However, the ‘new trend’ of allowing users actually provide feedback into the products that they are using has produced a professorship at MIT and been mentioned in the New York Times ::sigh::  IMHO, this is simply the realization that ignoring people is less effective than communicating with them, and less effective means less profitable.  I think the technology world should be embarassed that it is so disfunctional that this is at all new or interesting enough to study.

On a similar note, Ben Stein has some interesting thoughts about how to have a business conversation.  If you plan on doing anything other than pure solo work for the rest of your life it is mandatory reading.  Interestingly, it seems that the best conversationalists are the ones who are the most considerate and do the most listening.  Sounds like organizations might want to focus on having an actual conversation with their customers …

[Symbio CEO Jacob] Hsu and his colleagues decided they needed a feeder program to prepare college students to work for them, so they recently established software institutes in the Harbin Institute of Technology and Shandong University, both in the coastal city of Weihai. That’s where Symbio is about to establish a new development center. Says Hsu, who grew up in San Francisco: “Other companies have university partnerships; we run the university departments.”

This isn’t something Symbio undertakes lightly. “We’re a human potential factory. We’re in the talent management business,” says Hsu. “In the next couple of years the companies that win will be the ones who manage talent the best.”

The Chinese have an abundance mentality, a positive outlook for their long-term future. Not only are they doing business successfully today, they are investing in building a generation of leaders for tomorrow. At the same time, western companies are shedding jobs and looking to outsource jobs and import labor to meet the needs of the moment. The west isn’t going to lose its edge because of quarterly profit outlooks, it is going to lose it because it lacks the vision to see the future and the audacity to put itself at the center of it!

Organizations that fight against this trend are going to be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring the best and brightest of the next generation.  You have been warned!

– John Gaule

Question: Since 1995, two million American manufacturing jobs vanished. How many manufacturing jobs did China add during the same period?

Answer: None. China lost sixteen million manufacturing jobs since 1995, a higher percentage of their manufacturing workforce than the US.

Sounds interesting. We should all flexible, adaptable, forward thinking, skill-building, constant-learning individuals who are always looking to the horizon. Not only should we be pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, we should be doing it on a regular basis.

Now, compare this to the dour assessment from the New Statesman:

Personnel managers, he finds, look not for people who are committed to and proficient at specific skills but for those who have the “potential” to cope with change. The upward career mobility so familiar to previous generations has been replaced by downward mobility.

By their late forties, people often work at lower skill levels than employees who joined more recently. And because such a high premium is put on flexibility and seizing the new, “you are constantly . . . walking away from your own commitments”.

This surely explains why everything is done so badly. You don’t try to improve your performance and do your present job well; you get ready for the next big change. It may also explain why the government seems always to be struggling to improve the population’s skill levels.

Souns a bit grim, doesn’t it? There are two sides to every coin, and it seems that our ruthlessly efficient focus on productivity improvement and global reach might have some downside.

My Take

Flexibility is important, and we need it in a rapidly changing environment. Make no doubt about it, things are moving faster and faster.  However, taking on the motto of semper gumby isn’t necessarily going to make things work.

1. The need for flexibility is often brought on by indecisiveness, negligence or incompetence, and not opportunity.  When used for the right reasons, flexibility is key.  When used for the wrong reasons it is just an excuse for additional stress.
2. Experience has a tangible value in the workplace, and the savings brought by every hour of work not done. To paraphrase a French philosopher, “A project plan is not done when every hour of work is added together, it is done when every unecessary hour of work is removed.”
3. Age matters!  It is much easier to be flexible when you are young and relatively unencumbered.  At the same time, it is easy to feel a sense of entitlement as you get older and have more to deal with.

Overall, the most useful people will be those with the right combination of drive, wisdom, experience, and flexibility to fit the situation.  A solid organization will recognize this and in itself be flexible to the needs of their employees and ultimately to the bottom line.