Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Neither here nor there

[caption id="attachment_764" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="Work well independently?"][/caption]

Telecommuting, flex time and virtual business models are all the rage. Outsourcing projects rather than committing to long-term staff additions is popular now, too. No surprise there. The current state of the economy (I can barely wait until we're no longer using that phrase quite so often!) demands efficiency, forces uncertainty, and makes available some stellar candidates with whom to work. In other words, a lot of great people are out of their former 9-5 salaried work routines. Even the 2010 census work is moving faster than expected because of the availability of outstanding temporary labor. Oh, that's not much of a silver lining, perhaps, but there it is.

These new ways of working bode well for some businesses, and for some individuals. Streamlined processes, virtual meetings, work from anywhere (okay, let's not text from a moving car - work from almost anywhere) are a boon for the highly motivated, organized and talented. But what about everyone else?

One of the concerns many thought leaders express about the new economy is that it yields work for the best, brightest and most driven (now including all that consulting, flexible positions, telecommuting, and other non-traditional arrangements). It also continues to offer a range of service work that, at least for now, requires a human presence (from health care to fine cooking). And there are still a number of U.S. manufacturing jobs, although that number continues to dwindle.

But what else? There's a gap, likely to continue broadening, where there used to be more jobs for the rest of the workforce. As the economy continues to shift, what happens to the worker who needs the structure of an office to maintain motivation? The person who shows up for the assembly line? Where are the jobs for the capable person willing to work steadily all day or night but simply not constituted to come up with lots of big ideas, manage time completely independently or work alone? If you've ever been an employer or a manager, you know that these people make up the majority of many a workplace – that's the way the world is and probably always has been.

This week, Time magazine's article The Workforce: Where Will the New Jobs Come From? provides hope that there will be new jobs. That's good. But for any leader or citizen who hopes to see the economy truly thrive again, there's that other question, not so easy to answer. Will there be enough jobs for the great majority of working class and middle class Americans who do well working for a company, who respond to expectations set by management and who would like to put in a good day's work for decent pay, then head home to their real lives? That's a lot of people, and we all need to put our imaginations to work to make sure our economy continues to fully employ and value what continues to be the majority of the population.

Continued funding programs for better roads and bridges? Encouraging young people to go into trades such as plumbing or electrical work, in which shortages are predicted? Putting more adults in the schools to work with the kids? Opening more child care centers, which require staffing? Offering real live tech support? Human cashiers at the supermarket?

What could work and be valuable? What do you think?

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Fortune worried about reading...

[caption id="attachment_744" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="To read or not to read..."]To read or not to read...[/caption]

... and I'd like not to be worried. After all, for me, the smell of a Barnes & Noble is nearly aphrodisiac, and I consider the buying, reading and piling up of books and magazines my birthright. I confess to not having a Kindle or similar device yet, but I know that's coming. To me, format matters, but content matters more. That's why I found Fortune's cover story The Future of Reading particularly thought-provoking. I can't believe it... could it even be possible... that people will ever lose interest completely in reading? Let it not be so.

Fortune, of course, is speaking largely from a business perspective, especially regarding journalistic concerns. I noticed that I couldn't find the text of that March 1 lead article, which I first devoured in print while waiting at my allergist's office, online as I wrote this – since it's this week's issue, Fortune would no doubt like us to buy the magazine and thus support the advertising. I certainly understand this. After all, a great deal of vSA's work is in public relations, media relations in particular. If there is no revenue, there will be no publications. Plain and simple. Fortune, and even Broom, Brush & Mop magazine - difficult as it is to believe – are not mere labors of love.

Here's my educated guess, based on the cosmic and not-so-cosmic shifts I've seen in my decades on this earth and at my desk (including the door-on-file-cabinets that served as my vSA desk in those first daring years of entrepreneurship): Reading will not die. The stature of Amazon and my beloved Barnes & Noble are evidence to that. Sadly, small bookstores and publications large and small have suffered and will continue to do so. The media will continue to adapt, with false starts and many casualties, to new models for advertising and other revenue generation. More and more of our reading will be done on notepads and online. People will continue to love video in all its forms, and many – okay, most – will prefer it to the written word.

But there is a magnetism to writing and to reading, and, despite the challenges of doing it well, there is a certain simplicity and joy to creating stories – just think, most children compose tales and essays as soon as they can wield a crayon or navigate a keyboard. We love our news (both the important and the supremely trivial) and we relish our rehashing of information, much of which will continue to be in the form of articles, opinions and other text.

Fortune, by the way, agrees, by and large: Reading – somehow, someway – will live on. What's your take?