Lynda Gratton - The Future of Work

When Time Fragments

In last week’s blog I rallied against the 40% of time at work that seems to be spent "working on projects that had no significance, going to meetings that had no outcomes" and made some suggestions for solving the paradox at the heart of work.

My question about what to do was answered in part by Kevin Ball. His experience makes him wonder if this is a problem that needs to be solved; if there is not some universal truth about people in all this ‘wasted’ effort.

"The knowledge that some part of your day can be spent in pointless activity is really rather relaxing and it can be accomplished guilt-free if you can explain it as ‘necessary’ to comply, conform and cooperate with the organisation around you. For the early days of my working in the spare bedroom, this meant suppressing the protestant work-ethic and doing some housework in the ‘working’ day; it meant measuring the output rather than the hours spent on input and it meant wrestling myself into a position of accepting that it was OK to be unproductive sometimes."

He has been influenced by Oliver Burkeman’s piece in the Guardian about the extent to which busyness is good. Oliver quotes economist Todd Buchholz: "What you really want is to chase your tail, even if you never catch it". His view is that alternative theory: that calm is the enemy of happiness, and that it's busyness on which we thrive. Railing at the calm advocates he calls "Edenists", he proposes that striving keeps us neurologically fit: "The people who sit back and relax… those are the people who become truly miserable." Research, he notes, suggests that retirement prompts a reduction in cognitive abilities. "What you really want," he insists, "is to chase your tail, even if you never catch it."

He quotes the physicist Richard Feynman who experienced the logical consequence of the dominance of productivity over all other concerns. Feynman found he didn’t envy the geniuses at Princeton who occupied a clutter-free environment where they were allowed to think without interruption: "These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves. So they don’t get any ideas for a while… a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you… and nothing happens."

But it seems to me that the choice is not between mindless busyness and tranquil edium – but rather about the extent to which we can focus and concentrate. It’s a process that is central to my new book The Shift: How The Future of Work is Already Here – the idea that what’s really crucial is that we are prepared to concentrate, focus and, from this, to master something – that could be a skill, a knowledge area, an understanding of a particular network. It’s this focus and concentration that will be increasingly crucial for the future. Focus does not need tranquility – but it does need long periods of undisturbed time – when concentration is possible. What is tough about busyness is not that it stops tranquility – but rather that it fragments work into such tiny slithers that the concentration needed to learn something deeply is gone. 

My guess is that Richard Feynman was wrong about the geniuses at Princeton when he saw "those poor bastards" sitting on their own. What they were actually experiencing was the marvelous luxury of undisturbed time, unbroken into fragments, providing them with an opportunity to develop deep mastery.

Busyness is fine - it’s the three-minute fragments that so often comes with busyness that is the curse of modern work.

When Generations Fight

I have a fascinating insight into the future of work through the 45 corporations across the world we are studying as part of the Future of Work Research Consortium. Last month we asked 2,500 executives from these companies to rate the areas they believed would  be critical for the future, together with the extent to which they believed their company was currently competent. We gave them a list of 20 areas that an earlier study had shown would be important for the future. This list included for example ecosystems, open innovation, flexible working and networked leaders.

What was extraordinary is that almost a quarter rated ‘intergenerational cohesion’ as the most significant risk their company faced, and many more rated it as one of the top three risks. This was not an isolated area of risk, but rather was seen to be a risk by executives in both West and Asia companies, and indeed across all industrial sectors. Their concern was that the potential differences and conflicts between the generations could lead to poor cooperation and knowledge sharing, but might also flare into more open sources of conflict and dissatisfaction.

Five Unique Generations at Work. 

The potential opportunities and conflicts that are arising between generations are a recent phenomena and are a factor of both demographic changes (particularly around reducing birthrates and enhanced longevity) and accelerating technological and societal trends (particularly around the use of social media and family experiences). Over the next two decades, many companies will have potentially five distinct generations in the workforce: The Traditionalists (born around 1928 to 1945); the Baby Boomers (born around 1945 to 1964); Generation X (born around 1965 to 1979); Gen Y (born around 1980 to 1995); and Gen Z (born after 1995).

Generations fight for a number of reason. They don’t understand each other, they have differential access to resources and power, their working style and use of technology is in conflict, or they are not really sharing knowledge and experience with each other.

Of course generational conflict could also be great – really create innovation, remove some old style thinking, bring creative tension. However, if companies are to move to creative rather than destructive tension, it seems to me they have to ask themselves three key questions:

1. Does technology favour one generation? The generations communicate with each other differently and one potential source of tension is that corporate communication typically favours the Baby Boomers’ preferred mode of communication rather than the younger generations. Typically, Gen Z and Y use social media such as MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Ning to access information instantly, to multi-task, and to build valuable networks and stay connected; typically Gen X use portals; whilst Baby Boomers are most comfortable with e-mail as their primary technological communication tool. Yet many companies have banned Facebook and social media, which is the lifeblood for the youngest generations and by doing so have inadvertently favoured one generation over another.  

2. Has flexibility become embedded? Each generation would value greater flexibility. Gen Y would like greater work/life balance in jobs that can be overwhelming; younger Gen X’s would like maternity and paternity leave and time off to spend with their young children, the possibilities of sabbaticals, and to temporarily step away from frontline into less demanding roles, and older Gen X’s can find themselves with ageing parents who need care; whilst Baby Boomers would like sabbatical breaks and the opportunities to work more flexibly nearer the time of their retirement through part-time and reduced hours. What is clear is that the inflexibility of work will create ever greater conflict across the generations as those that need it most (typically Gen X) are denied it. There are many reasons why the rhetoric of organizational flexibility has rarely been delivered in practice: a focus on being present rather than making results, few if any senior role models prepared to work flexibly, and under- designed and over complicated jobs. But if generations are to work together, flexibility has to be a reality.

3. Is cross-generational mentoring taking place?  There are important exchanges to be made between generations; Gen Y in particular are keen to build strong functional skills and industry knowledge and insights that those more experienced can help develop and yearn for feedback; whilst Baby Boomers want to develop their expertise in the use of social media and newly developed technology. These can be crucial issues as Baby Boomer retire taking with them valuable knowledge, insights and connections. However, too often mentoring does not take place because executives are too busy, too stressed and feel overwhelmed and under skilled. Yet the generations have so much to teach each other if only the time and resources could be focused on this.

It seems to me that the creative tensions between the generations can be a real source of innovation and excitement. Have you experienced tensions between generations – and what do you think can be done to ensure these tensions are creative rather than destructive?

 

 

 

What do Peter Drucker and the Japanese have in common?

A marvellous couple of days in Vienna this week – at the annual Peter Drucker conference. With speakers and participants from around the world, it was as sparkling an event as the Christmas markets that filled Vienna’s beautiful squares. The idea was to think about the impact Drucker’s idea would have on the way that work developed.
However, whilst the surrounding may have been sparkling – many of the speakers gave sobering accounts of the future. In particular the German and Austrian economists talked of a situation they found of deep concern.
That’s a clue by the way to the puzzle of what the Japanese and Peter Drucker have in common. Both live to a ripe old age.  Drucker passed away in Claremont California at the age of 95 – a decade older than the average Japanese women (86) and Japanese man (80). What happens when citizens across the world live as long as Peter Drucker?
For the European economists at the conference, the most pressing concern they spoke of was Europe’s ageing population. They saw this as creating huge challenges to the vitality of the developed countries of the world – but also perhaps some opportunities to live more closely by the standards that Drucker spoke of.
I was reminded of this when I read the excellent piece in this week’s Economist about Japan’s shrinking population and plummeting fertility. Like much of Europe, the implications are bleak – ever greater strain on pension costs and public finances (In Japan social security benefits were 12% of GDP in 1990, by 2000 they were 20% and forecast to grow to 35% by 2025); a bulging middle –management class; and a seniority pay system that puts huge strain on business costs, leaving less money to provide younger people with training or good jobs
Looking to the future, if we are to ease the strain, then countries (and companies) need a ‘grand plan’ for an ageing population which transforms the threats into opportunities. This ‘grand plan’ could well have elements of which Peter Drucker would be proud. Here are the five ways to ease the strain of a world full of the over 60’s

• First, use all the energy in the labour force -that means for example, creating a working culture in which women can flourish and assume greater responsibilities.
• And be prepared to employ more immigrants- that has implications on the acceptance and integration of different nationalities.
• Next, encourage older people to stay in and to join the labour force - that will mean scrapping the seniority- based pay system and the mandatory retirement ages. 
• Then look outside the country to attract talent - the percentage of overseas students is a good measure of this , at present the educational talent magnets are Australia (29% of students are from overseas); 16% in Britain; and 13% in America. 
• Look to companies to boost productivity and promote a more vibrant economy - many countries have in the past experienced massive technologically fuelled boosts, but this has often levelled off. The next boost in productivity will come from democratic lead management practices and cultures of innovation.
• Finally, create opportunities for young people to follow their instincts and create entrepreneurial teams both within and outside of companies.

We certainly saw some of this vitality at the Drucker conference. The ten young people who had won the  Drucker essay awards had come from all over the world to receive their awards. They told us oldies how Drucker had inspired them. Rousing stuff- and even the ageing European economists had something to smile about. Perhaps it’s not as bad as we thought…what do you think?