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:

• new technology and the ever-increasing speed, power, and assimilation of automation, including robotics and artificial intelligence, which create new jobs while hastening the extinction of others
• greater access to information, including legislated transparency about business practices
• growing disconnect between the education and labor markets (According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are one million more coding jobs in America than workers to fill them.)3
• the greatest public health crisis in a century and the ensuing economic fallout from the pandemic, including significant job loss and small business closures
• widespread protests over racial and economic issues, leading to greater awareness and action about social justice
• extreme political polarization and paralysis

Any one of these forces is enough to meaningfully impact the labor market and society as a whole. We find ourselves at a tumultuous, pivotal moment for business, for organizations, and for society.

I believe, and will argue in this book, that we are entering a more human-centric era for work. And that's good for business.

The Challenge and the Opportunity

What will the near future look like for the global economy and labor markets? What will it look like for individual industries? For the way we work? Of course, there's much we don't know (as the Danish physicist Niels Bohr noted, "It's difficult to make projections, particularly about the future"), but the winners of tomorrow will almost certainly be those best prepared for it. As renowned business management consultant Peter Drucker liked to say, "The best way to predict the future is to create it."

Research highlights some of the most important trends:

• Workers - everyone - will be on the move like never before. The average amount of time that a technical skill remains relevant is approximately five years.4 The average American moves their place of residence 11.4 times over the course of their lifetime.5
• Workers will not be office-bound or 9-to-5-bound. Almost three in four employees said that flexible work arrangements increased their satisfaction at work; almost four in five said "flexible work arrangements made them more productive."6 The pandemic has supercharged this.
• Workers are fearful and unsure. Slightly more than half of U.S. employees fear that their job will eventually be lost to automation.7 Over half of current students in primary school will work in jobs that don't yet exist.8 Because of the speed of technological advancement, the risk today is greater than in 1890 that workers will fall behind as work moves forward without them. Some jobs, like truck driving, will largely disappear because of the savings that automation (self-driving trucks) provides; those millions of truck drivers, it is said, will be poorly positioned for reskilling. In a fast-moving, digitally mediated labor market, how can individuals keep their skills up-to-date? Will taking a different path preclude the employee from enjoying certain professional opportunities and success?
• Workers are overwhelmed. Senior executives now receive 200+ emails daily.9 The amount of new information produced in the world continues to double every 18 months.10 So many of us suffer from "information anxiety," the fear that systems we rely on are fast outstripping our ability to comprehend and manage them.
• Business leaders and Human Resources departments are overwhelmed. How will companies know which mix of skills they need? Because of the sheer number of different credentials, employers struggle to understand what exactly they're looking for - not just because of uncertainty caused by technological shifts, but also because it's difficult to standardize the description of skills and jobs even across the different parts of a single organization. How can HR know that workers have truly earned the credentials they claim? And will this complicate their efforts to diversify the incoming workforce?
• Schools are overwhelmed. From universities to coding academies, there is similar uncertainty about what to offer, even when there's a strong desire to teach to near-term market demands.
• Parents are overwhelmed. Whether it's the need for childcare or their kids falling behind in competing in the global economy, parents feel fear and uncertainty about what may lie ahead.

In my role as president of SAP SuccessFactors, I see countless companies struggling with these changing dynamics and...