About Content in Context

Content in Context helps companies to define the market for their products and services, to identify customers and build the business pipeline, and to develop their content marketing strategies. By working with our clients to design, build and grow their business, our primary focus is to extract commercial value from unique assets, including knowledge, data, know-how, processes and transactional information.

How to spend $60m on #Innovation and #Entrepreneurship for #Startups

Posted on June 9, 2015 by Content in Context

In the recent Victorian State Budget, the government allocated $60m over 4 years to supporting startups, via innovation and entrepreneurship. While not an insignificant sum, it’s still not a huge amount in the overall scheme of things. Having made the announcement, the government hurriedly undertook some rapid community and stakeholder consultation, to figure out how to spend the money. I was fortunate enough to be invited to one of the consultation exercises, a half-day “lightning conference“ organised by Dandalo Partners, facilitated by Collabforge, and hosted by Teamsquare co-working space.

The theme of the Lightning Conference was #StartUpFuture

At the outset, there was an assumption that whatever recommendations came out of the consultation process, a new quango would be formed to oversee the implementation of the program and distribution of the funding. I don’t think I was alone when I expressed my concern that this was rather like putting the cart before the horse – the implication being, “Why seek our opinion, views and recommendations if you’ve already decided the solution?”

To their credit, the organisers took this on board – for example, rather than creating yet another entity, maybe the funding could be facilitated by an existing body such as Startup Victoria – but it felt that the consultation exercise was at risk of “going through the motions”.

Across the various topics that were discussed in the self-forming and self-directed breakout sessions, there were probably 5 key themes:

Community
Infrastructure
Funding
Sustainability and
“Picking Winners”.

Here are the main points from each of those themes:

1. Community

There was general agreement that the local startup and entrepreneurial community is well-established, reasonably well-connected (I myself knew about 10% of the participants from various networks) and growing fast.

However, there was also a common view that more could be done to bring entrepreneurs and like-minded people together. For example, how do people know what ideas or projects everyone is working on, how can people find help or make offers of help in terms of matching skills, experience, knowledge, resources? How do we connect suppliers and investors to startups?

Sure, there are numerous meetups and regular startup events, but is there a better way to leverage this potential? And there are various matching services linking entrepreneurs to mentors, but they are rather ad hoc, and in the case of connecting startups and investors, there are probably more challenges than there are opportunities (see Funding, below).

In short, how can the community come together in a more collaborative way?

2. Infrastructure

It’s quite easy to see that Victoria (mainly Melbourne) has a vibrant startup ecosystem, simply based on the number and frequency of meetup events, founder workshops and hackathons. But there still appear to be numerous obstacles to getting started – from establishment costs and bureaucratic red tape, to tax impediments and access to funding.

Some of these challenges are being addressed at Federal level (e.g., streamlining the company registration process, tax cuts for SMEs, and changes to both equity crowdfunding and employee share schemes). But that’s part of the challenge in itself – at the individual State level, there is relatively little that can be done on fiscal policy (apart from payroll tax and land tax), and all reforms relating to securities financing need Federal legislation and the involvement of market regulators.

The State government has more autonomy around local industry policy settings and planning, as well as making funding available via grants. This means, though, that government is forced to prioritize one sector over another (see “Picking Winners”, below), and a system of grants often results in a mini-industry that is created around grant applications, awards and distribution.

At a practical level, some participants took the view that more could be done to facilitate early stage startups and product prototyping – such as a continuous education and open-enrollment program for entrepreneurs, and co-working spaces for small-scale manufacturing, materials-testing, and engineering. (I am aware of at least a couple of local projects in this space – a biotech co-working lab and an “Internet of Things” open access workshop).

If the State government is looking to plug a gap, investing in R&D facilities might be one option.

3. Funding

This remains the biggie – and a topic previously covered both in this blog, and via numerous commentators and advisers. Even though there are many local pitch competitions, incubators and accelerator programs (plus Shark Tank and That Startup Show make for interesting/amusing viewing…) the elephant in the room is that there are too many startups chasing too few investors.

Competition for resources is positive, as long as it’s an efficient, transparent and accessible market, where the laws of supply and demand are equitable and the rules of engagement are clearly understood.

One industry veteran noted that the local investor community can normally provide small-scale startup funding up to $5m (via “family, friends and fools” and angel backers), and even larger, early-stage equity funding over $50m (via Venture Capital, Private Equity and Family Offices). But in the $5m-$50m range there are far fewer options.

Leaving aside the pros and cons of traditional secured and unsecured bank lending and emerging P2P lending platforms, there is a funding gap that could be filled via Australia’s superannuation scheme:

First, we need to find ways to get large retail and industry super funds along with other institutional investors to invest directly in local startups. At present, thanks to the Silicon Valley effect, these instos are more comfortable handing their money to US-based fund managers who then charge a premium to invest the assets in local startups. (I call this a very expensive boomerang….)
Second, in the absence of suitable investments for retail investors who may want to allocate part of their portfolio to startup opportunities, part of their superannuation assets could be used to invest in early-stage startups via a form of savings products or fixed income bonds. The retail bond market (such as it is) is heavily skewed towards sovereign debt (treasury bonds) and bonds issued by financial institutions (often in the form of hybrid securities, which are essentially a form of deferred equity). There have been attempts (and even regulatory reforms) to encourage the development of a deeper retail bond market in Australia, but these efforts appear to have stalled.

An enlightened approach to asset allocation could direct even a very small part of the $1.8tn superannation savings into startups that could have significant outcomes. If SMEs are seen as the backbone of future economic activity and jobs (as well as innovation and entrepreneurship), helping to accelerate startup growth will deliver multiple long-term dividends.

4. Sustainability

This wasn’t a huge topic of discussion, but it deserves an honourable mention because it surfaced in several ways:

Economic (e.g., making better use of available resources, not funding startups that go nowhere etc.)
Social impact (e.g., the growth of social enterprises)
Environmental (e.g., the conscious capitalism movement and the importance of “for purpose” enterprises such as B-Corps that want to minimize their environmental footprint)
Government (e.g., how to foster startups that want to help deliver better public services, and how to change public sector procurement policies that give startups more of a look-in)

There is also a need to reflect the changing demographics of the workplace, so that sustainable employment opportunities (in whatever form they exist) are made available to both mature-age workers and new school leavers.

So perhaps part of the $60m could be put towards (re)training initiatives.

5. “Picking Winners”

First up, let me say I always get nervous when we put our elected representatives in charge of deciding the fate of specific industries, especially when it’s taxpayers’ money at risk. Call me a cynic, but I’m not sure that picking winners is the government’s forte. I understand the need to support certain sectors that contribute to GDP growth, create employment opportunities, generate taxable revenue, instil industry innovation and develop cutting-edge technology – but the example of the domestic automotive industry is one where political ideology probably got the better of sound economics, as public subsidies eventually came to look like throwing good money after bad.

If nothing else, picking or backing winners is fraught with problems of favouritism, lobbying, murky back room deals and “jobs for the boys”. Better to create the foundations upon which broader innovation and entrepreneurship can thrive, and let the market decide. That way, the government can still claim the credit, and frame the conversation around its role as an enabler.

On the day, the discussion was more about the long lead time before anyone would know whether the program had been successful (assuming we can agree on what success should look like). In reality, re-tooling innovation and entrepreneurship is a 10-year initiative (which is difficult to manage in the face of short-term policy settings linked to 3 and 4-year election cycles).

Should we teach entrepreneurship and innovation in schools (alongside coding and STEM subjects)?
Should government use local plebiscites to determine where/when/how the funding should be allocated?
Should we use the money to directly fund startup founders (rather like the UK’s enterprise allowance scheme in the 1980s)?

There was also a suggestion that the money could be used to promote local startup success stories, in order to foster an understanding of truly viable startups, to identify and fast-track high-potential entrepreneurs, as well as define what is takes (time, money, resources, networking and connections) to build scalable and sustainable startup businesses (i.e., companies generating $250m+ in revenue, not lifestyle ventures or small family owned concerns).

If we do need to pick winners, perhaps we can easily agree which ones they are based on current trends, future needs and demographic demands:

Health, biotech and medtech
Fintech and big data analytics
Education and lifelong learning
Renewables and green technologies
High-tech engineering and manufacturing

In which case, we should simply help the State government prepare an investor profile, set an optimum portfolio performance target (based on financial returns, innovation scores and a mix of social and environmental outcomes) and give the $60m to a skilled fund manager.

FOOTNOTE:

For further ideas, please see 10 Random Ideas…

POSTSCRIPT:

A couple of further contributions to the innovation debate from AVCAL around tax reform, and from OneVentures around superannuation allocation.

Next week: Medtech’s Got Talent

How to survive as #Digital Adaptors

Posted on June 2, 2015 by Content in Context

Marc Prensky coined the phrase “Digital Natives” back in 2001. At the time, it seemed like a reasonable way to explain the gap between those who have grown up “speaking” digital, and those who have had to learn to it as a second language, and in the specific context of Prensky’s thesis, those who have to teach digital. But is the label still meaningful or helpful? Has it been reduced to a marketing tag?

Source: Charlotta Wasteson (Creative Common - some rights reserved)

Source: Charlotta Wasteson (Creative Commons – some rights reserved)

Bridging the Digital Divide

Since its inception, the term “Digital Native” has since been used to describe a key characteristic of Gen Z (otherwise known as “Generation I” or even “I-Gen”), those born since the early 1990s and who have only ever known smart phones, tablets, social media, digital music, video streaming, online search, instant chat and photo sharing.

But a generation later, I think the tag is increasingly redundant – it’s less about learning the “language of digital”, and more about engaging with the digital evolution: those who are the best “Digital Adaptors” will find it easiest to cope and survive in a constantly disruptive and disrupted world.

The key to being Digitally Adaptive is learning how to make the best use of the available technology, apps and social trends so that they work for you, and not against you. For anyone who says they have missed the digital boat, I would simply refer them to people like my parents’ generation (active retirees in their 80’s) who have had to learn to use tools such as Skype and Facebook long after their retirement.

Digital Can Be Learned

I recently asked a client of mine, a Gen Y entrepreneur, what the term “Digital Native” meant to him: “Someone born in the 1990s, who has used digital technology from early childhood.”

He did not think the description applied to him, even though there had been computers at home when he was growing up, because he had not used computers in school from day one, and because he had not really learned how to code. (In fact, given the choice, he would have probably learned computer programming instead of a mandatory foreign language.)

This is someone who prefers to use Facebook Messaging instead of e-mail or even SMS, and who is never without a smart phone and/or laptop, and works in an industry where digital technology has caused considerable disruption to the old business models, while introducing many new opportunities. So, even though he is not a “Digital Native”, he has learned to adapt and can navigate his way through the landscape.

Another acquaintance (Gen X entrepreneur) was far more bullish on digital evolution: “The only human skills required in the future that cannot be digitized or computerised are creativity and critical thinking. We won’t need to communicate via written words and numbers because machine learning will adapt to our requirements, anticipate our needs and do the calculations for us.”

His business is now part of the shared economy (one of the many “dialects” that digital natives speak) so he, too has learned to adapt.

However, the more significant developments are among baby-boomers. These are experienced entrepreneurs, business people and professionals who have embraced digital as part of their continuing personal development, and then applied the learning to create new products, services and business models that harness the power of digital. OK, so they may not be fluent in Emoji, and might not know what the coolest trending #hashtags are, but they have seen the possibilities presented by digital, and are embedding them in the way they innovate, create and manage new opportunities.

The Natives Are Restless

There have been many recent studies about the impact of “digital” on our lives – whether it is the paradox of multitasking, our shortening attention spans, the need to be constantly plugged in (and the fear of missing out…) and the gulf between our virtual and real lives.

I think the common theme is that digital has not necessarily made us smarter or cleverer – even though we have access to infinite information and a smart phone can do in seconds what might have taken several hours on a mainframe computer. Instead, digital natives (and those who have become “naturalised”, to stretch Presnky’s metaphor) are increasingly impatient, don’t appreciate that some things still take time, and are yet to realise that instant gratification not only makes us lazy but dulls our appreciation for new experiences.

Moreover, without an understanding or curiosity for how things really work (the UI/UX is all you need to know…), digital has not really empowered us to think for ourselves, nor explore the depths of what the technology might be able to do for us. Instead, we are reduced to the shallows of “Likes”, “Follows”, “Shares” and “Retweets” in the hope/expectation that someone will reciprocate. For example, I recently heard of a new business that writes on-line dating profiles for their clients. While outsourcing such tasks may be efficient for time-poor digital citizens, it suggests we are only prepared to engage in the process at a superficial level, and in doing so we risk making ourselves more digitally dependant.

This digital monomania afflicts young and old alike – witness senior citizens getting hooked on social media – and can become self-limiting, because our interactions with a touch screen and our on-line/virtual relationships are seen as ends in themselves.

Digital Survival Kit

In my own case, I would not be classified as a digital native – we certainly didn’t have computers at my school (the most high-tech we got was a language lab with reel-to-reel tape decks, cathode ray oscilloscopes in the science class, and photo screen printing in the art room). And the only coding I learned was BASIC, with the aid of a Sinclair ZX81 home computer.

Home computing circa 1980

But at every stage of my career, I have had to keep up with (and in some cases, be an early adopter of) digital technologies, mostly through being self-taught and by learning from experience, as well as maintaining a natural curiosity whenever something new comes along. I would not describe myself as a technologist, but more like a tourist, who tries to learn a few words and phrases before they travel abroad.

In order to survive the digital deluge, here are a few things I do to keep abreast of current developments:

Beta test new apps – developers are usually looking for beta testers, and it’s a great way to get access to stuff before anyone else, and often for free. I also attend product launches and workshops where developers and product managers can showcase what they are working on.
Blogging etc. – apart from this weekly blog, and in addition to my social media accounts and social networking tools, I also maintain a Bandcamp account and SoundCloud page, where I upload my own compositions (many of which are created with iOS apps)
Meet-ups – I attend numerous meet-ups for startups, technology, entrepreneurship and innovation, to network, to learn about new ideas and to watch pitches in action (e.g., events organised and promoted by Startup Victoria)
On-line “How To” courses – YouTube and user forums are useful sources of instructional guides on how to use new apps, software and hardware (especially music, video and graphic design tools). For more in-depth content, I sometimes dip into on-line libraries from General Assembly and SitePoint
Hackathons – In recent months I participated in a FinTech weekend hackathon, and took part in a MedTech startup competition. They took me out of my comfort zone, exposed me to new ideas, introduced me to some brilliant people and provided insights on alternative perspectives which I might not otherwise have considered
Newsletters – There’s loads of stuff out there, but a few industry newsletters worth scanning on a regular basis are Beta.List, Gizmag and Mantra – but no doubt you will find similar publications that serve your needs. And using aggregation tools and curation apps can help you to manage the information flow
Personal development – underpinning this digital immersion (and this may sound counter-intuitive!) I participate in alternative real-world education and training communities such as the Slow School of Business. This helps to keep me grounded (theory is great, but what practical things can we do?) and also provides some context for how the digital “learning” can be applied to collaboration, co-creation and community projects.

Don’t be a Digital Dropout

I’m not saying that all things digital are wonderful – and certainly, there is much that is unhealthy in the way digital impinges on our ability to think for ourselves – but it doesn’t pay to ignore it completely. By all means, ration your use of digital tools and devices, schedule time when you go totally off-line, and learn to switch from doing task-oriented activities to purely creative or abstract “play” alongside your digital engagement. Above all, find a way to embrace digital that works for you, establish a “digital persona” that you are comfortable with, get advice from people you trust, and perhaps like a tourist, learn to blend in….

Next week: Victorian Government’s plan for Innovation & Entrepreneurship

How to work with #Boards

Posted on May 26, 2015 by Content in Context

At some point in your career, you will find yourself working with Boards. In particular, if you are appointed to a CEO role, or if you are part of an executive team, there is an expectation or requirement that you will attend regular Board meetings, and you will need to develop the necessary skills and expertise to navigate the process.

Board meetings don’t have to be as daunting as this… (The SPECTRE hierarchy as portrayed in “Thunderball”)

The following comments were crowdsourced from a group of senior executives and non-executive directors who were asked to share their views on how someone in a senior management role should prepare prior to presenting at a Board meeting – in particular, where there may have been a change of Chairman, a new CEO or new appointments to the Board. It’s designed to be part “how to” guide, part coaching tool, and part insight drawn from actual experience – and in some cases, the comments answer the question “what I wish I’d known before I stepped into the Board meeting…”.

The comments have been divided into three sections:

Governance
Relationship between the Chairman and CEO
Presenting to Boards

1. Governance

How are Board meetings run?

1) From experience, working with a Board really depends on how the Chairman likes to run things. The Chairman is usually assisted by the Company Secretary (or a Secretariat), or other legal officer of the organisation, who may also form part of the senior management team.

2) The Secretary is responsible for making sure everything runs smoothly for the Board members. In addition to supporting the Chairman, the Secretary schedules the Board meeting, circulates the relevant notices and papers in advance, prepares the meeting agenda, and records the minutes. (In some organisations the CEO will be as involved in preparing for a Board meeting as the Secretary.) The Secretary will also assist the Chairman in ensuring the meeting is conducted in an orderly fashion, and in accordance with the company constitution and any other rules governing meetings.

3) If you have been asked to attend a Board meeting to report on an important project or to present a new initiative, it should be noted in the agenda. Depending upon protocol, you may only be invited into the room at the designated point in the agenda. You may find that you don’t have a vote at the meeting (and in general, your voice should only be heard when your contribution is actively invited!) and you may be asked to leave again before a formal vote is taken.

4) A good Chairman will invite comments from all attendees at the Board meeting, especially where external or specific expertise is being sought. Although other Board members will want to ask questions of senior managers and anyone else presenting, it will depend on etiquette, and they may need to direct these questions via the Chairman.

Board Induction

5) The CEO and the executive team can help the Chairman in the induction of new Board members, something that the Secretary should be able to facilitate. For new Directors, it may not be easy to understand the organisation, or what is expected of them, or what their contribution should be.

6) The transition will be harder for Board members coming from the private sector into the government sector, or vice versa. A Board Induction Manual is an invaluable tool for a new Board member to familiarise themselves with the organisation. The CEO should also ask their managers to stand in the Directors’ shoes for a minute to work out what the new Board member may need (and not assume they already have everything they require.)

7) If a relationship can be built through the induction process, then it should be easier to understand where new Board members are coming from, identify their key areas of knowledge or expertise, know what their risk appetite is and anticipate where their interests will lie.

Board Renewal – managing change

8) Most Board members are elected or appointed for fixed terms, ensuring that there is a renewal process. In some cases, there will be a full spill, and the formation of a totally new Board.

9) One of the understandable traps that the CEO and management team may fall into is assuming they have to maintain the status quo – which may or may not meet the needs and expectations of the new Chairman and a new or significantly changed Board.

10) In those circumstances, the CEO and Chairman should sit down in advance and set out their respective expectations/needs/preferences, including an early feedback process soon after the first few meetings to get things off to a firm footing and to avoid any festering dissatisfaction.

2. The relationship between Chairman and CEO

Boards vs Management

11) The pivotal connection between a Board and the Management team is the relationship between the Chairman and CEO. There has to be a level of trust, rapport and mutual respect, otherwise the organisation risks being dysfunctional.

12) A common view is that Boards are expected to be “eyes on, hands off” – that is, they are there to view what is going on, but not to get involved with operational matters which are the responsibility of Management.

13) Equally, the Board is responsible for setting and directing the overall strategy, and holding the CEO and executive team accountable for achieving the agreed objectives.

Who can help you?

14) The CEO has a key role in facilitating the interaction between the Board and senior managers. If you don’t have direct access to the CEO in advance, then find out if your own manager or another member of the senior executive team can help forge an introduction. While the term “patronage” might seem outdated, your attendance at and participation in the Board meeting will usually depend on someone advocating on your behalf, or lobbying for you to be there in person.

15) If managers are attending a Board meeting to present or speak on a particular topic, then this should be noted in the agenda or notice of meeting. The CEO will also need to work with managers to ensure they are prepared and “worded up” on what they will be presenting. Getting the balance right between reporting facts, offering opinions, making a recommendation or seeking a decision is important, especially on a packed agenda!

16) As mentioned above, the role of Secretary is also very important in getting people prepared to engage with the Board – not just deciding the agenda but also briefing presenters on what to expect, and ensuring papers are not too long, cover the issues and have clear recommendations for a decision.

17) The Secretary also wields considerable influence as they get to minute the decision (which is not always as clear as it should be). Managers who are not Board members should receive a copy of the relevant minutes of any meeting they have attended.

Lobbying and briefings in advance

18) For some big issues you may be asked to present on, briefing and lobbying often happens outside of the Board meeting. You shouldn’t assume that a Board will make a good decision when all they get is a Board paper and a few days’ notice – especially around complex issues. Offering advance briefings to Board members (especially new directors) can help them get up to speed on major issues.

19) Even though your item is on the agenda, you should assume that the meeting will not have sufficient time to allow a full presentation or discussion of the issues. Hence the importance of advance briefings, especially where you are seeking a decision based on your recommendation.

3. Presenting to the Board

Why are you there?

20) Maybe you’ve been asked to make a presentation on a new strategic initiative, or to provide an update on a major project. Or perhaps it’s part of a regular program where managers and team leaders get to interact with the Board members. Whatever the case, you should establish in advance why you have been invited to attend, as this will frame the context for your contribution to the meeting.

Preparation, Preparation, Preparation

21) As with any presentation or public speaking, be comfortable with your material and try to know your audience in advance. Find out who will be attending, and if possible, identify if they have previously expressed any views on the topic under discussion. Equally, Board members should be provided with a brief bio of new managers presenting at the meeting, especially if it’s their first time to attend.

22) If you have also had an opportunity to provide Board members with an advance briefing, the preparation will help you to focus on the important and critical information, so you can establish the level of knowledge in the room and make sure the discussion does not waste valuable time going over the known facts or revisiting agreed positions.

23) While your expertise will be sought, more importantly, if you are seeking a decision of the Board, it is essential to be clear about the decision relates to, and you should offer a specific recommendation or preferred course of action.

Protocols and Etiquette

24) As mentioned above, Board meetings will be conducted in accordance with the constitution or other rules of the organisation. Meetings will also follow the Chairman’s preferences, with the support of the Company Secretary.

25) There are some basic “Do’s and Don’ts” you should consider, especially if you are attending or presenting for the first time:

Board members are not your friend – they have a governance role to perform
The CEO owns the relationship with the Board, and must know and in most cases approve all interactions between Board members and managers (as a manager, you should notify the CEO of any unsolicited approaches you receive from Directors, or in exceptional circumstances, you should notify the Chairman)
In the meeting, the Chairman of the Board (or Sub-committee meeting) is usually addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair (but check with the CEO or Company Secretary in advance!)
Boards require a structured agenda, well-thought out papers, clear recommendations, proper minutes and agreed actions or decisions (make sure you are clear about what you are asking for)
Board meetings are formal affairs, and while social banter is fine before and after the meeting, keep it business-like during the meeting itself

26) The Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Governance Institute of Australia, other professional bodies as well as NFP organisations (e.g., Leadership Victoria) often run courses and publish articles on these topics.

Learning experience

27) Whether you are General Manager reporting to a Committee of Management or a team leader presenting to senior executives, these comments should provide are some useful ground rules for how to prepare, what to expect, and how to conduct yourself at those meetings. In any event, the experience should be seen as a learning opportunity, and a chance to gain some professional exposure – but it’s not a license to show-off or grandstand!

Note:

This article incorporates comments from my former colleagues Fabienne Michaux, Marianne Matin, Louise Griffiths and Carol Benson, who were each contributing in a personal capacity.

Next week: Digital Adaptors

The changing economic relationship of #work

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Content in Context

Whether or not we are comfortable with the notion, the work we do can come to define us. In some societies, family names are derived from our forebears’ occupations or professions (Butcher, Baker, Smith, Cartwright, etc.). The rapid shift to the knowledge economy is challenging our traditional economic relationship with work, and what it means to be an employer or employee. For example, the idea of a “job for life” within the same industry, let alone the same company, is no longer the norm.

Workers leave Waterhouse Mill, Bollington, Cheshire, UK (1959)

“Welcome to the working week”

This past week I have been listening to the latest thinking on the nature of “work”, from the perspective of technology and its impact on task-based activity (courtesy of Donald Farmer from Qlik), and from the perspective of organizational culture and its importance in motivating knowledge workers (courtesy of Didier Elzinga of Culture Amp). If you are not familiar with either of these thought leaders, than I thoroughly recommend them to anyone interested in organisational behaviour, career development, business transformation and lifelong learning.

Technology and changing demographics require each of us to reframe our ideas about work as a homogenous lifelong activity, because the economic bargain between employer and employee is no longer as simple as a 40 hour working week and a regular paycheck.

Reframing “employment” #1:

By 2020, average job tenure will be 3 years, and around one-third of the workforce will be employed on a casual basis (part-time, temporary, contractor, freelance etc.). The proliferation of services such as Freelancer, O-desk/Elance, Sidekicker, 99designs, Envato and Fiverr are evidence of this shift from employee to supplier.

“The Dignity of Labour, Pts. 1-4”

Around 200 years ago, at the height of the Industrial Revolution in England, the typical worker was employed in a factory or mill, lived in housing owned by the employer, and was paid some or all of his wages in the form of vouchers that could only be spent in shops also owned by the employer. A hundred years later, my grandparent’s generation were still exposed to the practices of indentured labour (“master and servant”) or the idea of “going into service” (as domestic workers). My father’s generation is certainly the last in my family to have had a 30-year salaried career within the same organisation.

So, in just a few generations we have transitioned from the idea that employment provides for all our needs, to the increasingly common perception that every worker is in fact a micro-business, supplying their labour to multiple employers or clients via fee-based services. (The potential irony here is that in a world of freelancers and contractors, the time-based or task-linked approach to employment pricing starts to resemble Marx’s idea of the labour theory of value…..).

“Cottage Industry”

It’s also interesting to note that before workers were employed in factories, and as agrarian labourers transitioned from toiling in the fields to working in manufacturing production, they were hired on piece-rates, working from home in the form of (literally) cottage industries. Of course, this was not exactly self-employment, as their tools (looms and lathes) were probably provided by their “client” who also set the prices (for raw materials and finished goods), had exclusive rights over the finished goods, and determined the number of units required. But, within the constraints of meeting target numbers and societal norms such as Sunday observance and customary holidays, these labourers were “free” to work for as many hours as they wanted, and at times that suited them. So, like many contemporary issues we still seem to be struggling with, flexible working arrangements are nothing new….

“Work is a four-letter-word”

Aside from connecting with your purpose, understanding your personal value proposition and knowing what you are “worth” in the market, one of the biggest challenges I see for employees/workers is the paradox between shorter careers (witness the increasing unemployment rates among older workers) and longer working lives.

Thanks to medical advances, we are living longer, but there is a mismatch between workforce participation rates and increased welfare and social security costs, leading to continuous policy tinkering on pensions, tax and superannuation.

As individuals, we need to build up sufficient financial assets to sustain us both post-retirement, and during erratic periods of personal income. As “free agents”, we have to learn to live with:

increasing job insecurity (companies continuously de-layering and restructuring)
significantly different career paths (compared to personal aspiration/expectation)
rapidly changing working environments (hot-desking, co-working spaces)
greater self-reliance (“bring your own device”) and
heightened resilience (“shape up or ship out”)

“Opportunity”

The good news is that the model of portfolio, portmanteau and protean careers means that new jobs and new forms of working are emerging all the time – and with personal resilience etc., come flexibility, adaptability, knowledge sharing, skills transfer and new opportunities for personal development, along with self-defined roles, self-directed learning, self-managed performance and self-determined accountability.

We are no longer defined just by what we do, but how/where/why/when we do it.

Reframing “employment” #2:

A friend recently asked me for some advice on how to transition from “employment” to “self-employment”. She has regular part-time work with one organisation (which she views as employment), but wants to find more of her “own work” with other clients. She does not want to give up the part-time gig just yet, but feels that it is preventing her from growing her own business. So I suggested that she should see herself as being self-employed already, and that the part-time work is her first client, allowing her to build a portfolio of new business.

“Earn enough for us”

What does this brave new world of work mean for employers – in particular, what is the new economic bargain organisations need to have with their workers?

If companies are no longer willing/able to offer long-term, permanent employment opportunities, how do they manage their labour requirements, attract and retain the best talent (when they need it), and engage highly motivated and skilled people?

First and foremost, the idea of workplace flexibility has to be truly reciprocal – but obviously aligned and clearly articulated – to be of any real benefit to both parties.

Second, if employers are increasingly reliant on freelance resources, this does not obviate their obligations to invest in their workforce – whether that includes benefits, training or rewards and recognition – the same as they would have in their employees.

Third, companies will need to do an even better job of attracting and retaining the skills and knowledge they require – and be willing to offer different kinds of incentives (e.g., opportunities to work on engaging projects and to collaborate with interesting people) beyond basic pay and conditions.

Fourth, employers may have to adjust to the idea of “syndicating” their talent resources (“it’s the shared economy, stupid”) not just within their own workplaces, but across their client organisations, suppliers, service providers and other collaborators – sometimes, even their competitors. Employers can no longer expect to have a total monopoly on their workforce talents, unless they make it really interesting, financially or otherwise…

Fifth, if companies continue to espouse the message that “our people are our best asset” then they need to update their asset management model to demonstrate they mean what they say. For example, more needs to be done in helping employees to retrain and up-skill (for jobs and roles that haven’t yet been thought of), even if that may mean employees are more likely to move on. The amount of goodwill that this will create in the wider community cannot be underestimated.

Reframing “employment” #3:

Employers and HR managers are re-assessing how they evaluate employee contribution. It’s not simply a matter of how “hard” you work (e.g., the hours you put in, or the sales you make). Companies want to know what else you can do for them, how you collaborate, do you know how to ask for help, and are you willing to bring what you know to the role?

Finally, rather like their employees, employers are increasingly expected to connect with their purpose and to align their values with their objectives. New entrants to the workplace are better informed about the organisations they work for and want to work for, because free agents know they have a choice.

Next week: How to work with Boards

Content in Context

Exploring the information age…

Author Archives: Content in Context