CHAPTER 1 A Brief, Not Particularly Employee-Friendly History of Work

Consider the employee experience over the last 3,000 years.

      History tells us it was harsh, usually brutal. It was tedious. Workers, including children, were often exploited or far worse. Conditions could be unbearable, with few if any safety precautions. Laborers were often unappreciated for their efforts. It was called work for a reason.

      For thousands of years we worked from dawn until dusk. Rulers or wealthy employers established pay and taxes and could change them on a whim. You decided how much risk you would accept for the advertised reward but, for most, it was no choice at all.

      During the Industrial Revolution, workers experienced a huge shift from primarily agrarian labor and the creation of hand-crafted goods to mass manufacturing, enabled by technology. People moved to cities, where growth and industry offered more reliable jobs, albeit with similarly terrible conditions. Some governments and newly formed labor unions fought to improve worker health and safety, but struggled to keep up with the dizzying pace of change. Mass production and assembly lines generated an economic boon. Though responsibilities changed, workers still faced monotonous and tiresome tasks. Your job wasn't to be happy at work; it was to do your work.

Work, and our relationship to it, has continued to evolve. Over the last 50 years, many jobs moved from the production of goods to the delivery of services. The number of professional and technical workers increased dramatically. With the rise of the knowledge worker, alongside sweeping advances in telecommunications and the emergence of the internet, work was no longer inextricably linked to a specific workplace. Once without choice, workers began to enjoy agency for the first time.

      We've come a long way.

It's Different Now

      Historically, we have talked about labor markets from a supply-demand perspective. Companies managed employees as assets. In a scarce labor market, when the number of jobs exceeds the number of qualified candidates, employees have the power. In a surplus labor market, things get better for companies but worse for employees.

      Is this a healthy way to think about the relationship between employees and companies? Treating it as a zero-sum battle for supremacy? Is it good for societies to talk about human beings using terms like “surplus”? This is unsustainable if we are to create a healthy society with trusted companies and happy, productive citizens.

      We are starting to see a complex shift, brought on by changing global demographics, new economic norms, and advancing technologies. Employees are reevaluating the purpose of work and demanding a new set of rules. Employers are struggling to keep up.

Julia Pollak, chief economist at ZipRecruiter, says, “People don't realize the scale of what has changed. If you take even one chair away in musical chairs, it changes the entire dynamic of the game. That's what we're seeing now, where the 50 percent increase in job openings has given job seekers dramatically more leverage.”¹

On one hand, I hear from CEOs and Chief Human Resources Officers (CHROs) about their need for talent. Companies are hiring at record rates, yet simply can't fill roles fast enough. Evolving and expanding expectations have left businesses struggling to appeal to the right candidates. Candidates see career development and talent mobility as a must. Hefty equity grants, once a luxury, are now standard. Freedom policies and remote work are expected. Even something unheard of ten years ago, like pet insurance, can be a deciding factor.

      On the other hand, I hear about so many people who can't find a job.

      What's the real story? Have we over-automated talent acquisition? Are we trying too hard to apply technology, taking the humanity out of the recruitment process? Are we overreliant on personal networks and underinvested in finding diverse voices? Are we doing a disservice to our own teams and businesses, as well as the candidates in the market?

CHROs are doing incredible work to deliver the increased employee choice and development opportunities required by candidates and employees. They are quickly innovating new tools and processes in the name of employee experience. When supported by leaders, they have done well to drive improved employee engagement and leadership trust. Despite insights from advanced analytics, the constant shifts in their workforces make it difficult to pinpoint one root cause. Even Nobel Prize-winning economists aren't sure. “The Great Resignation,” writes Paul Krugman in The New York Times, “remains somewhat mysterious.”²

      We're witnessing many dramatic developments at once: