Who is worth $40 an hour?

Two interesting news items caught my eye this week, and somehow they seem to be related:

In  The New Untouchables (New York Times, October 20, 2009), Tom Friedman writes:

This problem [American's debt and the jobless economic recovery] will be reversed only when the decline in worker competitiveness reverses — when we create enough new jobs and educated workers that are worth, say, $40-an-hour compared with the global alternatives. If we don’t, there’s no telling how “jobless” this recovery will be.

A Washington lawyer friend recently told me about layoffs at his firm. I asked him who was getting axed. He said it was interesting: lawyers who were used to just showing up and having work handed to them were the first to go because with the bursting of the credit bubble, that flow of work just isn’t there. But those who have the ability to imagine new services, new opportunities and new ways to recruit work were being retained. They are the new untouchables.

In Younger workers want more than a paycheck. Minneapolis Star Tribune, October 21, 2009, Jackie Crosby writes:

They want to work when it's convenient to their lives -- not punch in at some 9-to-5 job and be stuck sitting in a cubicle. They relish a challenge more than a paycheck, and resent it when bosses look over their shoulders or fail to reward them for a job well done.

For this, the 120 million members of Generations X and Y have been called self-centered, spoiled, slackers and lacking in motivation. But in the coming decade, 40 percent of America's baby boom workforce will be eligible for retirement. And ready or not, employers are going to have to reckon with the workplace desires of the next generation of workers -- and customers-- if they hope to survive.

...

"Talent sometimes comes through experience from old people like me, but sometimes talent comes from that 18- or 25-year-old," said Pamela Ostrom of Creative Process Consulting in Brooklyn Park. She works with Fortune 500s and mom-and-pops to make businesses work more effectively. "Companies are going to fall down if they don't understand how to recruit younger talent. Even in a poor economy, where there might be 100,000 people looking for jobs, there may be only be five people who can do the job you need. Maybe the job is so technologically forward that the only people who understand it are Gen X."

At the seminar, called "Rock Stars @ Work," companies talked about tactics that seem to be working. Cargill has created a "talent development program" in which young workers rotate through various jobs for their first year, and all employees are encouraged to move horizontally into other divisions to keep learning about the business.

At Best Buy, about one-sixth of workers are 16 to 19 years old, said Tim Showalter-Loch, a community relations manager. Keeping them loyal to the company and its products is vital, he said. A Web-based initiative called "@15" gives teens in that age group a chance to invest money in social causes of their choosing. Best Buy's "Results Only Work Environment" helps give young workers flexibility to work from any location that works for them -- so long as they get their jobs done.

OK, we have a work force that needs talented workers and talented workers that need work that is more than a paycheck. This all about building, hiring and rewarding those who demonstrate "expert thinking."

Wouldn't you think businesses and the politicians who are supposed to represent them would lobby harder for schools that encourage problem-solving, creativity, and communications - not just basic reading, writing and math demonstrated by testing?

And wouldn't those same folks want schools with excellent libraries and technology to help make this happen?

Oh, and I still think most organizations are still more frightened of "creative" expert thinkers than see the value in them.

Comments

[Janet]

This dovetails very nicely with the new initiatives our district is adopting, I am (once again,) sending my colleagues the link to your blog (or telling them not to forget to read it!)

I think that politicians don't really want anyone thinking, expertly, creatively or any other way, because they are afraid of "After looking at your record, I think I am not going to vote for you." instead of just falling for the usual campaign hype.
NCLB isn't really about producing a thinking populace it's about raising stupid test scores.

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Janet,

I guess it is somewhat comforting that I not the only cynic around ;-)

Doug

[SocialCritic]

Friedman's argument in support of the "New Untouchables" is superficially compelling — but almost entirely wrong.

There are plenty of people who have "book smarts" yet lack the pragmatic "street smarts" necessary to translate that education or intelligence into desirable outcomes. Entrepreneurs are a rare breed. It's doubtful at best and laughable at worst to suggest that these individuals can be "manufactured" in a school setting. If anywhere, that job belongs in the home. Perhaps Friedman should propose that parents become licensed caretakers of their own children to ensure that their schoolteachers have a chance. Ha!

Friedman's argument, moreover, completely sidesteps the reality that Americans who are conscientious are likely to perform better on the job than someone who has more going for them from an academic or aptitude perspective, but a poorer work ethic/attitude. Competitiveness cannot be so easily described by IQ, education or other such quantifiable factors.

The traits that Friedman describes as essential to American competitiveness in a globalized economy are not even so much a byproduct of a "proper education" as they are personality dependent. Educators cannot change a pragmatic personality to a visionary or a dependable don't-ask-why "workhorse" into an investigative temperament anymore than parents can. Social psychologists believe many of those characteristics are hard wired! Therefore, Friedman's argument fails because it assumes that the entire issue revolves around "nurture" with no accounting for "nature".

More ironic still, those who are expected to bear the brunt of American competitiveness are likely to face an uphill climb if for as long as the middle class population see their buying power and overall standard of living decline. The distinction too often missed in these sorts of discussions is that those "noncompetitive" worker bees are also one's customers — they too are the consumers you need for your innovative products and services. All the entrepreneurship, academic preparation and talent won't matter much if your marketplace has eroded to unsustainable levels wherein discretionary income (spending) is increasingly limited. Yet Friedman argues that it is possible to have an economy run by queen bees, denying the reality that the drones are what keep her alive!

So we see how Friedman's argument breaks down into dangerously circular logic. Yet he's the syndicated columnist who has supposedly proven his "talent". Pray tell: Talent to mislead us?

Friedman's own failure to see how embarrassingly simplified such arguments are — when people all over the 'net can so easily and compellingly shoot holes through his flimsy logic — proves that those with the "smarts" don't always land on the top of the economic food chain. We don't like to admit it because it challenges our notions of self determination and security, but sometimes it really IS about being the right person at the right place at the right time.

By his own standard of "above average" Friedman disqualifies himself from this Top Dog Paradigm because his best arguments are nothing more than a rehash of the usual suspects.

Truth be told, employers don't always reward that rare combination of creativity (unconventional thinking) and critical thinking skills (those who can name problems you didn't even realize existed). If Friedman wishes to change that, perhaps he should instead advocate a new HIRING PARADIGM: industrial psychologists making the employment decisions rather than conventional headhunters and managers.

To renew American competitiveness, meanwhile, supervisors and CEOs alike need to rethink their reactions to those who seem to be the "misfits" in their organization. Are such employees an ill fit because they have an uncommitted, do-nothing attitude or are they a THREAT because they bring a new set of views to the table and/or are unchallenged by their position? This question is important because those who can perceive more than the desk in front of them can just as often end up with the stigma that they are "negative" or "insubordinate". Why? Because when everyone around an out-of-the-box thinker is so vested in doing things the way they've always done them, to suggest a new and better way to order a process or an outcome may imply that someone else's strategy or method was "flawed" — and this carries a very big risk of stepping on toes.

In reality, those who can expect the most long-term career success aren't the ones with the most impressive list of degrees or even the greatest percentage of visionary ideas. Above all, such individuals must be persuasive diplomats and/or charismatic sales people. Those who lack these skills, for all their pent-up talent to "name the problem" and "innovate the solution", quickly learn to keep their mouths shut. Minding one's "place" may be good for interpersonal dynamics, but it doesn't bode well for American competitiveness in an increasingly cut-throat world. Yet oddly absent from Friedman's conceptualization of what it means to gain a competitive edge is a call to address the human element of the equation: Interpersonal dynamics and the authority structures that maintain a conventional top-down management style.

Sadly, teachers and schools are Friedman's easy targets and convenient scapegoats for what amounts, ironically, to a highly conventional, dumbed-down prescription for progress:

Let them eat cake!

And let Friedman go back to school for coursework in critical thinking, economics, history and social theory.