

A disturbing trend could befall the quality of job candidates available for business hiring in the not too far distant future. We are at risk of finding that the pool of potential hires may be deficient in language and mathematical processing skills and in their ability to think critically relative to past generations. Why might this be so? Simply put, the United States is now experiencing a shortage of highly qualified teachers. And there is no end in sight of this problem. 

A weakening of the teaching profession consequently leads to more students receiving less instruction and lower quality education. It is hard to imagine how a nation that is unable to educate its children adequately can expect to succeed commercially, especially in a globalized economy. Yet, this is the situation the U.S. is now facing. 

Tuan Nguyen, Chanh Lam, of Kansas State University and Pula Bruno of the University of Illinois in an August 2022 paper entitled Is There a National Teacher Shortage? revealed there are 36,000 vacant teacher openings and 163,000 teaching positions being occupied by underqualified instructors. They contend these are conservative estimates. 

Josh Bleiberg, an education professor at the University of Pittsburgh, claims the quantity of qualified teachers is falling nationwide and the few states seeing an increase in certified teachers are still not able to keep up with growing enrollments. 

One does not have to look too deeply to see why this is the case. Professor Bleiberg’s research discloses that teacher wages, when adjusted for inflation, have been mostly stagnant from 2000-2020, while student caseloads have been consistent. 

Also, during this time teachers and administrators have witnessed an expansion of accountability initiatives designed allegedly to improve teacher proficiency. Although some accountability measures are necessary, too many have been based on student test scores, leading to needless stress, system gaming, and dilution of curriculum. Making maintenance of teacher credentialing more rigorous with no corresponding compensation increase is bad business. 

The National Center for Education Statistics reports that students earning bachelor’s degrees in education has gone from 176,307 in 1970-71 to 104,008 in 2010-11 to 85,058 in 2019-20. And this decline is before the pandemic. 

We cannot underestimate how negative Covid has been for the teaching profession. The terms and conditions of teacher employment degraded overnight. Concerns about their own health and safety while trying to manage instruction remotely or in super-spreader classroom environments while also dealing with students who had experienced the loss of family members has been extremely detrimental. Many older and more experienced teachers chose early retirement rather than risk their physical and emotional health. 

Moreover, we now have the politicization of education and use of teachers as punching bags by those who claim students are being brainwashed with various culture war issues of a racial or sexual nature. Let’s throw in the risk of school shootings and we can see why a national problem exists. Given the relatively low pay, high productivity demand, health and safety risks, and politically oriented pressure it is no wonder many otherwise great teachers are saying, No Thanks! 

This is not just a problem for one industry. It is a potential loss for our economy if we have ill-prepared students growing up to become our available workforce. It is in the best interests of business to recognize the looming threat and to get on board attempting remediation. 

As a nation, we can start by accepting the value teachers provide and offering them the prestige they deserve. Teachers are much more of a resource than they are an expense. It is past time to honor them for being the assets they are. From there we can tackle issues of adequate compensation, reasonable employment conditions, and greater self-determination. 

It is for the greater good of our economy, our country, and our children that we get this right. 

Career Adaptability in a Time of Economic Resilience

Posted on by Bill Ryan

As a people, we habitually want to return to normal after a sudden disruption. To seek stable ground after a storm is what we are hard-wired to do. The pent-up desire to reclaim regularity throughout this pandemic is palpable. We want so much to snap back to a 2019-era lifestyle that it may be hindering our capacity to plan for what increasingly looks like an uncertain future. 

A combination of Covid’s aversion to disappearing and more general workforce changes promote doubtfulness in the minds of many about future economic, and by extension, career directions. Questions as basic as, will my job be permanently home-based and remote, or will my job, which is centered on being face-to-face with many people, forever now to be risky? These are existential questions. 

Career resilience, or the ability to navigate one’s professional life through the turbulent vicissitudes of the 21st century employment environment, is not a new topic. Remaining nimble and adept enough to reapply one’s skillset to changing situations has been advised by career professionals for years now. Of course, such advice has most often been given in the context of technological automation and cross-market globalization. 

The unsettled world of Covid, however, only adds to the urgency. Emerging variants of the virus and the patchwork way nations and regions respond to the emergency leaves Covid-fatigued people feeling discouraged that we can get past this anytime soon. Optimism rises and fades like the graphs of infection rates. As far and as wide as we can see, the economy is being buffeted by winds of Covid-generated incertitude. Career resilience becomes but a subset to the larger challenging phenomenon of economic resilience. 

The National Association of Counties identifies economic resilience as, “a community’s ability to foresee, adapt to, and leverage changing conditions to their advantage”. The U.S. Department of Commerce is more blunt in its description. Commerce questions an entity’s proficiency to endure and to rally from a severe disruption, and its ability to avoid crises in the first place. The take-away inference is that acceptance of the proverbial new normal and requisite mitigation planning is to be standard operation. 

The interests of non-entrepreneurial workers are served when employees understand the sustainability planning and related past practices of the employers for whom they work or want to work. If an employer is overly relying on luck to get them through or is in denial about change occurring, these should be warning signs. Do not let the miscalculations of others derail your career. 

What we want to see instead are signs of employers envisioning and assessing risks to their markets and assets. These are sometimes known as steady-state actions. From there they should be prepared to deploy a response strategy when crisis strikes.  

Included in this overall approach can be interventions such as sustainability budget planning; diversification efforts to reduce exposure to high risk sectors; gardening of workforces which will ride out disruptions and not quickly bail; alignments with business, government, and educational resources to keep forecasting and preparedness skills sharp and ready; and agile management capable of shifting available talent to meet unexpected needs effectively. 

Continuity planning for an organization or an individual share certain processes. Key among them is to know the weak areas. Where are the shortcomings? How can they be managed or strengthened? Which metrics apply to indicate success is being achieved? 

Another key process is in knowing the threat indicators early on. Take advantage of utilizing a natural or trained inclination to be preventative and farsighted. 

Above all, establish systems, procedures, and habits, which have resiliency built into them. Facing turmoil requires a degree of fortitude. Until Covid is somehow controlled worldwide the economic and career challenges related to the virus will continue. Confronting the menace clear-eyed and purposeful is a potent response. 

Employment and the 2020 Election

Posted on by Bill Ryan

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. 

Distributive Work Gets A Boost

Posted on by Bill Ryan

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. 

Thoughts on Career-Long Learning

Posted on by Bill Ryan

As has been frequently reported, the nature of work is undergoing profound changes due largely to automation, technology, artificial intelligence, and globalization. This exacerbates fears among students and workers of how to succeed in an ever-transformative economy and contributes to the current and expanding situation of a workforce not possessing the skills required by modern and future-oriented employers. 

To keep up with groundbreaking changes in employment requires an educational approach to training and learning that is flexible, relevant, and targeted to the capricious and volatile state of the economy. At present, traditional education institutions of high school and customary higher ed bachelor’s degrees appear to be lagging behind innovative industry methodologies like short-term credentialing and user-responsive professional development. Businesses recognize the value in foresight and pliable learning strategies necessary to uphold a workforce prepared for unpredictability. 

Education systems are not known for their elasticity and capacity to adjust to change. Take a typical public high school curriculum, the stage through which most American workers first pass on their way to employability. Has there been much reorganization in the basic course load or method of earning a diploma since the mid-twentieth century? I think not. This is an area where increased pressure to innovate is warranted. 

Beside a reassessment of curriculum relevance, another key concept we can hope for from high schools is that the message is getting through loud and clear to students that education does not stop with a diploma. The modern world is one in which continuous learning needs to be embraced if there is any hope for enjoying the fruits of professional mastery and robust compensation. Linking the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of learning is a valuable lifelong lesson. 

To this end, workers will benefit from a more accommodating and welcoming world of pathways designed to prepare entry-level professionals, upskill existing workers, and assist career changers in a manner consistent with the metamorphosing economy of work. In addition to an acceptance of the importance of career-long learning is to realize credentials matter. 

From a college degree to a professional license to an industry-specific certification, possessing evidence from a reputable instructional source, in which a worker can demonstrate training and education within an area of expertise is critical to advancing one’s career. The challenge becomes how to best earn pertinent credentials in a time effective and affordable manner. 

Career, employment specialists, and economists are suggesting several practices to ease credential acquisition. Kelsey Berkowitz is a Policy Advisor for Third Way’s Economic Program and has looked closely into this issue. Among the suggestions she makes is to: 

  • Increase the amount of credential stacking that is available. In other words, design short-term credential modules that can be combined into larger certifications or degrees. This could provide highly relevant on-demand training while also providing a means for adult workers to achieve higher education goals in more easily managed steps. 
  • Develop more apprenticeship programs. Evidence exists, particularly in Europe, of the effectiveness of industry-based programs that onboard entry-level workers and within a year or two produce trained and credentialed employees committed to the profession. 
  • Recognize prior experiences related to work by offering credit. It is not unusual for individuals to gain skills and insights applicable to their current jobs from events that occurred before being hired. Examples include acquired knowledge from the military, school programs, previous jobs, or other situations where pertinent learning took place. 
  • Streamline onerous licensing mobility. Twenty-five percent of all workers today are in fields requiring a professional license. However, in too many instances licenses are not reciprocal across state lines, creating burdens to reacquire licenses for those pros relocating to a new state. 

The need for instructional and training flexibility will become increasingly necessary in order to keep a nimble and ready workforce. Let us reform learning to better address this imperative. 

Weaponizing Employment Against the Poor

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Albert Einstein elegantly once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results. This adage comes to mind when we see that yet again work requirements are being used as a bludgeon to combat Americans who live in poverty and who need safety-net programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), HUD housing assistance, and if President Trump has his way, even Medicaid. 

The White House Council of Economic Advisers has recommended work requirements for the most extensive welfare programs and the current administration has mandated that federal agencies alter their presumably lax welfare program standards. These moves are premised on the continuing notion that the poor are a drain on federal resources due to their laziness, recklessness, and lack of ambition. So here we go again, concluding that the poor are so, solely because of their own deficient behavior and must be made to work harder to receive assistance from this government. 

It is not that simple. 

Is this work requirement approach fair that those recipients of aid (excluding children, elderly and disabled) should be made to show an attempt to earn their government supports, which allegedly incentives people to not be poor, or is this a kick to the poor and disenfranchised when they are already down? 

It is worth examining a few of points about welfare work requirements: 

  1. According to the US Census Bureau the 2017 poverty rate was 12.3%, a 0.4% decrease from the year before. Since 2014 the poverty rate has fallen 2.5%. So, if the current trend line is a declining poverty rate why is a harsh condition like work requirements for the poor necessary currently?
  2. This effort was last tried under Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich with their 1996 welfare reform legislation. We have had a couple decades to see how that has gone and studies like those from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and in the book Making Ends Meet (Edin and Lein) show that despite short term marginal improvements in employment they were not sustainable, mostly due to necessary and increased living expenses, absorbing any work generated financial gains.
  3. Where are these jobs that the poor are supposed to get? If you have spent most of your life in poverty, chances are quite low you can pick up a knowledge-economy job quickly. We have all heard how the traditional manual labor jobs are drying up, so what is left? Lousy-waged part-time jobs with unpredictable and changeable hours is what’s left.
  4. If the government feels the need to pick on somebody shouldn’t it be the employers of vast numbers of unskilled and low-skilled who pay their workers, including the working poor, insufficient wages that in turn need to be underwritten by the American taxpayers?

Now one place where there could be political agreement is in the government providing subsidized high quality work training requirements targeted to helping the poor get the knowledge and skills needed for a globalized and digitized economy. Currently, training requirements can be in lieu of work requirements, but their effectiveness remains questionable. 

The causes and cures for poverty are varied, complex, and far beyond the scope of this piece. But if we as a society are truly interested in ameliorating the condition of poverty (as we should be!) we need to be looking for demonstrably beneficial interventions that measurably make positive differences. Requiring the poor to get a low-end job that increases their childcare and transportation costs just to prove they are not milking the system or making them pay unreasonably for a hand-up from those of us with tax paying means is not a humane way to go about it. 

The State Experiencing an Economic Revival

Posted on by Bill Ryan

In rural 19th century Sutton, New Hampshire population declined following the sheep boom in the late 1840s as farmers abandoned their farms in search of better land in places like Ohio and Indiana. Sutton was not alone. Rural living was proving to be too difficult for many New Hampshire residents of small towns. Young women, if they could, were among those who traveled to Lowell, Massachusetts to work in textile mills and live in boarding houses. This was seen as a step up and better than a life of struggle on desolate unproductive farms. 

At America’s Credit Union Museum on the west side of Manchester is a turn of the last century photograph of hardscrabble young boys posing not in front of their school, but rather beside one of the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company’s mills in which they worked. Injuries, death, and child labor among both boys and girls, were common then. The closing of the mills in 1935 hit the Manchester economy hard as did the closing of the Nashua Manufacturing Company in Nashua and the Brown Company paper mill in Berlin, both of which occurred in the 1940s. 

During the summer of 1987 Allied Leather Corp. of Penacook, NH announced it was closing, putting 300 out of work. The New York owners referred to the “tight labor market” and “continuing problems” treating the tannery’s waste. The company had been fined the year before for moving chemicals without a permit. Most of the employees were on their summer vacation when the news of their job losses broke. Plans were made for combining the tannery’s operations with other plants in New York and Pennsylvania. 

New Hampshire has many such economic hardship tales from its 230 years of statehood. When I was young in the 1960s and 1970s, and from Massachusetts, we would hear of the poor people in New Hampshire or “Cow Hampshire” as it was disparagingly called. The people were known as tough, conservative, and independent, but hardly prosperous. 

So, it caught my eye when U.S. News and World Report released its rankings of the Best States for Opportunity this fall. And guess who came out on top, Numero Uno, King of the Hill, #1 out of 50…you guessed it, New Hampshire! To quote them, “New Hampshire, which enjoys among the highest median household incomes in the nation, stood out as No. 1 for opportunity.” 

Let us take a moment to soak this in. Yes, we are surrounded by rancor, political polarization, culture wars, stagnant wages, opioids, automation, globalization, white nationalism, and on and on, but here on this rocky, thinned soiled, forested, mountainous, tick infested, small patch of America we are in the estimation of one journalistic source, with a methodology to back up their claim, the best state in the nation for opportunity. Wow! 

What happened? Some fun facts may help to explain why New Hampshire is now enjoying the most prosperous time in its history. Advanced manufacturing, technology, professional services, healthcare, and of course tourism are strong economic sectors here. Median household income in 2016 was $70,936. Given that the national average that year was $57, 617, we are not doing too badly. 

No personal income or sales tax probably helps, but that has been the case for a long time. Lots of retirees like it here. In fact, we are among the top 3 states with lots of old people. During the Great Recession and its aftermath 246,000 people moved away, but another 247,000 moved in. 

I cannot say exactly what has been New Hampshire’s secret success sauce, but one obvious observation is that modernity is being kind to the state. Somehow, we seem to be converting economic, social, and demographic changes into prosperity. Despite all the bad sky-is-falling news we are bombarded with daily this is a cause for all 1.3 million of us in NH to celebrate. 

A Reason for Employment Inequality

Posted on by Bill Ryan

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. 

Educating for Impending Careers

Posted on by Bill Ryan

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. 

The Continued Evolution of LinkedIn

Posted on by Bill Ryan

The professional, business, and employment social media online platform LinkedIn is at it again, but in a bigger way this time. As individuals who regularly use LinkedIn to source talent, post jobs, display professional profiles, or network with other users we know that LinkedIn frequently tinkers with the interface to “improve” usability. It has always been a dynamic and growing service and one must assume they are doing something right with $3B+ in annual revenue and 460+ million user accounts worldwide. Not bad for a novel concept that first went live in 2003. 

The latest big set of changes has been rolling out for the past couple of months following the completed acquisition of LinkedIn by Microsoft in December 2016. Time will tell of course if this will be a good move for both parties. Let us hope this deal does not go the way of doomed Microsoft ventures like Nokia’s handset and aQuantive software. However, given the financial heft and prominent position in the digital services market Microsoft enjoys it is reasonable to expect that this takeover will boost LinkedIn’s standing and influence in the career and employment services space. 

Without getting into the weeds of all the many new minute interaction changes of the website, and there are enough, so that a new learning curve has appeared to get familiar with the site, it nevertheless appears to someone like me that I am increasingly finding LinkedIn to be my digital place to go to work. And I am not alone, Logging into LinkedIn.com is becoming my virtual commute to a real job. 

As in a traditional workplace there are those I work with frequently and closely on a project, those I know remotely, and those I am reaching out to as potential sources of value and opportunity. It is in these areas of taking connectivity among professional people to a more functional, transparent, and far-reaching level where LinkedIn holds great promise. 

The effects of globalization have thankfully become a hotly debated issue politically, but in the world of e-commerce impacted as it is by the powers of social media and crowd sourcing, the players are not waiting around for slow moving governments to set the rules. Global inter-connectivity and commerce is just starting to get ramped-up via international platforms like LinkedIn. It looks like we are heading into a world in which small-scaled and remote outreaches among millions of entrepreneurs, freelancers, microbusinesses, and small businesses across the planet can be exchanged 24/7. 

LinkedIn, and now by extension Microsoft, are betting on this proliferation of e-business, so much so that there is a mission to “economically graph” the world through its site. What does this mean? As Jeff Weiner, LinkedIn’s CEO puts it, they are committed to digitally mapping the global economy by building a profile for every member of the international workforce and for every company in the world. 

Further they intend to digitally list every available job in real refreshed time, list every skill needed to perform those jobs, and identify every school or training facility providing the skill instruction needed to perform these jobs. Facilitating an efficient, timely, and rich flow of information that connects these dots completes the goal. 

Given this infrastructure the potential for enriching current employment, business development, and career needs while also fulfilling the talent requirements for the innumerable jobs of the future seems highly likely. 

An expansive vision of the possibilities e-commerce and e-networking can deliver should be embraced. Many new careers can be made from leveraging a dynamic global economy. Engaging in international business does not any longer have to just be reserved for large multi-national corporations. If one can get a higher quality business or career solution from New Zealand rather than from New Hampshire no matter where in the world one lives, we should expect that to be the new normal and compete appropriately. 

The Challenge of Working Class Employment

Posted on by Bill Ryan

The recent presidential election has put the demands and anger of the working class front and center in America’s attention. The economic and cultural influences brought on by encroaching globalization and automation are changing employment — and by extension many people’s lives, in ways that are deeply unsettling and unpredictable. 

The short-term fix appears to be an electorate choosing a new president who has a penchant for, shall we say, over-promising what he can do about the situation. If these promises are combined with under-delivering in the creation of jobs for this cohort over the next few years, then we will likely be playing out another struggle for what, if anything, the government can do about employment during the 2020 election. 

I hesitate to look to the professional class for solutions to the employment and lifestyle anxiety being felt by the working class. Ultimately, this more economically disadvantaged group needs leadership to help them assess and adapt to the new world order that is increasingly being driven by globalization and automation. 

Neither political party is adequately providing the needed tough love leadership and straight talk to the working class. We hear plenty about nostalgia for the good old days or that the real problem was due to hoarding by the rich, but when has anyone acknowledged that world markets are moving toward knowledge-based economies that call for fundamental changes in the way workers plan for employment? Unfortunately, we never hear it. 

We are witnessing large-scale worker displacement. I for one do not see an end in sight. So, when contemplating the best course of action for those who have chosen to curtail their education at the high school level and work in traditional industries it is difficult to see a quick and easy fix. 

To say everyone should go to college is over-simplistic. To say we should reverse the march of time is unrealistic. This country has a serious problem on its hands and if nothing else the presidential election of 2016 has given us substance for a serious debate about where we go from here. 

One thing is clear — employment will continue to go to those with skills and expertise that are marketable. Increasingly, these jobs will be technical and specialized and require considerable education and training. However, not everyone is going to be driven to be a maven in some area. It still should be okay that some people just want a half-way decent job with reasonable compensation and not be looking to set the world on fire with their careers. The question becomes how should an individual with limited education and a strong desire to work in a traditional or straightforward job plan for their future? 

I was recently drawn to the November 2016 New Hampshire Economic Conditions issue published by the state’s Employment Security department’s Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau. Their feature story looks at both “Specialized” and “Baseline” skills most in demand in New Hampshire’s labor markets as derived from an analysis of online job postings. What struck me when reading this report is that it is a window, albeit a small one, into a way of measuring what employers want, in other words what is marketable. And given the context of this piece it is the baseline skills I’m most interested in, since as the qualifier suggests these are skills that do not require a lot of education. 

The most frequently listed baseline skills were communication, writing, multi-tasking, time management, detail orientation, planning, and being organized. Nothing too earth- shattering here. These are the kinds of things someone can do that are desired in the workplace and do not require sophisticated preparation. Perhaps, identifying the basic old-school abilities is where the working class should look to begin or restore their marketability in an uncertain world. 

Let us keep this conversation going. The people showed they are willing to overlook a lot of things in a new president in order to be heard. So, what should they be hearing? 

Being What You Were Meant to Be

Posted on by Bill Ryan

In general, career competitiveness is likely to get, well, more competitive in the coming years. There are several factors indicating that to secure and retain a truly meaningful and satisfying career each of us will need to manage stiffer headwinds. We may not be able to change the wind velocity or direction, but we can adjust our sails. 

What headwinds am I referring to? Well, as anyone who has read my pieces before knows the two principal factors impacting the future of work in the U.S. and around the world are globalization and automation. These alone are introducing a host of competitive actors, both living and non-living. Being able to offer more employment value than other people around the planet, and more than the machines which are getting better at reproducing routine and now even sophisticated tasks, makes for a tough challenge. 

Beyond the gales emanating from an increasingly integrated and technology-based economy are those of our own making. We all tend to make unforced errors that result in establishing the right career more difficult. These are the impediments we throw in front of ourselves that come from flawed thinking and behavior patterns residing deep in our psyches. And with career competition expanding due to forces beyond our control, let us at least agree it is wise to confront the missteps we tend to cause ourselves. 

Who among us cannot identify imperfect responses of our own making, many of which are based in the way we make decisions? Perhaps, we are too impatient and restless wanting quick resolutions to problems and clarity to uncertainty before the best course of action has been adequately determined. 

Stress also affects the way we decide, and it usually does so in a way that quickly mitigates temporarily the stress at the expense of a better longer-term outcome. Any actions that take us away from a carefully planned and systematic approach to making the big decisions in our lives, such as choosing and setting courses for a career, will weaken our competitiveness. 

Decision making can be thought of as a process with sequential steps to be followed. It begins with clearly identifying the decision to be made, then gathering necessary information, spotting alternatives, assessing evidence, selecting options, acting, and reviewing the chosen conclusion. Doing this well requires discipline and strength of mind, but the higher quality decision making that can emerge better positions us for career competition we will face. 

The practice of reflection also can play a powerful role in navigating through uncharted waters. The Benedictine nun, author, and speaker Joan Chittister is quoted as saying, “Find the thing that stirs your heart and make room for it. Life is about the development of self to the point of unbridled joy.”   

The same can be said about our careers. As we reflect on what matters most to us and what jobs need to be done in the world, then we can best merge the two to find our career choice. Our way to realizing our career becomes more apparent. 

The signs of how we should work have always been there. They began in childhood and have followed us through maturity. How we perceive and become aware of things, people, events, and ideas followed by the conclusions we make about these phenomena shape who we become as people and as career professionals. 

The interests we cultivate, the values we hold dear, the motivations that propel us, and the skills we develop lead to a unique set of criteria that form the foundation of our value proposition. In other words, they make us competitive. Reflect on what that is for you. 

We can look ahead and fear the storm clouds, or we can accept the adverse winds as a call to action to improve our competitiveness and to be the professionals we were meant to be. 

Preparing Your Career for a Binary Star Economy

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Career Development is as fluid a field of study and method of personal improvement as can be found anywhere. Its progressive elasticity and growing erratic nature are due to the changing state of the world of work. In an environment that requires continual improvement, adaptability, and thorough planning as does ours, long-term career design can be a difficult and uncertain endeavor. 

As discovered by ancient mariners when navigating vast and strange oceans, it helps to have a North Star to serve as a beacon and guide. As we each seek to chart an unclear and enigmatic career development landscape for purposes of changing existing careers or determining new ones, we too can benefit from a North Star. However, Binary Star may be the more apt metaphor — a system consisting of two stars orbiting around their common center of mass. This is because the duality we must now regularly consider are the two interdependent powerhouses known as globalization and automation. 

The future of work appears to be heavily influenced, if not governed, by these two harbingers. In tandem, globalization and automation are in a process of modifying the way we live, and therefore how we work. The expanding utilization of technology combined with the spreading integration of people, businesses, and governments around the world is altering economic history in a way that has not happened since the Industrial Revolution. 

As paradigm shifting as the change from hand work to mass production was a hundred plus years ago, we are now witnessing a transformation just as groundbreaking, if not more. When people like Ray Kurzweil, the 67-year-old Director of Engineering at Google, predicts that by 2029 computers will be able to perform all tasks humans can now do, only better, then I pay attention — and you should too. 

It is not just the prognostications of one man that matter (and he has some doozies), but the unmistakable short and long-term trend lines indicating rapid proliferation in new and disruptive technologies and business models (think Airbnb, Uber, SaaS, MOOCS) and increased activity in what the International Monetary Fund refers to as the four basic aspects of globalization: international transactions; capital movements; migrations of people; and knowledge dissemination. 

Ask yourself, how well do your career plans hitch themselves to the forces of globalization and automation? It is wise to look for some connection. Enough current work is already being made redundant and new ways of organizing work tasks are in the process of being discovered. If I was as prescient as I wish I could be, I would now present a neat and tidy list of specific and guaranteed jobs of the future. But alas, I am not that farsighted. Nevertheless, here is what I think will help in preparing for the Brave New World and strengthen our decision making as we move forward. 

Paramount is the need to remain optimistic in the face of uncertainty. Pessimism and hand wringing will not fortify us against ambiguity. Those who will find success are those with a positive attitude allowing themselves to see and grasp an opportunity others do not or cannot. 

We also need to get back to having big ideas. The Hoover Dam, the Golden State Bridge, and the Empire State Building were all built during the Great Depression. Winning World War II, constructing the Interstate Highway System, and launching six crewed moon landings followed. Today we are all in a twist about whether to extend health insurance to the uninsured and whether to fund bridge repairs. Big problems exist that need substantial solutions. Let us find our lost courage to make grand proposals and realize lofty outcomes. 

Free thinking of the type that stimulates innovation and entrepreneurship also needs to be encouraged. This has always been America’s strong suit and it demands continuation, if not invigorating, in an ever-competitive global economy. Our schools for one can do a better job of transitioning from the mechanized industrial-aged model to one more consistent with a broad-minded enterprising ethos. 

Business dedicated to sharing, rather than old fashioned consumption and disposal of resources is becoming fashionable — and profitable. Making money by sharing homes, cars, locally grown foods, breweries, office spaces, etc. is becoming increasingly common. Disruptive of legacy business models to be sure, but isn’t that the way it is going these days? From an ecological viewpoint, an economy that utilizes resources in common with others may in part reverse the throw-away trend of the last half century. 

Reframing our attitudes and ways of thinking about the binary impact globalization and automation is having on our economy, careers, and ways of life may be the best approach we can profitably take away from this economic conversion.