#robots #love #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #humans #emotions
“What does a robot know about love?”
That begins an Etsy TV ad, to make the point that Etsy conducts its commerce with more human activity than robot activity.
But, as time progresses, more robots and other non-human technology will be used in commerce, factories, research and many other endeavors now mostly conducted by humans.
That could have an effect on current jobs, and the jobs of the future.
For some workers, technology is moving too fast. More work that was previously done by humans is being done by machines.
] That means some good jobs are being eliminated, and those who’ve lost those jobs are having difficulty finding alternative jobs that pay as well.
It’s important to note here that no matter who is serving in the U.S. government, those jobs likely are not coming back.
With the advancement of artificial intelligence, many people who thought their jobs would never go away may have a rude awakening sometime in the future.
Make no mistake: machines and humans are not equivalent. That statement can have a good, or not so good, connotation.
For employers, machines have fewer needs – no vacations, no illness, no pensions etc. That can save them lots of money.
Machines, on the other hand, break down. If they can’t be fixed immediately, that can be a real cost to employers.
Also, customers and clients mostly prefer dealing with humans rather than machines. Though machines can try to talk back to customers, no real conversation takes place. Plus, machines have no power to actually solve problems, if a customer has one. With varying degrees of success, perhaps a machine can put a customer in touch with a human.
AI is attempting to be creative by compiling the past creativity of humans into a mechanically driven recitation.
There is no machine that can be as creative as a human. For human creativity is raw, original and direct.
Going back to the Etsy ad, robots have no ability for human emotion. Human emotion is something we all crave, no matter what type of interaction.
So, as useful as robots or AI can be in some instances, they are not human.
But, as humans, we still have to look over our shoulders lest robots or AI replace us in the workplace.
In many cases, it’s not a matter of whether that will happen. It’s a matter of when.
As humans, we have the raw, original and direct creativity to prepare for most eventualities. When replacement comes, we can, and should, be ready. Longing for the old days will not prevent the inevitable.
Peter
Tag Archives: jobs
SHOULD SCHOOL BE MORE FUN?
#FunAtSchool #fun #learning #work #reading
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
THE WORLD — AND WORK — ARE CHANGING
#jobs #ClimbingLadders #ClimbingCareerLadders #WorkLifeBalance
Most of us grew up thinking we had to have a career.
Start at the bottom, work our way up through the ranks and advance financially along the way.
Author Bruce Feiler, in his book, “The Search: Finding Meaningful Work in a Post-Career World,” turns the notion of a career on its head.
While some people set goals and stick with them, many others revise their passions, change direction and rethink priorities in the middle of “careers,” Feiler says.
People who are the happiest, Feiler says, are those that don’t climb. Instead, they dig, to look for their true selves.
Feiler is right in one sense. Not everyone has to, or wants to, climb career ladders.
And, people often change direction during their working lives, as he points out.
Some of these changes involve personal preference. For example, a person is hired for Job X, but observes someone doing Job Y and decides he or she would like to try that. The person may try Job Y until he or she observes someone doing Job Z, so they try that etc.
However, most changes in jobs, careers and work situations are foisted upon workers.
These changes are happening more frequently as technology and other advances reform workplaces.
These reforms are not always for the better, as far as workers are concerned.
There seems to be a constant desire among employers to want to replace people with machines. After all, machines don’t need benefits, vacations etc. And, they don’t complain.
You can already see more changes coming: driverless vehicles, artificial intelligence etc.
Perhaps at one or more of your academic graduations you heard someone tell you to follow your passion.
You later find that passion doesn’t always make you a living. Being good or knowledgeable at something is marvelous, as long as you realize that it may not help you pay bills.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each worker to find the good thing(s) about a job, and focus on that (them). As one focuses on the good, always be thinking that all good things will come to an end.
Perhaps what makes a job good, or, at least, tolerable, could disappear suddenly. In fact, the job itself could go away.
Feiler is correct in saying that climbing, or trying to climb, a career ladder doesn’t work for everyone. Sometimes, a ceiling – justified or not – gets in the way. Sometimes, what’s at the top may not turn out to be worth the climb, and one doesn’t find that out until he or she reaches it. And, of course, the higher one climbs, the harder they can fall.
The point here is that lives are made not by happenstance, but by decisions and effort. Wise decisions may not always involve career advancement. It’s OK to decide not to climb. Regardless, whatever path you choose, give it all you have for as long as you are able, or for as long as you are allowed.
Remember, too, that your life outside of work can be more important than the job. Don’t let a job deprive you of that part of your life.
In other words, as Feiler says, it might be better to dig rather than climb. It might be better to be a chipmunk than a squirrel.
Peter
Most of us grew up thinking we had to have a career.
Start at the bottom, work our way up through the ranks and advance financially along the way.
Author Bruce Feiler, in his book, “The Search: Finding Meaningful Work in a Post-Career World,” turns the notion of a career on its head.
While some people set goals and stick with them, many others revise their passions, change direction and rethink priorities in the middle of “careers,” Feiler says.
People who are the happiest, Feiler says, are those that don’t climb. Instead, they dig, to look for their true selves.
Feiler is right in one sense. Not everyone has to, or wants to, climb career ladders.
And, people often change direction during their working lives, as he points out.
Some of these changes involve personal preference. For example, a person is hired for Job X, but observes someone doing Job Y and decides he or she would like to try that. The person may try Job Y until he or she observes someone doing Job Z, so they try that etc.
However, most changes in jobs, careers and work situations are foisted upon workers.
These changes are happening more frequently as technology and other advances reform workplaces.
These reforms are not always for the better, as far as workers are concerned.
There seems to be a constant desire among employers to want to replace people with machines. After all, machines don’t need benefits, vacations etc. And, they don’t complain.
You can already see more changes coming: driverless vehicles, artificial intelligence etc.
Perhaps at one or more of your academic graduations you heard someone tell you to follow your passion.
You later find that passion doesn’t always make you a living. Being good or knowledgeable at something is marvelous, as long as you realize that it may not help you pay bills.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each worker to find the good thing(s) about a job, and focus on that (them). As one focuses on the good, always be thinking that all good things will come to an end.
Perhaps what makes a job good, or, at least, tolerable, could disappear suddenly. In fact, the job itself could go away.
Feiler is correct in saying that climbing, or trying to climb, a career ladder doesn’t work for everyone. Sometimes, a ceiling – justified or not – gets in the way. Sometimes, what’s at the top may not turn out to be worth the climb, and one doesn’t find that out until he or she reaches it. And, of course, the higher one climbs, the harder they can fall.
The point here is that lives are made not by happenstance, but by decisions and effort. Wise decisions may not always involve career advancement. It’s OK to decide not to climb. Regardless, whatever path you choose, give it all you have for as long as you are able, or for as long as you are allowed.
Remember, too, that your life outside of work can be more important than the job. Don’t let a job deprive you of that part of your life.
In other words, as Feiler says, it might be better to dig rather than climb. It might be better to be a chipmunk than a squirrel.
Peter
MULTIGENERATIONAL WORKERS OFFER CHALLENGES TO MANAGERS
#MultigenerationalWorkers #employers #employees #jobs
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
IT CAN COST YOU TO GO TO WORK
#employers #employees #jobs #work #wages #salaries
You have a full-time job making, to use a number, $7 per hour.
Multiply that by 40 hours, and your weekly pay is $280.
If you live, to use a number, five miles from your job, you will travel 10 miles per day, back and forth to work.
If gasoline, to use a round number, costs $3 a gallon, you will spend $150 a week in gasoline to get back and forth to work. Subtracting that from your $280 salary, that leaves you with $130.
Multiply $130 by four weeks (a month), you’ll have $520 left for food, rent etc.
If your rent is $1,000 a month, you won’t make it.
We’ve not even figured in wear and tear on your car from commuting, any medical needs you may have – much less discretionary spending. If you have children who must be cared for while you work, you can’t afford that.
Politicians of many stripes make a big deal about people sitting home collecting government benefits while not working. Most everyone who is able would like to work – if not merely for the money, but to get out and about, meet people etc. But, most workers do not want to be taken advantage of by an employer.
The good news in today’s labor market is that hourly wages are going up because people are “choosing” – that’s the term many politicians use – not to work, and companies are trying to entice them back, or keep the workers they have.
The point of this discussion is that people, by and large, are not lazy. They want to work. But they also want that job to cover their necessities. When that doesn’t happen, people are less likely to want to work.
Chances are, if your job pays $7 an hour, you do not have the option to work from home. You have to go someplace to work.
Even in professions like teaching, salaries in some places make it difficult to work and otherwise take care of yourself and your family.
Regarding teaching, we won’t even discuss the harassment, political hassles etc., that add stress to an already undercompensated job.
In short, the economics of going to work are not cut and dried. Everything depends on what you make, where you live and whether you can meet your expenses with what you make.
Employers who long for the days when workers were plentiful, and would work for whatever they would pay them, keep dreaming. Those days are gone, particularly as the U.S. cracks down on immigrants.
Work is desirable for most people, and most employers like to have hiring options. But the math has to work not only for the employer, but also the employee.
It’s difficult to find the sweet spot, in which employees are paid appropriately to live, employers are making money and all is well with the world.
Today’s world is not that simple. For those who believe it is (some politicians believe that people will come back to work those menial jobs when their savings run out), you are living in a fantasy world.
Remember, if you are working at a $7 an hour job, you probably don’t have savings to rely on anyway.
Again, the good news is the job market is getting wise to the situation. More employers are offering more enticements to get workers back. Some assurance that paychecks won’t dry up if another pandemic, or some other disaster, hits, would also be helpful.
People want to work. Employers want workers. The numbers have to jibe on both ends to keep everyone happy.
Peter
You have a full-time job making, to use a number, $7 per hour.
Multiply that by 40 hours, and your weekly pay is $280.
If you live, to use a number, five miles from your job, you will travel 10 miles per day, back and forth to work.
If gasoline, to use a round number, costs $3 a gallon, you will spend $150 a week in gasoline to get back and forth to work. Subtracting that from your $280 salary, that leaves you with $130.
Multiply $130 by four weeks (a month), you’ll have $520 left for food, rent etc.
If your rent is $1,000 a month, you won’t make it.
We’ve not even figured in wear and tear on your car from commuting, any medical needs you may have – much less discretionary spending. If you have children who must be cared for while you work, you can’t afford that.
Politicians of many stripes make a big deal about people sitting home collecting government benefits while not working. Most everyone who is able would like to work – if not merely for the money, but to get out and about, meet people etc. But, most workers do not want to be taken advantage of by an employer.
The good news in today’s labor market is that hourly wages are going up because people are “choosing” – that’s the term many politicians use – not to work, and companies are trying to entice them back, or keep the workers they have.
The point of this discussion is that people, by and large, are not lazy. They want to work. But they also want that job to cover their necessities. When that doesn’t happen, people are less likely to want to work.
Chances are, if your job pays $7 an hour, you do not have the option to work from home. You have to go someplace to work.
Even in professions like teaching, salaries in some places make it difficult to work and otherwise take care of yourself and your family.
Regarding teaching, we won’t even discuss the harassment, political hassles etc., that add stress to an already undercompensated job.
In short, the economics of going to work are not cut and dried. Everything depends on what you make, where you live and whether you can meet your expenses with what you make.
Employers who long for the days when workers were plentiful, and would work for whatever they would pay them, keep dreaming. Those days are gone, particularly as the U.S. cracks down on immigrants.
Work is desirable for most people, and most employers like to have hiring options. But the math has to work not only for the employer, but also the employee.
It’s difficult to find the sweet spot, in which employees are paid appropriately to live, employers are making money and all is well with the world.
Today’s world is not that simple. For those who believe it is (some politicians believe that people will come back to work those menial jobs when their savings run out), you are living in a fantasy world.
Remember, if you are working at a $7 an hour job, you probably don’t have savings to rely on anyway.
Again, the good news is the job market is getting wise to the situation. More employers are offering more enticements to get workers back. Some assurance that paychecks won’t dry up if another pandemic, or some other disaster, hits, would also be helpful.
People want to work. Employers want workers. The numbers have to jibe on both ends to keep everyone happy.
Peter
WHO IS ALLOWED TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX?
#ThinkOutsideTheBox #JobParameters #jobs #employers #employees
Think outside the box.
Have you ever been encouraged to do that at, say, your work?
Did you then ask yourself: do they really want me to think outside the box?
Most employees are in a box called their job. Certain duties are prescribed within that box.
Your boss(es), in most cases, want you to stay within that box. If you go rogue, and do something outside that box, you may get punished.
As an employee, your goal may be to do the best job you can within your box, with the hope that you may be elevated to a different position that may allow more flexibility to think outside the box.
Of course, upper management wants managers to think outside the box and look for efficiencies or better ways to accomplish tasks that could add to the bottom line.
But as a low-level employee, in most companies, you are given a box (parameters) and not allowed in most cases to stray from it (them).
As employers, what do you think your company could be if everyone at every level were allowed to think outside the box?
Might you find a hidden gem of an employee deep in your organization? Does your business model allow for everyone to think outside the box? Do you and your managers have a monopoly on finding better ways to do the necessary tasks?
Some organizations certainly have a culture that allows creative thinking at all levels. Technology companies HAVE to have that to find the best ideas.
But those companies that make widgets, or simple things, might feel the need to put everyone who works there in a box for greater efficiency and attention to detail. If the employees are unionized, the contract may prescribe the box for each employee.
As an employee, you are astute to think about it when someone, say, your boss, encourages you to think outside the box.
Does he (she) really want me to do that? Does he (she) really want me to suggest better ways he (she) can better do his (her) job? Will those different ways be better for him (her) or me?
Certainly, if unsure about what the boss meant, it’s best to go about doing your job, within your box, to the best of your ability.
But, if you see a safe opportunity to offer a new idea, or to try something new that could be better, by all means go for it.
You may be surprised indeed at the reception you get, particularly if you feel your company’s culture would allow for it.
In summary, be wary when someone tells you to think outside the box at work. It could be a setup or ambush. Most companies have a competitive culture, in which managers are always looking over their shoulders. The words may sound encouraging, but try not to be fooled.
But, if employers really want their staffs to think outside the box, make sure the culture is clear and well established so that employees can feel safe doing so.
You may be surprised at the results you, and your employees, can achieve.
Peter
Think outside the box.
Have you ever been encouraged to do that at, say, your work?
Did you then ask yourself: do they really want me to think outside the box?
Most employees are in a box called their job. Certain duties are prescribed within that box.
Your boss(es), in most cases, want you to stay within that box. If you go rogue, and do something outside that box, you may get punished.
As an employee, your goal may be to do the best job you can within your box, with the hope that you may be elevated to a different position that may allow more flexibility to think outside the box.
Of course, upper management wants managers to think outside the box and look for efficiencies or better ways to accomplish tasks that could add to the bottom line.
But as a low-level employee, in most companies, you are given a box (parameters) and not allowed in most cases to stray from it (them).
As employers, what do you think your company could be if everyone at every level were allowed to think outside the box?
Might you find a hidden gem of an employee deep in your organization? Does your business model allow for everyone to think outside the box? Do you and your managers have a monopoly on finding better ways to do the necessary tasks?
Some organizations certainly have a culture that allows creative thinking at all levels. Technology companies HAVE to have that to find the best ideas.
But those companies that make widgets, or simple things, might feel the need to put everyone who works there in a box for greater efficiency and attention to detail. If the employees are unionized, the contract may prescribe the box for each employee.
As an employee, you are astute to think about it when someone, say, your boss, encourages you to think outside the box.
Does he (she) really want me to do that? Does he (she) really want me to suggest better ways he (she) can better do his (her) job? Will those different ways be better for him (her) or me?
Certainly, if unsure about what the boss meant, it’s best to go about doing your job, within your box, to the best of your ability.
But, if you see a safe opportunity to offer a new idea, or to try something new that could be better, by all means go for it.
You may be surprised indeed at the reception you get, particularly if you feel your company’s culture would allow for it.
In summary, be wary when someone tells you to think outside the box at work. It could be a setup or ambush. Most companies have a competitive culture, in which managers are always looking over their shoulders. The words may sound encouraging, but try not to be fooled.
But, if employers really want their staffs to think outside the box, make sure the culture is clear and well established so that employees can feel safe doing so.
You may be surprised at the results you, and your employees, can achieve.
Peter
WILL OFFICE SPACE UPGRADES BRING WORKERS BACK?
#WorkFromHome #OfficeSpace #PersonalInteractions #jobs #employers #employees
Companies that require office workers face a dilemma.
Since COVID-19 forced many workers to toil from home, some workers don’t want to come back to the office.
Their employers who pay for the office space want more workers to come back, at least once in a while.
Some, like Cisco in its Midtown Atlanta offices, are resorting to upgrading their office space by focusing on improving indoor environmental factors, according to an article by Zachary Hansen in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The article was published April 14, 2023.
In fact, as a new Portman Midtown Atlanta office tower goes up, it may be the last of its kind for a while, Hansen writes in an article published May 13, 2024.
But, will those things entice workers back into the office? Many have gotten used to working from home, or somewhere else. The advantages – no commute, no buying lunch at work and other money savings, for example – outweigh the disadvantages – no office worker interaction, distractions at home etc.
That puts companies in somewhat of a bind. How much office space do they really need? Does having an office building, or office space in general, give a company an identity that makes it worth having? Is upgrading office space to entice workers back going to be worth the investment? Will workers respond by coming back into the office?
These are the decisions of the future, both for companies and their employees. If a company forces workers to come back into the office, will they quit?
If a worker has a great job he or she doesn’t want to lose, will he or she give up the freedom that working from home gives them?
Will being home, with young children, be too much of a distraction for workers? Will they then bear the expenses of commuting, day care etc.?
Of course, many workers dream of having these alternatives. Many workers HAVE to go to work at a specific location. They cannot possibly do their jobs from home. They must interact with bosses, customers, coworkers etc.
But, if there are choices available, is there a way a worker can have it all with some sort of hybrid work schedule?
As discussed here before, if workers can do their jobs remotely, they can essentially live anywhere. They don’t have to be in a high-cost, high-tax locale, even if their employer is.
They can live where they want and still have the job they want.
But, as a society, do we want to encourage such a solitary lifestyle? Of course, essentially working alone cuts down on arguments. You don’t have to sit at a lunch table with someone you don’t like, or with whom you disagree on just about everything.
Still, we all benefit from having personal interactions with people. Some service organizations who meet regularly, even if they don’t require regular attendance, encourage it because club members are deprived of the presence of those who are absent. They see that as a loss.
So, most people will make decisions about where and how they work based on personal preference, unless companies impose requirements.
We will all miss something if too many people do not interact with one another. The workplace is the easiest, and often the best, place to do that.
Peter
Companies that require office workers face a dilemma.
Since COVID-19 forced many workers to toil from home, some workers don’t want to come back to the office.
Their employers who pay for the office space want more workers to come back, at least once in a while.
Some, like Cisco in its Midtown Atlanta offices, are resorting to upgrading their office space by focusing on improving indoor environmental factors, according to an article by Zachary Hansen in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The article was published April 14, 2023.
In fact, as a new Portman Midtown Atlanta office tower goes up, it may be the last of its kind for a while, Hansen writes in an article published May 13, 2024.
But, will those things entice workers back into the office? Many have gotten used to working from home, or somewhere else. The advantages – no commute, no buying lunch at work and other money savings, for example – outweigh the disadvantages – no office worker interaction, distractions at home etc.
That puts companies in somewhat of a bind. How much office space do they really need? Does having an office building, or office space in general, give a company an identity that makes it worth having? Is upgrading office space to entice workers back going to be worth the investment? Will workers respond by coming back into the office?
These are the decisions of the future, both for companies and their employees. If a company forces workers to come back into the office, will they quit?
If a worker has a great job he or she doesn’t want to lose, will he or she give up the freedom that working from home gives them?
Will being home, with young children, be too much of a distraction for workers? Will they then bear the expenses of commuting, day care etc.?
Of course, many workers dream of having these alternatives. Many workers HAVE to go to work at a specific location. They cannot possibly do their jobs from home. They must interact with bosses, customers, coworkers etc.
But, if there are choices available, is there a way a worker can have it all with some sort of hybrid work schedule?
As discussed here before, if workers can do their jobs remotely, they can essentially live anywhere. They don’t have to be in a high-cost, high-tax locale, even if their employer is.
They can live where they want and still have the job they want.
But, as a society, do we want to encourage such a solitary lifestyle? Of course, essentially working alone cuts down on arguments. You don’t have to sit at a lunch table with someone you don’t like, or with whom you disagree on just about everything.
Still, we all benefit from having personal interactions with people. Some service organizations who meet regularly, even if they don’t require regular attendance, encourage it because club members are deprived of the presence of those who are absent. They see that as a loss.
So, most people will make decisions about where and how they work based on personal preference, unless companies impose requirements.
We will all miss something if too many people do not interact with one another. The workplace is the easiest, and often the best, place to do that.
Peter
WORK UNTIL YOU DIE?
#retirement #WorkUntilYouDie #labor #jobs #employment
There’s talk in the public sphere about abolishing retirement.
That means, of course, working until you die, unless you have a disability.
The conversation is coupled with talk of cuts in Social Security and Medicare, even if such cuts come from only “waste” in those funds.
First, if you have a great job, and your employer will let you work until you die, congratulations.
But, that’s hardly the case in most places. Despite the need for labor and many unfilled positions, employers definitely look at older workers, many of whom are making the most money in their categories, for places to cut. Ultimately, they may replace those workers with younger, cheaper ones.
The generous employers will offer these older workers separation incentives, commonly called buyouts, to leave by a specified date.
The less generous employers will just lay off older workers, despite laws that may put them in a protected class.
These protected class laws put the burden on the employees to sue to keep their jobs. They have to show, in most cases, that their employers fired them simply because of their ages. That’s hard to prove, since employers can come up with other – legitimate or illegitimate – reasons to let a person go. Many employees are also so-called “at-will” workers, meaning they can be fired for any reason. Also, most employees won’t bother suing, and the employers know that.
But, even if your employer WANTS you to work until you die, do YOU want to work until you die – particularly at a job you hate?
Retirement is designed not just to protect older people from workplace abuse, but also for the workers to live their golden years with some degree of well-earned pleasure. It’s designed for people to enjoy, and have control of, some part of their lives before they die. Also, it is designed to make jobs available for younger workers.
When Social Security was created as part of the New Deal after World War II, most people didn’t live but a few years after their retirement at, say, age 65.
Now, with advances in medical care, people are living decades after retirement, placing a burden not just on Social Security, but also on public and private pension funds. Some actuarial studies show these funds might not be sustainable for the near term, never mind perpetuity.
Making people work well into their so-called retirement years conjures up many awful scenarios. Would you want your parent or grandparent in a factory line, working his or her tail off in their 70s or 80s?
Would they even survive it?
In addition to medical advances, people are living longer likely because they are not working.
No one should discriminate against a worker because of his or her age.
But, no one should make someone work past a certain age, if he or she chooses not to.
And, yes, we need to take care of older people who are not working.
It’s not an easy problem to solve. But imaginative people in all sectors of society can, and, hopefully, will find ways to make retirement more achievable, enjoyable and sustainable.
Peter
There’s talk in the public sphere about abolishing retirement.
That means, of course, working until you die, unless you have a disability.
The conversation is coupled with talk of cuts in Social Security and Medicare, even if such cuts come from only “waste” in those funds.
First, if you have a great job, and your employer will let you work until you die, congratulations.
But, that’s hardly the case in most places. Despite the need for labor and many unfilled positions, employers definitely look at older workers, many of whom are making the most money in their categories, for places to cut. Ultimately, they may replace those workers with younger, cheaper ones.
The generous employers will offer these older workers separation incentives, commonly called buyouts, to leave by a specified date.
The less generous employers will just lay off older workers, despite laws that may put them in a protected class.
These protected class laws put the burden on the employees to sue to keep their jobs. They have to show, in most cases, that their employers fired them simply because of their ages. That’s hard to prove, since employers can come up with other – legitimate or illegitimate – reasons to let a person go. Many employees are also so-called “at-will” workers, meaning they can be fired for any reason. Also, most employees won’t bother suing, and the employers know that.
But, even if your employer WANTS you to work until you die, do YOU want to work until you die – particularly at a job you hate?
Retirement is designed not just to protect older people from workplace abuse, but also for the workers to live their golden years with some degree of well-earned pleasure. It’s designed for people to enjoy, and have control of, some part of their lives before they die. Also, it is designed to make jobs available for younger workers.
When Social Security was created as part of the New Deal after World War II, most people didn’t live but a few years after their retirement at, say, age 65.
Now, with advances in medical care, people are living decades after retirement, placing a burden not just on Social Security, but also on public and private pension funds. Some actuarial studies show these funds might not be sustainable for the near term, never mind perpetuity.
Making people work well into their so-called retirement years conjures up many awful scenarios. Would you want your parent or grandparent in a factory line, working his or her tail off in their 70s or 80s?
Would they even survive it?
In addition to medical advances, people are living longer likely because they are not working.
No one should discriminate against a worker because of his or her age.
But, no one should make someone work past a certain age, if he or she chooses not to.
And, yes, we need to take care of older people who are not working.
It’s not an easy problem to solve. But imaginative people in all sectors of society can, and, hopefully, will find ways to make retirement more achievable, enjoyable and sustainable.
Peter
AI IS COMING; IS YOUR JOB GOING?
#ArtificialIntelligence #AI #jobs #technology #thinking
Artificial intelligence is, well, artificial.
Machines don’t think for themselves, but they can piece together information recorded from different sources to make sentences, and do other things, that make sense.
Many of us decided to do what we do for a career thinking that no machine would ever replace us.
But technology and media companies are cutting some of the human brain power that made their products what they are. The suspicion is that artificial intelligence (AI) will replace those tasks in the not-too-distant future.
In the old days when search engines were created, they could categorize data from similar entities and show users who, or what, they were looking for. But, search engines could not describe what a company does. It led to differences of opinion on “search engine optimization,” in which many people, and companies, specialized.
Did you want your company to stand out from your competition, or did you want your company to be lumped in with your, perhaps, inferior competitors? If you wanted the former, your Web content had to explain why your company is better, or, at least, different from the rest.
If you used key words in your content to satisfy the search engines, did those words just make you like everyone else that touches your space?
Because AI gathers, would you rather have a thinking human rather than a gathering and assembling machine?
Make no mistake: the gathering and assembling machine, undoubtedly, will be very useful for some tasks, and save companies lots of money.
But if you are in the business of creativity, there will be no substitute for human thinking in many areas.
Like humans, machines will make mistakes. Like humans, machines can put their talents to use in nefarious ways.
Therefore, it takes humans to know when a machine is most useful, and when a human is most useful.
We have to be on guard for unintended consequences of AI. Presuming we all want AI to do only good things that benefit mankind, we have to guard against the evil it could do – unless our intentions are indeed evil.
Of course, AI does not need R&R, as humans do from time to time. AI can be employed 24/7, as most humans cannot.
In short, it will take human innovation to not only create the AI that will replace some humans, but it also will require human supervision to guard against its pitfalls.
Most humans can adapt to a changing workplace. The jobs we were hired for years ago turn into completely different jobs as companies evolve and change.
It will take humans to help AI adapt to changing workplaces. Some of us humans will learn that AI perhaps can adjust to changing workplaces and conditions more quickly than some humans can.
Humans will create AI. They will maintain AI. They will manage AI. Still, when AI really takes off, there will be fewer humans needed. With jobs going unfilled in today’s marketplace, that could turn out to be a good thing.
Peter
Artificial intelligence is, well, artificial.
Machines don’t think for themselves, but they can piece together information recorded from different sources to make sentences, and do other things, that make sense.
Many of us decided to do what we do for a career thinking that no machine would ever replace us.
But technology and media companies are cutting some of the human brain power that made their products what they are. The suspicion is that artificial intelligence (AI) will replace those tasks in the not-too-distant future.
In the old days when search engines were created, they could categorize data from similar entities and show users who, or what, they were looking for. But, search engines could not describe what a company does. It led to differences of opinion on “search engine optimization,” in which many people, and companies, specialized.
Did you want your company to stand out from your competition, or did you want your company to be lumped in with your, perhaps, inferior competitors? If you wanted the former, your Web content had to explain why your company is better, or, at least, different from the rest.
If you used key words in your content to satisfy the search engines, did those words just make you like everyone else that touches your space?
Because AI gathers, would you rather have a thinking human rather than a gathering and assembling machine?
Make no mistake: the gathering and assembling machine, undoubtedly, will be very useful for some tasks, and save companies lots of money.
But if you are in the business of creativity, there will be no substitute for human thinking in many areas.
Like humans, machines will make mistakes. Like humans, machines can put their talents to use in nefarious ways.
Therefore, it takes humans to know when a machine is most useful, and when a human is most useful.
We have to be on guard for unintended consequences of AI. Presuming we all want AI to do only good things that benefit mankind, we have to guard against the evil it could do – unless our intentions are indeed evil.
Of course, AI does not need R&R, as humans do from time to time. AI can be employed 24/7, as most humans cannot.
In short, it will take human innovation to not only create the AI that will replace some humans, but it also will require human supervision to guard against its pitfalls.
Most humans can adapt to a changing workplace. The jobs we were hired for years ago turn into completely different jobs as companies evolve and change.
It will take humans to help AI adapt to changing workplaces. Some of us humans will learn that AI perhaps can adjust to changing workplaces and conditions more quickly than some humans can.
Humans will create AI. They will maintain AI. They will manage AI. Still, when AI really takes off, there will be fewer humans needed. With jobs going unfilled in today’s marketplace, that could turn out to be a good thing.
Peter
DO OR PERFORM?
#do #perform #recognition #jobs
Are you a doer, or a performer?
A doer takes action because he or she wants to get something done, wants to do it well and doesn’t care who, if anyone, is watching.
A performer does something because he or she wants the recognition, or is required to take certain action by whoever is overseeing him or her.
Obviously, those in entertainment are performers, but successful entertainers are also doers, because, mostly in private, they practice to hone their craft.
Workers often find themselves in jobs in which they can perform. They do what is required, but don’t necessarily have a vested interest in the results. They simply do what makes the boss happy.
Other employees deliberately invest themselves in their jobs. Doing great work becomes a matter of pride. They go the extra mile regardless of whether they get credit, or paid extra, for it.
It’s not that doers are necessarily better people than performers. As with entertainers, performance can be necessary. But in ordinary work situations, performance can be a facade.
In other words, what “looks” good may not necessarily “be” good. If something “is” good, the person who did it knows it. And, to that person, it’s all that matters. If some credit comes with it, so be it. If some blame comes with it, so be it.
Whatever job you have, or whatever work you do, try to be personally invested in it. Sometimes, that can be difficult. Sometimes, that can even be impossible. In the latter case, you would be wise to find something else. But, in the former case, you should find something about the job that makes you want to do it, regardless of your orders.
Many employers, though they profess to want doers working for them, are content with performers. They just do what they are told, whether the employees like it or not. If they don’t like it, they know where the door is, and someone else can come in and perform.
These employers usually get what they expect – unhappy workers, high turnover etc.
In decades past, employers valued continuity. They had systems in which longevity and loyalty were rewarded. They hired well and retained well, and didn’t have to retrain frequently.
That mindset disappeared as companies figured that employee longevity was too costly for them. In fact, they came up with theories about how long a person should be employed before the costs of that employee were greater than the employee’s value to the company.
Then, they offered no incentive to stay in one company for a long time. The company saw no future for that employee. That increased “job-hopping,” making it difficult for a worker to plan for his or her future when work was over.
From there came frequent reorganizations and more bad managers. That made even doers – good employees – vulnerable to unforeseen departures.
That converted doers to performers.
The message here is that if you are an employer, and really want doers working for you, do your level best to give them reason to be doers. Better yet, give them reason to be long-term doers.
If you are an employee and a doer, look for a situation that makes it easy for you to be a doer. Yes, you have to have a good amount of self-motivation, but a combination of internal and external motivators is ideal.
So, do your best to be a doer. If you have to perform certain tasks, know the real reason you have to perform them and don’t lose sight of the reason you are a doer.
Peter