"Free Agent Nation" A Thing of The Past? Not In My World.

I came across a report the other day from Towers Watson (the merged result of Towers Perrin and Watson Wyatt) that basically declared the "free agent nation" dead. The concept of "Free Agent Nation"  was developed by Daniel Pink of Fast Company Magazine. It was used to describe a notion that you only worked for yourself and sold your services to a succession of employers. Tom Peters and other were (are) heavily invested in the concept as well. Thus, you had control of your career, your options, your education and your compensation. If you did not like working for someone you then left and "sold" your services to another buyer. I personally was and still am a big believer in the idea. To me, being tied to one employer, whether or not you like it, is allowing yourself to become entrapped in VICTIM MENTALITY.

Thus, I was somewhat surprised to come across the Towers Watson report Jobless Recovery in the U.S. Leaving Trail of Recession-Weary Employees in Its Wake, According to New Study. Sure you would expect to read that people are tired of being laid off  or losing their jobs by job elimination. But surprisingly this has lead to a CULTURAL ATTITUDE SHIFT and people are now looking for more permancy in their relationships with their employers. The report states that "A startling eight out of 10 respondents want to settle into a job, with roughly half saying they want to work for a single company their entire career and the rest wanting to work for no more than two to three companies." Whoa! Are these people wanting to return to the their fathers' world of work? The report also says that  this is driven by the recession. They state "This move toward workplace “nesting” is no doubt influenced by a perceived dearth of job opportunities, coupled with U.S. employees’ lower appetite for the risks inherent in changing jobs. In fact, more than half (56%) of the U.S. workforce expects little change in the job market over the next year, and over a quarter (28%) anticipate continued deterioration in the employment picture."

Rather than grab the "bull by the horns" (idiom explained) and reinventing themselves many workers have expressed a desire for "stability". As reported by the Global Workforce Study "...the GWS found that:

 

• 51% of those polled said there are no career advancement opportunities in their current roles, and another 43% believe they must leave their organization and join another in order to advance to a higher-level job. 
• Yet, despite these obstacles to advancement, and the erosion of many of the benefits fundamental to the traditional and highly paternalistic deal, fully 81% of respondents said they are not actively looking for other positions."

Well the bad news is, despite many workers wanting to return to the state of the nation in the 1950s where everyone went to work for one company and stayed for life (e.g., IBM ) those days are over with. As quoted in the GWS report “ 'For many employers, the recession has put the final nail in the coffin of the traditional ‘deal’ that once existed between employees and employers,' said Max Caldwell, a leader of the company’s Talent & Rewards business." (My emphasis)

So if you are one of those people who are hoping for stability from your employer WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! The only stability you can hope for in your work life is what you make through what you know, your education, your experience and how you continually upgrade your skills or reinvent yourself. By making yourself continually valuable you make yourself continually employable. Now you may get fortunate enough to be able to "sell yourself" to one employer for a nice long "contract." But don't count on lifetime employement. Be prepared to seek out and secure another "contract". If your skill set looks like everyone elses then you have nothing unique to sell. Make yourself unique.

As someone who has been a "free agent" for a long time I am a big believer in the concept. I do not believe at a time when so many people find themselves with an opportunity to take control of their lifes that we will see "free agency" go away.

Who else out there has made themselves a successful free agent? Any advice for others?

Telecommuting: Diminishing Due to Job Cuts?

I heard a report on the radio the other day that many people who work from home as telecommuters are giving up the opportunity to do so in order to protect their jobs. The people interviewed thought that without the office "visability" they would be considered expendable. One quote was that "Having the jacket on the back of the chair 14 hours a day was the best way to show that you were irreplaceable." A article from over a year ago, in the Wall Street Journal reported similar feelings. In Some Companies Rethink The Telecommuting Trend writer Sue Shellenbarger reports that many companies, considered leaders in the use of telecommuters, are calling those telecommuters back to the office. In many cases cutting telecommuting to one day per week. And this was before the recession hit.

In both cases, the employee's and the employer's, I think cutting back on telecommuting is a mistake. Study after study has found that telecommuters are more productive than if they had stayed in the office. Here is a good report, put together by a student at Kennesaw State University, that covers the upsides and downsides of telecommuting. Telecommuting: Does It Work? Many workers are concerned about visability. Well your best visability is your effective and productive work. Shellenbarger, from the WSJ article referenced above, offers these tips:

• Perform well. In explaining the callbacks at Hewlett-Packard, Chief Information Officer Randy Mott said last year that telecommuting "had gotten applied more broadly than really made sense," and would be limited to "people who are proficient and who've shown they can perform over time." Make sure measurable objectives are set for your job, then meet them.
  
• Increase your visibility. One behavior sure to irk managers is to use work-at-home freedom to move to a location so remote, such as Hawaii, that travel costs soar. Although Intel disputes the assertion, people familiar with the callbacks there cite such abuses as a factor. Wherever you're located, find ways to remain visible.
  
• Make an effort to collaborate. Elliott Masie, head of the Masie Center, a Saratoga Springs, N.Y., research organization, says many younger managers are comfortable collaborating online. But as pressures mount, older managers may revert to the notion that to build teamwork, "it's important for everybody to sit around and sing 'Kumbaya' together," he says. It may be wise to join that chorus.

There have been studies that there are some problems with telecommuting. The suprising issue is not with the telecommuters, rather it is with those left in the office. New study says telecommuting can hurt office morale writer Richard A. D'Errico reports that a study "...found that the greater the number of telecommuters at an organization, the less satisfied the office workers were with their jobs."

So the HR challenge is making sure that the entire process gets managed appropriately. The study suggests that "...managers work to ensure that there's more face-to-face contact among telecommuters and office workers, and provide office workers with more autonomy to do their jobs. "

What have been your experiences?

• Do you fear for your telecommuting job?


• Have you seen cutbacks in the numbers of telecommuters?


• Do non-telecommuters have morale problems in your workplace?


• What have you done to make yourself more "valuable"?

Does Recession Equal Performance?

An article in the Career section of the WallStreetJournal Online, entitled It Can Be Done: Landing a Raise in the Recession, talks about what is needed for someone to get an increase in recessionary times. It is going to take understanding your company's position, understanding your accomplishments, being able to articulate those accomplishments, and most of all it is going to take being a top performer. Take a look at the article for their suggestions on how to handle the situation.

But it got me to thinking. Is this deep recession going to force companies to throw off "entitlement" cultures? Are the days of "everyone gets a raise just for still being here" finally going to be done? Will merit pay actually become based on merit? Perhaps. Companies do want to keep top-performers and top-performers are always in demand. It is much cheaper to reward a top-performer than it is to go hire a replacement for one that left.

So here are a couple thoughts I to which I would like your reaction.

From the individual employee perspective:

1. Do you know what it takes to be a top-performer in your organization? If you cannot articulate this you may not be one.


2. Can you show, on paper or spreadsheet, your accomplishments? Have they really contributed to the success of the organization? Much more than average? If no, then you probably aren't a top-performer.

From the Company perspective:

1. Do you know what it takes to define top performance? If no, then you are probably not a top-tier company.


2. Do you know who your top performers are? If not, you are likely to lose them.


3. If you can identify them, are you prepared to reward them in order to keep them? If not, then you are likely to lose them.


4. Do you understand the cost associated with losing a top performer? You should.

Now once the recession ends we may return to an "entitlement" mindset, especially if as a result of the EFCA, we have a greater level of unionism. But I hope not. I hope we truly learn the lesson of performance and merit that are being thrust on us by this recession.

What do you think?