Editor’s note: David Nordfors is the co-chair and co-founder of the i4j Innovation for Jobs Summit together with Vint Cerf.
It’s a popular sport nowadays, discussing if tech is going to kill or
create jobs. The answer is simple if you ask me. If we care more about
tasks than about people, then tech will replace people. If we care more
about people than about tasks, then tech will leverage people.
Think about it this way: I work in your company, I wash the dishes.
You buy a dishwashing machine. You can either say “David, good luck!” or
you can say “Let’s rock!”
“Good luck” is the task-centered economy. You replace me with a
machine. You lower the cost and raise the efficiency. In the innovation
economy, this is the race against the machine.
“Let’s rock” is the people-centered economy. You buy a machine so
that we can do more valuable stuff together. You raise my value and that
of the team. By the way, you lower the cost and raise the efficiency, too. This is the race with the machine, not against it.
In both economies, a job means delivering something that people want.
In both economies, people do things together, in companies, because it
makes each one of them more valuable and it’s meaningful.
So let’s say I’m sick and tired of washing dishes and we can’t think
of anything else to do together. I am not adding value to your team. You
are not adding meaning to my life. We should not be working together.
It’s time for me to leave the company. The dishwashing machine is our
savior.
In the people-centered economy, before quitting, we look at each
other and ask “How much value is there in our relation?” and “What is
the best value we can create together in this company with this
relation?” While in the task-centered economy, dishwashing machines pass
the Turing test. You, as a businessman, see no difference between me
and the dishwashing machine. The value is only in the tasks I perform.
Thus, my race against the machine.
“Worldwide, only 13% of employees are engaged at work. The vast
majority of employed people around the globe are ‘not engaged’ or
‘actively disengaged’ at work, meaning they are emotionally disconnected
from their workplaces and less likely to be productive,” according to Gallup,
which says the world’s GDP will triple in the next three decades. $140
trillion worth of new customers is up for grabs. And since it’s the
innovation economy, the winners will be the teams that answer the
question “What is the next big thing and how do we take part in it?”
Requires engagement.
That’s why the people-centered economy is a huge opportunity for
wealth and wellbeing. There are trillions of dollars to be made in
raising the value of people, which are, perhaps, our world’s most
under-utilized resource.
There are trillions of dollars to be made in raising the value of people, which are, perhaps, our world’s most under-utilized resource.
What’s more, any economy that cares less about people than about
tasks will ultimately screw up. In the task-centered economy, the only
reason we don’t get rid of each other right away is because we can’t.
Now we believe we might be able to, so we get stuck in a paradox: Our
self-interest is not in our self-interest.
So now we start discussing our attitude toward technology. But it’s
really not about the technology. It’s about our attitude toward people.
The solution is simply to switch the paradigm. Think people-centered
economy. Care about people. We use machines to raise the value of
people. That works. No paradox.
Okay, it’s not “simply.” Because, actually, it’s not simple at all.
We need to change the way we view the economy, reinvent economics,
introduce new tools and methods. Today there is such a focus on skills
and specified tasks. We can hardly imagine a society where jobs don’t
have descriptive labels like “painter,” “cook,” “programmer” and so on.
My job is “David,” which doesn’t quite fit the pattern, but through some
kind of miracle I manage to put food on the table. I can tell you, it’s
not easy.
How did I get here? Well, there are two types of careers. You can
either learn something and then go do it. Or you can learn something and
then go do something else. I followed the latter career path. I started
as a researcher in molecular quantum physics, continued as science
editor of a computer magazine, then I went into science and technology
policy and diverged into my own projects, always looking to bridge
cultures.
Finally, one day a headhunter told me “you are too scattered, you
don’t have any focus. I can’t help you find a job.” Nonsense! I have a
perfectly excellent focus. I’m in fact making use of all my acquired
skills at the same go by earning a living by being me. A bit sticky to
look for jobs, though. Not too many job ads for “David.” It’s more like
“programmer with 10 years experience” and such.
Yes, it’s all about fitting the slots it seems. And the slots are
changing ever faster. If you are a programmer with 10 years experience
and you are away from programming for a year then you might be toast.
That’s one of the things that makes the task-centered paradigm a not so
very nice prospect in the innovation economy.
The people-centered economy, on the other hand, may just get better
and more humane with technology. Instead of fitting the slot, imagine
jobs being tailored for each individual. We have the computational
capacity for that now. Says Vint Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet: “It
is said that everyone is truly unique. We have an opportunity to
recognize this by tailoring work to fit individual strengths.”
So many people are not making use of their strengths. Jan Mühlfeit,
former CEO and present Chairman of Microsoft Europe, told me that if he
went back to being CEO of a large company he would test all employees
with Gallup’s Clifton StrengthsFinder and focus on developing strengths instead of patching up weaknesses.
A dating service like Match.com might be a better job market than Monster.com.
Because now it’s about building teams of people with good chemistry
that can do valuable things together that machines can’t do or have not
been suggested to do. Vint Cerf and I published a scenario with such a
matching service
that we called “Jobly.” The i4j Innovation for Jobs Summit – a network
of good brains that we bring together – put their minds to it, producing
a whole lot of ideas
that gives a picture of how the labor market, policy, education and the
economy overall can be transformed into something much better.
I will imagine some will think this is a nice and cuddly vision, but
not a practical one. If this is what you think, think again, because the
people who are running successful companies are in a constant headache
trying to find good people to hire. I have spoken with leaders who want
to bypass their own HR departments. They want people who will take their
company into the future, not people who fit slots.
Nick Ellis, today CEO and Co-Founder of Hirabl, founded JobRooster,
using business model innovation to match people with blue-collar jobs.
“We used to “spray and pray” to find job candidates. Today we can
intelligently mine professional networks and approach specific hires.
Before long, we’ll be able to get a holistic view of a worker and match
against corporate culture and behavioral profiles – the things that
primarily determine success for high-performance teams,” he says.
The people-centered economy cares a lot about culture, because that
is the operating system of teams. Culture and success go hand in hand,”
say Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg in their book How Google Works.
They use the word “culture” 50 times in the book, much more often than
education (6 times), human resources (7), training (10), résumé (11) and
skill (28). Their recipe: recruit the best who match your culture and
train them to recruit others.
“Many people, when considering a job, are primarily concerned with
their role and responsibilities, the company’s track record, the
industry, and compensation. Further down on that list, probably between
‘length of commute’ and ‘quality of coffee in the kitchen’ comes
culture. Smart creatives, though, place culture at the top of the list.
To be effective, they need to care about the place they work.
This is why, when starting a new company of initiative, culture is the
most important thing to consider,” they write in their book.
When I speak with people about these things, some will say I am only
talking about the technological elite, educated people. What about all
the ordinary people with ordinary jobs, the nine-to-fivers? And what
about all the people without marketable skills with no education?
Does anyone seriously believe that in a few decades machines will have replaced humans in doing everything we consider valuable?
The answer is, the reality of Google is becoming the reality of all.
They are just a bit ahead of the rest. Every single organization in the
world is now constantly switching tools, methods and aims. Good,
creative teams will outperform streamlined organizations with experts
that fit the slots and do their things.
A few years ago, I stayed in a coastal village at the Red Sea. There
was this Bedouin kid who was deaf and dumb from birth, along with other
developmental disorders. He was a good swimmer, though, and he
befriended a dolphin. They became such good friends that the dolphin
hung out in the waters outside the village every day.
The kid’s family started a seaside cafe and restaurant. Visitors
could eat, drink, and swim with the dolphin. The kid and his family
would accompany the visitors, not more than a few at a time, because the
dolphin needed introduction, and the visitors needed instruction. I
swam with the dolphin; it was a unique experience. The restaurant was
very popular, of course. The kid’s unique ability had provided for his
whole family.
It seems to me that their good fortune can be repeated with
variations around the world. It can not be done through the classic HR
methods. But it could be done by a smartphone service that can offer
tailored personal solutions on a global scale.
As for the discussion about machines being able to do everything of
value, making people superfluous, that’s a tell-tale sign of of how
people can not think beyond the task-centered economy. Does anyone
seriously believe that in a few decades machines will have replaced
humans in doing everything we consider valuable? Stopping
climate change? Eradicating disease? Erasing poverty? Of course not.
This will be done only with the people-centric innovation economy that
uses machines to elevate the value of people, empowering them. Not
replacing them.
It’s time to challenge ourselves to develop a people-centered economy
if we are going to be the change we want to see in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment