You could drive yourself steadily insane compiling a list of all the trends that were supposed to fundamentally reshape business. Once upon a time we were all “flexi” workers, then “mobile learners”. Both terms seem antiquated now, the corporate equivalent of a Segway – perfectly sensible in principle but somehow faintly ridiculous in reality.
What makes the “gig economy” – the legion of individuals taking on piecemeal work, enabled by online talent platforms – feel different is that it’s being driven not by hip early adopters in co-working spaces (though there are plenty of them involved too) but by genuine need, both in the “real” economy and, crucially, in boardrooms.
If you were staffing a major new project from scratch today, it would seem an act of faint lunacy to bring in a raft of full-time employees with cumbersome overheads (and personal taxes) when you could go online and find experienced, verifiable individuals you could pay by the hour and dispose of when required. Similarly, if you were a coder, IT contractor or other technical specialist, why would you harness yourself to one organisation when you could enjoy both variety and a more lucrative income hopping from gig to gig (along with the attendant tax advantages of being self-employed)?
So many businesses are waking up to this recalibration that 450,000 people with full-time jobs now have second jobs, many of them via TaskRabbit, Elance or their multitude of competitors. PwC has tried to cut out the middleman by setting up its own talent “market” of registered suppliers its offices can bid on. There are individuals in greater London making a handsome living assembling flat pack furniture on a piecemeal basis for an hourly rate – an occupation that would have been almost logistically impossible just a couple of years ago.
You can understand the appeal of living by the gig, beyond the financial benefits. The conventional career has been an awkward fit for many people over the years, and few jobs are capable of maximising all our skills and intelligences. Besides, most work is boring, which is why those lucky enough ever to have had a job for life employed the conversational repertoire of the prison system (“putting in hard graft”, “serving your time”) to describe it.
Gigs, by contrast, are exciting and ever-changing, even though they ask some deep questions of the psychological contract (why would I exercise discretionary effort for a business that only employs me for a matter of days? Can I trust someone who could work for my biggest rival tomorrow?). But they aren’t an untrammelled good, either. For every actuarial scientist earning a small fortune for a short-term job, there’s a hotel chambermaid who is now being paid by the room rather than the day. The huge rise in self-employment in the UK has as much to do with businesses shifting such workers – we should include the small army of couriers and delivery drivers in this calculation – off their books as it does people discovering new freedoms. Palpably, none of them are enjoying the benefits of the gig economy, not least because they cannot practically control where and how they work. They are left, instead, to feed on scraps.
Uber, the erroneously attributed poster child of the gig economy, faces a legal challenge over whether its drivers are technically employees. It maintains they are self-employed. This is a vital point for the courts to consider – cycle couriers and plumbers are engaged in similar cases – but in Uber’s case we should also note that it controls the supply of drivers into the market, and their pricing. This is assuredly not the “freedom” gig economy enthusiasts speak of.
Governments will have to decide the legal and ethical boundaries of such behaviours, not least because if gigs take off, their tax revenues will rapidly vanish. Already, there is serious talk of the need for a third kind of classification, between “employee” and “self-employed” which recognises the shared responsibilities (both financial and relating to holidays, sick pay and other benefits) between giggers and those they work for.
Pioneers like Wingham Rowan, who runs the Beyond Jobs consultancy, are trying to imagine a market that will ensure the gig economy brings mutual benefits and conveniences without being open to abuse. Businesses who want to enjoy the flexibility such arrangements provide should not absent themselves from such discussions – but neither should they fear this will turn out to be just another fad.
By: Robert Jeffery, Editor of People Management magazine
Some management consultants claim that you can’t change an organisation’s culture.
This is nonsense.
Numerous other management and change consultants claim they can change an organisation’s culture.
This too is nonsense.
You can change your organisation’s culture … from the inside.
Indeed, a leader’s responsibility includes Shaping their Organisation’s Culture.
I am going to share two successful stories of leaders driving change in their companies. On both occasions, I was engaged as an external consultant with the brief to co-design and facilitate the process and selected interventions.
From a loss-making conflict-ridden environment where indifference and lack of trust reigned, to a profitable integrated company with engaged employees. The company is now a unit in a global corporation and a Centre of Competence for its product line.
The Situation: A new CEO had recently been appointed to a company which had changed owners 3 times and been making losses for 8 years. The environment was poisonous: chaotic production processes, cynical, continuous conflict with customers due to delivery and quality issues, abuse of the system by middle managers who themselves were not trusted by the production engineers and technicians. Closure was a possibility with 300 jobs at risk.
Changes and Process: Three new engineers were brought in to fill critical positions: Chief Engineer, Senior Project Manager, Site Manager. We conducted individual interviews with all managers, held focus groups at all levels, engaged the works council. Product demand fortunately was not an issue. Customer relations unfortunately were a serious problem. The CEO appealed for support. He laid out a clear strategy with a message of the environment and changes needed to continue operating. Changing the focus from inward (protectionist silos) to outward (the whole business with customer needs as focus) we used strength-based approaches to realign around real business Questions, whereby employees were invited to contribute. The production and logistics process was changed completely; skills deficits were alleviated; product design now involved production; the management team began to work as an integrated unit; employees wanted to contribute to improvements. Three middle managers who resisted the changes were forced to leave. Additional jobs were created in production as demand rose. Within two years, the site was making a profit.
Key Change Success Factors: The need: without change, the company was in serious danger of closing. Leadership: A driven leader who everybody trusted – he was visible, approachable and walked the talk. His messages were clear and he listened. Involvement: People learned not only that their contributions were desired, they experienced that the invitations they received were genuine.
From a small sleepy company in which employees had a lackadaisical approach to their work and customers, to a dynamic market leader whose customers praised service quality.
The Situation: A small specialist data processing company was acquired by a global corporation. A new CEO was installed together with two experts from the parent company. The environment was friendly and relaxed. There was little engagement, people worked with an eye on the clock, problems were referred to management, error rates were high, clients were irritated.
Changes and Process: The new CEO laid out clear guidelines, expectations and his vision of potential opportunities. All employees were invited to play an active role in working groups that defined and implemented new more efficient practices and new customer interface processes. Customer orientation was prioritised. The two new specialists were appointed to lead functional units, otherwise, the only hierarchy was towards the CEO. Processes were defined, personal and team responsibility was expected, engagement levels improved significantly, the environment was noticeably more dynamic, problems were solved at the level at which they occurred, customer satisfaction indices increased dramatically. Within two years, the number of employees increased three-fold as new clients came on board.
Key Change Success Factors: Leadership, Trust and Recognition: Clear consistent Leadership; clear guidelines; employees felt valued and freer. Involvement: employees were able to see the impact of their contributions.
Culture is the continuously evolving dynamic interaction of the mindsets and gutsets of all the actors in the system. It is the Soul of the Organisation that drives the behaviours we observe.
In many if not the majority of organisations, observed behaviours reflect not the values of the people within the organisation, but those hidden values of the organisation as a system, frequently driven by inappropriate leadership. By inviting and encouraging the people to engage with the system, leaders can lead a change from a negative to generative culture. Indeed, this is their responsibility.
And in the fast changing world of the early 21st century, shaping an adaptable organisational culture is becoming a survival essential.
Yes … You Can … Change Your Organisation’s Culture!
By: Eric Lynn from CultureQs
I just re-read the awesome post from my friends David Loftesness and Raffi Krikorian, What Does A VP of Engineering Do Again? And while I agree with everything that they say, I think there is one crucial item missing, which has been present in every job I’ve had because all of them were user-facing internet services and a majority of my job has been working with product teams. Collaboration with stakeholders (especially with product) is key, but if you take it one step further, a VP of Engineering is actually measured by execution in a wider context across many teams or departments. You cannot look at engineering in isolation for your successes or failures.
But first a short story about my first months at SoundCloud. The CTO wanted more front-end work done because an important release was nearing. He asked me to hire more engineers to accomplish that goal. I started recruiting, but then I looked at why the velocity of the existing team was not meeting expectations. So, I went to all of the front-end teams (at that time it was Web, iPhone, and Android) and asked a very simple question “What slows you down the most in your day-to-day work?” To my surprise, everyone gave the same answer “We only have one designer.” They went on to say that although the designer was very good, she was completely overloaded so designs, changes, and simple clarifications took forever to get done.
Now that I knew design was actually the cause for delays, the solution to my problem was not to hire more engineers (which might have even made the problem worse with more work for the designer), but to start building a design team.
Engineering leads need to look at the whole product process (together with the responsible stakeholders) and not just at engineering in isolation. What I did was a very simple (but, in this case, effective) form of value stream mapping. Our self-improvement at SoundCloud continued. You can read Phil Calcado’s excellent post about the organizational aspects of microservices at SoundCloud.
The Best Engineering Leads Will Stop and Assess the Situation
Continually assessing situations in a holistic way isn’t just the job of an engineering lead — everybody involved should take responsibility. But, in my experience, the problem usually surfaces in engineering because when things are not moving fast enough (and when do they ever?) management’s first reaction can be to throw more engineers at the problem so more work will get done, but also (and this is the not so nice scenario), management thinks the engineers are not working hard enough. Other common responses from management include reorganizing the teams or adopting new methodologies. However, as an engineering leader, you are a lot like a doctor: you need to diagnose the illness before treating the symptoms.
Engineering leaders need to look at the whole value chain and to sit with the leaders from affected departments to review at the problem. The solution to a problem might not be to hire more people (which a lot of startups do), but to organize product development in a better way. And if you have to hire, it might mean that you have to move headcount around. When everyone has the same goal goal — delivering more business value — shifting headcount from engineering to design or to recruiting shouldn’t be an issue. Afterall, the goal is more business value, not having the biggest department. So, when I realized our problem at SoundCloud wasn’t going to be fixed by adding more engineers, we created a design team. But this was just the first step towards a better setup.
Even after creating a larger design team, it remained isolated from other departments and was not fully integrated with our workflows. The problems of turnaround and wasted resources were exacerbated by the increasing risk of misalignment between product, design, and engineering. Therefore, the next logical step was to improve the organization by creating a delivery team per product.
Shifting Organizational Structures to Deliver Business Value
A delivery team is a team that can deliver the vast majority (95%) of its backlog items to production without dependencies on other teams. Unlike more horizontally-oriented teams (for example, a front-end engineering team that relies on the back-end engineering team for any back-end changes), a delivery team has all the necessary skills inside their team. So, depending on your company and your product, these teams can look very different. In engineering teams that are infrastructure focused, these teams can consist of only engineers; but if you look at a team that delivers a consumer-facing web app, then the team looks more like this:
Creating these delivery teams and then making sure you have the right staffing for them should eliminate a staffing mismatch between the affected departments. Some team members (like support) might just be a pointperson for the team, e.g., the support person only attends the daily standup and reports what is going on.
So, don’t look at engineering in isolation when trying to solve delivery problems. It is critical that each engineering leader (and especially the VP of Engineering, who can really influence the organizational setup) ensures that the overall product development process is set up in a way that reduces waste and delivers value to the customer which is the whole point of product development in the first place!
This post includes material from the upcoming book “Scaling Teams” by myself and David Loftesness, which will be published by O’Reilly in 2016. In this book, we will explain in detail the various scaling challenges of software startups.
Thanks to Laurel Ruma and David Loftessness
By: Alexander Grosse from issuu