Passing Of A True Genius: Norman Borlaug.

Agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in combating world hunger and saving hundreds of millions of lives, died Saturday in Texas, a Texas A&M University spokeswoman said. He was 95. By Matt Curry & Betsy Blaney at The Huffington Post

Borlaug died Saturday night at his home in Dallas from complications of cancer, school spokeswoman Kathleen Phillips said. Phillips said Borlaug's granddaughter told her about his death. Borlaug was a distinguished professor at the university in College Station.

The Nobel committee honored Borlaug in 1970 for his contributions to high-yield crop varieties and bringing other agricultural innovations to the developing world. Many experts credit Borlaug with averting global famine during the second half of the 20th century and saving perhaps 1 billion lives.

Thanks to Borlaug, world food production more than doubled between 1960 and 1990. In Pakistan and India, two of the nations that benefited most from the new crop varieties, grain yields more than quadrupled over the period.

"Norman E. Borlaug saved more lives than any man in human history," said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N. World Food Program. "His heart was as big as his brilliant mind, but it was his passion and compassion that moved the world."

Equal parts scientist and humanitarian, the Iowa-born Borlaug realized improved crop varieties were just part of the answer, and pressed governments for farmer-friendly economic policies and improved infrastructure to make markets accessible. A 2006 book about Borlaug is titled "The Man Who Fed the World."

"He has probably done more and is known by fewer people than anybody that has done that much," said Dr. Ed Runge, retired head of Texas A&M University's Department of Soil and Crop Sciences and a close friend who persuaded Borlaug teach at the school. "He made the world a better place – a much better place. He had people helping him, but he was the driving force."

Borlaug began the work that led to his Nobel in Mexico at the end of World War II. There he used innovative breeding techniques to produce disease-resistant varieties of wheat that produced much more grain than traditional strains.

Harvey McKay: How To Negotiate!

I love Harvey McKay. From one of his first books, Swim with the Sharks, I saw a real professional who was not shy about revealing his tried and true business secrets. He is a one-of-a-kind leader! By Harvey McKay

I got a phone call from a Fortune 500 CEO one week whom I had never met. After decades of begging the government to relax their regulatory grip and let his industry experience the joys of competition, his wish had been granted—and his bottom line had plummeted. He wanted me to talk to his top executives for two hours and zero in on negotiating strategies.

A bit overwhelmed, I said, "I'm very flattered but, frankly, I don't know if I can talk for two hours on negotiating." Then I realized I was actually negotiating with myself. As my brain finally reconnected, I cut myself off. "Well, let me sleep on it and I'll get back to you."

Later that evening, I began to write down some of my negotiating experiences and saw that my problem was going to be holding the speech down to two hours. I'd already brushed up against the first and second laws of negotiating that morning in my conversation with the CEO:

1. Never accept any proposal immediately, no matter how good it sounds.
2. Never negotiate with yourself. You'll furnish the other side with ammunition they might never have gotten themselves. Don't raise a bid or lower an offer without first getting a response.

Here are some more negotiating rules and insights:

• Never cut a deal with someone who has to "go back and get the boss's approval." That gives the other side two bites of the apple to your one. They can take any deal you are willing to make and renegotiate it.
• If you can't say yes, it's no. Just because a deal can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. no one ever went broke saying "no" too often.
• Just because it may look nonnegotiable, doesn't mean it is. Take that beautifully printed "standard contract" you've just been handed. Many a smart negotiator has been able to name a term and gets away with it by making it appear to be chiseled in granite, when they will deal if their bluff is called.
• Do your homework before you deal. Learn as much as you can about the other side. Instincts are no match for information.
• Rehearse. Practice. Get someone to play the other side. Then switch roles. Instincts are no match for preparation.
• Beware the late dealer. Feigning indifference or casually disregarding timetables is often just a negotiator's way of trying to make you believe he/she doesn't care if you make the deal or not.
• Be nice, but if you can't be nice, go away and let someone else do the deal. You'll blow it.
• A deal can always be made when both parties see their own benefit in making it.
• A dream is a bargain no matter what you pay for it. Set the scene. Tell the tale. Generate excitement. Help the other side visualize the benefits, and they'll sell themselves.
• Don't discuss your business where it can be overheard by others. Almost as many deals have gone down in elevators as elevators have gone down.
• Watch the game films. Top players in any game, including negotiating, debrief themselves immediately after every major session. They always keep a book on themselves and the other side.
• No one is going to show you their hole card. You have to figure out what they really want. Clue: Since the given reason is never the real reason, you can eliminate the given reason.
• Always let the other side talk first. Their first offer could surprise you and be better than you ever expected.
• You must be fully prepared to lose a great deal in order to make a great deal!
• "Make every bargain clear and plain, that none may afterwards complain." - Greek Proverb

Book Review: The Management Myth: Why the "Experts" Keep Getting it Wrong - By Matthew Stewart

"How can so many who know so little make so much by telling other people how to do the jobs they are paid to know how to do?" The answer to this question, posed by a professor of author Matthew Stewart, is basically the entire volume of The Management Myth, itself. This darkly funny, brutally detailed look at the management consultant class manages to unveil nonsense and presumptions of everyone involved in corporate life in America, from current gurus like Tom Peters (In Search of Excellence) to modern-day Fortune 500 company heads to the worshipped founders of business schools and management theory.

By SusanG at DailyKos. The Management Myth: Why the "Experts" Keep Getting it Wrong - By Matthew Stewart - Hardcover, 352 pages - W.W. Norton & Co., New York - $27.95

Along with the money has come a whole lot of admiration for the great leaders of the corporate world. University leaders, philanthropists, hospital administrators, and politicians promise to manage their fiefdoms like CEOs manage their companies .... When Jesus is compared with a CEO, it is Jesus who is thought to gain by the comparison. Whether the problem is a soul in search of salvation, a relationship on the rocks, or a superpower in trouble, according to the received wisdom the answer is to turn it into a private corporation and then manage it like a CEO.

Stewart's personal story exemplifies the ludicrousness of the consultant trade in a nutshell. Armed with no business experience or even a record of academic business classes--but a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Oxford!--he interviewed on a lark for a consultant position, urged on by a friend with about as much business experience as Stewart who'd struck gold with a firm with a top-tier firm.

Luckily for readers, Stewart was hired ... and spent years on the front lines taking notes like an embed in the consultant industry, rising from a low-level (but highly compensated) hire to founding partner of a spin-off firm, a company that (ironically) ended badly in a tangle of lawsuits and textbook examples of bad management practices.

Alternating tales of his own personal rise and disillusionment with the industry with historical background on how business education and business management became its own field in the first place, Stewart's keen eye and biting insight provide a work that is both entertaining and informative. And the book's timing couldn't be better; as outsiders look in on Wall Street and wonder how so many supposedly brilliant financiers could have been so wrong, Stewart's look at the underbelly of CEO's and their parasitic class of consultants provides several clues as to how the current economic crisis came about.

If any political party funded political science departments in the way that corporations fund the business schools, we would naturally consider their research to be little more than propaganda.

Let's begin, then, at the beginning, as Stewart does: with the origins of the business schools and the business of advising business itself. For many years, capitalists like Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan managed somehow to create empires without paying theorists or obtaining MBA's, but that all changed when the first efficiency expert, Charles Frederick Taylor, did some very unscientific scientific studies and became if not the first, at least the most renowned (and pompous), advisor to businesses. "With this time-wasting stopwatch rituals and other grossly inefficient sacraments to the god of production," Stewart writes, "Taylor embodied the subtle madness of a new and profoundly unbalanced religion of practicality." But Taylor gave the "profession" a genesis and a scientific aura, despite the fact that later examinations of his "studies" proved them to be inaccurate and ... well, fudged. No matter. A "profession" of management and business consultancy was born, taken up and promulgated by Taylor's successors.

Medicine is a profession not on account of research in molecular biology but because it has licensing requirements, standards commissions, and policing mechanisms for controlling malpractice. The "profession" of business management as Donham and Mayo conceived it has none of these features. It merely exhorts good behavior on the basis of putatively "scientific" findings.

It's not that Stewart objects to quantification and analysis in a knee-jerk humanities/philosopher fashion. In its place, he acknowledges, statistics and projections can help chart a course and can turn up problem areas in need of attention. He also understands the place and role of leadership in organizations, even as he despairs of the "professionalization" of it.

But the modern idea of management is right enough to be dangerously wrong and it has led us seriously astray. It has sent us on a mistaken quest to seek scientific answers to unscientific questions. It offers pretended technological solutions to what are, at bottom, moral and political problems. It conjures an illusion--easily explained--about the nature and value of management expertise. It induces us to devote formative years to training in subjects that do not exist. It favors a naive view of the sources of mismanagement. Above all, it contributes to a misunderstanding about the sources of our prosperity, leading us to neglect the social, moral, and political infrastructure on which our well-being depends.

Not only does fetishization of ill-founded management theory threaten that non-corporate infrastructure to which he refers, it also often doesn't even make sense in a business context. "'Pure' analysis," he claims, "in most business situations tends to be conservative rather than creative. It implicitly favors optimizing the existing business rather than building a new one."

Still, there is a certain constructive role that outsiders can play in the modern corporation, if they keep the scope of their mission in mind. Often consultants can serve as hatchet men (or women, but usually men), for example. Or they can become the conduit of communication from one department to another in a poorly structured organization. Or ... they can just pull strategy out of the air sometimes, just to get things moving.

But overall, the business of advising business is a charade, one Stewart likens at one point to the introduction of a virus into an imperfect but moderately functioning organism. Sure, every corporation could probably use a wee bit of objective analysis, but the road to succumbing to a fatal parasitical malady usually begins with picking up an advisor on one project and then four years down the line having an entire staff of consultants in every department, sucking the life out of organizations, mandating lay-offs of employees even as the ranks of the contracted consultants swells.

And some of the modern strains of hyped business practice can be downright alarming on close examination. "Strategic planning," for example, uses projection and top-command control tactics that look an awful lot like Soviet Russia-era five-year plans, and can wind up creating the same kind of sullen, drag-footed compliance and stifling of innovation in the modern multinational corporation.

And most of the best business practices come down to common sense, anyway, Stewart maintains. After living the advising life and bailing on it, he's embarked now on a new writing career that's refreshing, bold and valuable. In The Management Myth, Stewart not only bites the hand that fed him--he cuts it off, chews it up, spits it out and examines its anatomy so that those unfamiliar with the practices of that invisible hand can benefit from knowledge of its previously invisible ways. Out of these shadows emerges the credo of the consultant--and the corporate--class:

Hire the smartest people in the room, the theory goes, and they'll figure out on their own how to extract money from the other people unlucky enough to be caught in the same room.

Staying in the Game With Help on the Sidelines.

A great WSJ article by Sarah Needleman, who has interviewed me a number of times — Enjoy! Executive coaches report steady demand for their services despite the recession. Individual and corporate clients say the one-on-one counseling is critical for career success, especially during tough economic times.

Coaches typically are hired by companies, at $300 an hour or more, to hone the management or communication skills of senior leaders and rising stars. Even with the recession, many coaches say some companies are retaining their services to help them get lean and efficient. Coaches also said they are seeing an increase in individuals hiring coaches on their own.

Eric Chaffin, a 38-year-old partner at law firm Bernstein Liebhard LLP in New York, has paid coach Dee Soder out of his own pocket on a retainer since 2003, and has no plans to stop. "In a down economy, it's particularly important to have someone on your side," he said. "Instead of 10 client opportunities this year, there might be five. You have to make each one count."

Mr. Chaffin said Dr. Soder, founder of the CEO Perspective Group, an assessment and advisory firm in New York, helps him with tough career and practice decisions. For example, in 2003, she helped him weigh job offers from private firms after his four-year stint as a federal prosecutor. He chose a law firm that represents plaintiffs in consumer and shareholder cases because he and Dr. Soder thought it fit well with his blue-collar family background. Last year, he shifted to another plaintiffs' firm, Bernstein Liebhard. Recently Dr. Soder advised him on how to work with clients who are hurting because of the recession. Mr. Chaffin said Dr. Soder gives him a different perspective than business associates. "Most lawyers think alike," he said. "She's helped me understand some of the characteristics of my clients and their motivations."

Executive coaches say they're being hired by more individuals like Mr. Chaffin, a trend that has helped offset tighter budgets at some corporate clients. Dr. Soder says the number of her clients who are individuals paying on their own has nearly doubled since November. Wendy Alfus-Rothman, founder of Wenroth Consulting Inc., a New York executive-coaching firm, said more individuals are scheduling monthly, rather than quarterly, sessions.

A 2007 study commissioned by the International Coach Federation pegged annual revenue world-wide for the industry, which includes life, career and executive coaches, at $1.5 billion, with about half the study's 5,415 respondents in the U.S. Of the respondents, 58% reported executive coaching as their specialty.

Coaches say many companies still use their services to retain top talent and support senior leaders while coping with smaller staffs and recession-starved budgets. Amber Romine, director in global human capital at consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC's Washington, D.C., office, said she fields a steady stream of requests from clients looking for referrals to executive coaches. Gene Morrissy, a management psychologist at RHR International, said demand in the executive-coaching practice of the Wood Dale, Ill., organizational-development firm is up 10% from a year ago.

Denver telecommunications provider Wide Open West Inc. in January canceled merit raises for this year and suspended company matching contributions to employee 401(k) plans. But this year the company will spend $25,000, about what it spends every year, on coaching for three managers. "Our fundamental belief is you have to develop your greatest assets, which are your people," said Colleen Abdoulah, chief executive.

Humana Inc., a Louisville, Ky., health insurer, also is protecting its coaching program. Humana this year will spend between $17,000 and $30,000 for six months of sessions for each of about 50 senior employees, said Jeff Nally, who heads the firm's executive-coaching initiative. The meetings cover areas such as how to build an executive presence, communicate ideas and influence others. "Even in a recession, developing talent in key roles is still important," said Mr. Nally.

Still, Humana is trying to trim coaching costs, which totaled about $25,000 to $50,000 in past years. The company now encourages participants to conduct more counseling sessions by phone, which saves money on coaches' travel fees. And rather than hire outsiders to assess coaching needs, senior executives and human-resources leaders conduct assessments of more junior employees, which cuts the length of engagements by an average of three months.

Some small-business owners use coaches as sounding boards. Nancy A. May, president and chief executive of BoardBench Cos. LLC, a four-employee advisory firm in Norwalk, Conn., pays her own way to meet periodically with Dr. Soder. Ms. May says she relies on Dr. Soder for honest advice."You wouldn't go to somebody junior and say, 'I've screwed up, what do I do?' she says.

Ms. May, 50, began working with Dr. Soder about a year ago on ways to improve her interactions with clients, among other issues. Sessions are held over the phone, and occasionally in person, twice a month for up to an hour. "At times I have a big personality and the enthusiasm can sometimes be off-putting to somebody who's more of an introvert," says Ms. May. "My coach is working with me to manage that based on the personalities of other CEOs or board people I might be working with."

Ms. May says she has noticed changes, particularly "how people are stopping and listening, and being drawn into a conversation with me a little differently."

Paula M. Zwiren, president of Allied Title LLC, a small title-insurance firm in Flanders, N.J., said she was inspired to seek coaching after attending a seminar led by a group of women business leaders. Ms. Zwiren, 33, meets quarterly with Dr. Alfus-Rothman for about two hours. "An executive coach helps you identify things that help you be in control of your destiny," she said.

Ms. Zwiren said Dr. Alfus-Rothman, whom she pays about $3,000 a year, has improved her communications skills. "You have to be very direct at the executive level, very concrete," she says. "She helps me with my power of persuasion."

Executives and senior professionals interested in executive coaching should research prospective coaches carefully because the industry isn't regulated, said Kay Cannon, a past president of the coaching federation and an executive coach in Lexington, Ky. "You want to make sure the individual has some kind of coach-specific training," she says. For example, many ICF members are certified as master, professional or associate coaches, which means they've undergone between 60 and 200 hours of training.

Ms. Cannon also recommends asking for referrals to past clients and getting a sense of whether you have chemistry with a coach before agreeing to a long-term commitment.

Task Ninja: Form the Action Habit.

A lot of us get stuck in inaction — procrastinating, doing a lot of unimportant tasks to avoid the important stuff, worrying about failing or about being perfect, having a hard time starting, getting distracted, and so on. It’s time to start forming the Action Habit instead. Get all Ninja on your actions. By Leo Babauta at Zen Habits.

And it’s really not that hard if you focus on it for a little while. Like any other habit, start in small doses, little tasks, just short bursts, and then build on that momentum.

Some quick steps for forming the Action Habit:

1. Figure out your key actions. Focusing on the right actions is just as important as the doing. Don’t spend a lot of time in this step — just quickly decide your Top 3 actions for today.

2. Pick one key action, and visualize the outcome. How will it look when you’re done? Again, don’t spend a lot of time here — just form a quick picture in your mind.

3. Just start. Tell yourself, “Do it now!” Make it a mantra. Don’t mess around with tools, with distractions, with anything that will get in the way of doing this task. Strip away everything but the task, and get going!

4. Focus on the moment. Just be in this task, don’t worry about the future or what mistakes you might make or might have made before. Just focus on doing this task, as best you can. Immerse yourself in it.

5. Get to done. Complete the task. Feel good about it! Pat yourself on the back!

Now repeat with the next task. The more you practice this habit, the better you get. Do it in small doses, and keep practicing. You’ll fail sometimes. See the next section for how to deal with that. But don’t let failure stop you — just practice some more.

Barriers to the Action Habit: But what if you’re having trouble actually taking action? Some quick thoughts:

Don’t worry about perfect. Too often we want to create the perfect plan, but while it’s important to know where you’re going, it’s more important not to get stuck in the planning mode. And while it’s important to do your best, perfection isn’t necessary.

Stop fiddling. Are you messing around with your software or other tools? Are you playing with fonts and colors and other non-essential things? Stop! Get back to the task.

Remove distractions. Turn off the phone, email, IM, Twitter, etc. Shut off the world around you, and just focus on the doing.

Improve it later. Just do it now. You can make it better later. Writers call this the sh*tty first draft — and while it sounds bad, it’s actually a good thing. You’re getting it done, even if it’s sloppy.

Break it into smaller chunks. Sometimes the task is too intimidating. If the task takes more than an hour, start with a 30-minute chunk. If that’s too big, do just 10 minutes. If that’s too hard, do 5. If you have to, just do 1 minute, just to get going.

Stop thinking so much. Thinking is a good thing. Overthinking isn’t, and it gets in the way. Put aside all the thinking (analysis paralysis) and just do.

If you can’t do something … figure out why. Maybe you don’t have the tools. Maybe you don’t have the authority. Maybe you need something from someone else. Maybe you’re missing some key info.

Maybe you don’t know how to do something and need to read up on it, or be taught how. Maybe you just don’t want to do it, and you should drop it altogether. Figure out what the barrier is, and solve it.

The Shredding Of YOUR Workplace Is Happening NOW.

There's striking disagreement on the shape of the economic upturn – being touted are 'J', 'L', 'V', 'U', 'W' or even a 'saxophone shaped upturn', however what's sure is it's coming. With the upturn – welcome or not – is a complete shredding of the workplace rulebook!

By John Blackwell at Management Issues.

Today's workplace consists of finely balanced interdependencies between people, space, technologies, culture, and management practices. It demands HR professionals talk fluent real estate, real estate professionals talk fluent talent and collaboration, technologists talk fluent culture, and managers be fluent in trust, agility, and social connection.

Get it right and the workplace is a vibrant, inspiring place that motivates creativity, innovation, and untold performance levels. Get it wrong and it's dull and disenfranchising, with staff bored by the tedium.

This isn't some abstract theory – everyone reading this article will, at some point, have experienced a dull workplace and equally will have experienced a vibrant one.

The current economic turmoil has brought about a unique combination of factors that's not merely overturning workplace rules, it's completely shredding the rule book!

Prominent factors in this upheaval are:

1. Unemployment: In OECD countries, unemployment has risen from 6.8% in 2008 to today's 7.8%, and is projected to top 10% by 2010. While any unemployment is distressing, the impact on remaining staff is possibly more dramatic.

How drastic? Research suggests that half of staff have lost trust in their employer and almost as many - 46% - would leave at the earliest opportunity if they had the chance.

This distrust is rooted in staff eyeing ranks of empty desks and an assumption that they'll voluntarily "pick up the slack". Staff are also disenfranchised over the lottery approach to downsizing and the lack of visionary thinking about alternatives. When cost avoidance is today's corporate mantra, this discontent and churn could prove financially crippling.

2. A Shrinking Talent Pool: It's a myth that restructuring is creating a labour market awash with talent2. A shrinking talent pool: It's a myth that restructuring has created a labour market awash with talent. More than 60% of white-collar unemployed are turning their back on corporate life and investing redundancy monies in starting entrepreneurial businesses. Having walked away, this talent won't be returning corporate life.

Clearly, these far-reaching changes to the traditional workplace demand precision metrics and a structured, scientific approach. Everyone involved must be 'on-board', and have a clear view of the 4 P's of change;

Purpose – why change, what's in it for me? Picture – what will it look like after the change? Plan – what's the timeline and what should I expect? Part – what's my part and what's expected of me?

Factor in a 17% decline in 'prime-age' labour (due to decreasing birth rate, increasing adult education, etc), this represents a notable shrinkage of an already rarefied talent market – something that the UK's Department for Work and Pensions is projecting won't return to 'normal' until 2020!

3. Virtual working: Staff are juggling a three-fold increase in project volumes since 2004, compounded by increased matrix working and the outsourcing of non-core activities, which is leading to an explosion in virtual working.

We've projected that, by 2010 staff will be spending just 5% of their day in the same place, on the project, at the same time as their colleagues. 95% of time will be spent working alone, at a different time, place, or on a different schedule.

Consequently, managers have a far looser understanding of their teams, and must rapidly learn how to migrate from command-control to mentoring, motivating, and coaching.

4. Unsustainable office utilisation: Prior to the economic downturn, office utilisation was typically hovering around 50%. One of the first casualties of the recession was corporate real estate values, which has dropped by more than 44%. At the same time, almost every organisation is being forced to – or taking the opportunity to – optimise headcount.

This has created the perennial conflict between dwindling occupancy and the inability to shift surplus real estate – a direct outcome being plummeting office utilisation of 20% or lower, and dispersed staff finding themselves forced into 'intra-office virtual working'.

This commonly leads to reduced business 'fluency'. Just consider, if you're more than four metres apart, the chance is you'll not know the other person in the office.

Shredding the workplace rulebook presents both formidable challenges and great opportunities. We're entering the 'era of interdependence'. A time when all business dimensions – HR, physical space, technologies, culture, and management practices – must work in harmony to deliver effective performance.

The recent Workplace of the Future report shed considerable insight to how organisations are responding to changing work practices. Of the 1,100 business leaders interviewed, 83% perceive significant change, however only 61% have successfully changed in the past, a gap that has trebled since 2006.

The report found that organisations financially out-performing their comparators are investing in radical interventions, broadly grouped into two areas – trust-based, and socially connected workplaces.

Trust-based workplaces allow staff complete temporal and spatial autonomy. Socially connected workplaces actively encourage staff to engage and collaborate with likeminded people far beyond traditional work boundaries. This significantly improves the response to weak signals – competitive and creative developments that might otherwise have been overlooked.

However, change needs to be tempered with caution – it mustn't be dismissed as merely 'engineering' processes or tasks, it's a complex problem of co-evolution at multiple levels (individuals, the community, the environment etc).

A mechanical approach is by its nature dehumanising, and you must remember you get out what you measure. If you set targets, staff will attempt to realise the targets at all costs, ignoring context or the unstated goals that the change was hoping to realise. An awful amount of resource can be wasted managing a measurement system rather than letting the workplace flourish. We all have a stake in addressing the current situation - organisation and individual alike – in creating a brighter, smarter, and more vibrant "workplace of the future". And all of us can take immediate steps to embracing this new order.

Facebook Postings Close Doors For Job Candidates.

More employers than ever are researching job candidates on sites like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter in order to find out more about their activities and character. And, it turns out, many candidates are doing a great job of showing their potential bosses poor communication skills, inappropriate pictures, and even how many workplace secrets they can leak. By Jacqui Cheng at arsTechnica.

Some of us had the luck of doing stupid things online before most employers knew what social networking was. (I'll admit it: in my early working days, I said some not-nice things online about some of the people I worked with.) These days, however, those looking for jobs have had many years to build up an unsavory history across the Internet, and employers now know how to do their homework. In fact, nearly half of the employers in the US now search for job candidates on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, according to survey results from CareerBuilder. The job-finding firm said that the numbers reflect a twofold increase over those who reported doing so in last year—45 percent in 2009 versus 22 percent in 2008—and cautioned that many employers choose not to hire based on information they find online.

Facebook was the most popular site for researching job candidates this year — no surprise there, since Facebook has exploded in popularity as of late. "Professional" networking site LinkedIn came in second at 26 percent, MySpace came in third at 21 percent, 11 percent read blogs, and seven percent followed candidates' updates on Twitter. Paranoid yet about any of your recent tweets?

If you're looking for a job, you probably should be. More than a third of survey respondents said that they found info that caused them not to hire the person applying for the job, including "provocative or inappropriate photographs," content related to drinking or using drugs, and finding postings that badmouthed previous employers, coworkers, or clients. Other candidates showed poor communication skills on their social networking profiles, made discriminatory comments, lied about their qualifications, or shared confidential information from a previous employer. The one that made us cringe? "16 percent dismissed a candidate for using text language such as GR8 (great) in an e-mail or job application."

On the other hand, some candidates are doing a good job of presenting their professional side when posting online. Half of those who screened candidates via their social networking profiles said that they got a good feel for the person's personality and fit within the organization. Other employers said that they found the profiles supported the candidates' professional qualifications or that they discovered how creative the candidate was. Solid communication skills, evidence of well-roundedness, and other people's good references (we assume this one came from LinkedIn) helped boost people's credentials, too.

For most of us, it seems like common sense not to talk trash on your Facebook wall or post drunk pictures where potential employers can see them, but people are still catching up to the idea that their future bosses are on the same sites as they are. Anecdotally, I have worked at many an office that has casually looked up interns and new employees online, only to find sides of them that were less than flattering (one intern publicly declared that our company's parent company could "f-ing suck it!" immediately after we offered her the job).

Some may argue that employers shouldn't use information they found through a little bit of online stalking (something we've heard in our forums)—after all, what someone does after hours is his or her own business. At the same time, it's hard to deny that discovering truly alarming information—such as leaked workplace secrets—would be good cause for choosing another candidate. These days, everyone hunting for a job needs to exercise some judgment on what to post online and who they let access it if they want to stay in future employers' good graces.

CMO to CEO: Insights & Advice From CEOs Who Have Made The Transition.

Little is written about the options available to CMOs to progress beyond their role as marketers and become key players at the executive committee level. At the Rich Gee Group, we frequently run into many C-Level executives who want to progress to the top rung and help them develop a strategy on what they should be doing to make themselves credible contenders for the CEO berth.

Spencer Stuart has a great report (click here for the PDF) that outlines each of the 10 ways to prepare for a role as a CEO:

1. Take on a general management role in an emerging market
2. Broaden your skill set at every opportunity
3. Gain experience in at least one non-marketing role
4. Get involved in as many mission-critical, non-marketing projects as you can
5. Demonstrate your credibility and track record as a commercial leader
6. Develop close working relationships with other functions
7. Work with the CFO to value the company’s brand assets
8. Hone your communication skills
9. Learn to make the tough decisions
10. Find a mentor who is already a CEO or in a general management position

It's a great read. Enjoy! - Rich

Keeping Unscheduled Time.

I love the The Practice of Leadership blog - and George Ambler hits it out of the park with this topic on buffering time:

“Every leader should routinely keep a substantial portion of his or her time—I would say as much as 50 percent—unscheduled. … Only when you have substantial ’slop’ in your schedule—unscheduled time—will you have the space to reflect on what you are doing, learn from experience, and recover from your inevitable mistakes. Leaders without such free time end up tackling issues only when there is an immediate or visible problem. Managers’ typical response to my argument about free time is, ‘That’s all well and good, but there are things I have to do.’ Yet we waste so much time in unproductive activity—it takes an enormous effort on the part of the leader to keep free time for the truly important things.” – Dov Frohman

Making time to reflect and think is a critical leadership practice. In its simplest form, reflecting is just thinking about what happened. It’s the process of thinking about and examining what we’ve experienced, how we reacted and what changes we need to make to become more effective.

There are few people who make a conscious effort to learn from their experiences and fewer still learn from their mistakes. This is because reflection is not an automatic process for most people. Most of use make our way through life simply reacting to circumstances. To be effective leaders must make reflection a regular practice.

“Leaders like everyone else, are the sum of all their experiences, but, unlike others, they amount to more than the sum, because they make more of their experiences.” – Warren Bennis, Why Leaders Can’t Lead

A simple way to start the practice of reflection is by asking questions, questions about how we feel, about the results we are getting in our life, and what we can do differently to get different results. For example, find a quite place where you are not going to be disturbed then, take an issue that’s important to you, and ask yourself the following questions:

What happened? What was I trying to achieve? What went well and why? What didn’t go so well and why? How did it affect me? How did it affect others? What were the consequences (positive or negative) for myself and others? What could be done differently next time? Would this change improve the consequences?

“Reflection is asking the questions that provoke self-awareness” – Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader

As leaders much of our success is dependent on the way we think. Given this, it’s important that we schedule regular time-out to reflect on how we are behaving, how we are thinking about a situation and what adjustments we might need to make to improve our effectiveness. When was the last time you spent reflecting on an issue that is important to you?

Ethical Leadership — You Need A Mentor.

Part Two of a series on Ethical Leadership — many more to come.

"Mentor: Someone whose hindsight can become your foresight.”
- Unknown

Ethics is a balance. Simply put, a balance between good and evil and your relationship with each.

Leadership is a balance. Guiding and letting go is a balance in itself.

In every endeavor in life, balance comes to play and it helps to have something or someone to help you maintain (or regain) your balance when times are tough. This is where mentors come in.

Of course you can ask someone for temporary guidance — we all do that from time to time. Unfortunately, 'temporary mentors' usually don't know the full score, they are fishing in the shallow waters and cannot fully understand the depths of your dilemma, opportunity, or situation.

A long-term mentor can help you not only solve present issues, but keep your eye on your long-term goals. Talking with them on a regular basis can help you regain your balance, fly straight, and keep your head clear.

Pick a mentor - choose a past boss, one that is not steeped in company intrigue. One that seems to fly above the corporate radar and get things done without playing politics. They can either come from a past company or your current one — but be careful with current company mentors - choose wisely.

State frankly that you would like to have them be your mentor. That you'll take them out to lunch to bounce ideas off of them. Let them understand that your talks will be highly confidential in nature and that you appreciate their guidance.

Schedule regular meetings - usually monthly or quarterly, off-site. Come with a good idea of the topics that you would like to cover. In addition, always add the question: "What do you think my next step should be?" It will allow you both to move from tactical to strategic thinking.

Keep them informed of the results - this will help the mentor/mentee relationship stay healthy and focused.

A mentor can help you focus on what is REALLY important and see things you might have missed. They will keep you on the right track.

P.S. By the way, if you cannot find anyone who can be a good mentor for you, call me.

The New Joblessness.

The U.S. economy is not only shedding jobs at a record rate; it is shedding more jobs than it is supposed to. It’s bad enough that the unemployment rate has doubled in only a year and a half and one out of six construction workers is out of work. By Roger Lowenstein From The New York Times Magazine.

What truly troubles President Obama’s economic advisers is that, even adjusting for the recession, the contraction in employment seems way too high. As one administration official said, “This has been a very steep job loss.” One proof, he added, is that the country is deviating from the standard (among economists) jobs predictor known as Okun’s Law.

In the 1960s, Arthur Okun, a prominent economist, claimed to have discovered a mathematical relationship between the decline in output (that is, goods and services produced) and the rise in unemployment. It held up pretty well until recently. But this time around, although the decline in output would have predicted a rise in unemployment to 8 percent, the actual jobless rate has soared to 9.5 percent. So this recession is killing off jobs even faster than the things — like automobiles, houses, computers and newspapers — that jobholders produce.

The Federal Reserve now expects unemployment to surpass 10 percent (the postwar high was 10.8 percent in 1982). By almost every other measure, ours is already the worst job environment since the Great Depression. The economy has shed 6.5 million jobs — nearly 5 percent of the total, far outstripping the 3 percent that were lost in the early ’80s. Economists fear that even when the economy turns around, the job market will be stagnant. Keith Hall, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sums it up as “an ugly picture out there.”

Explanations for the collapse of the great American job machine begin with the marked absence of what is called labor hoarding. Usually during recessions, firms keep most of their employees on the payroll even as business slows, in effect stockpiling them for better days. In the current downturn, hoarding seems to have gone into reverse. Not only are firms laying off redundant workers, but they seem to be cutting into the bone. Hall says the absence of hoarding means that firms do not expect business to pick up soon. This is supported by other evidence, like a doubling in the number of involuntary part-time workers (there are nine million of them) and the shrinking workweek, now 33 hours — the shortest ever recorded. Presumably, before companies start to rehire laid-off workers, they will ask their current employees to work more.

Those who hope for a rebound argue that employers, frightened by the financial shocks and the credit crisis of last fall, effectively panicked. That is, they cut deeper than necessary. And that may be.

But layoffs are only part of the story. The problem isn’t just that so many workers have received pink slips but also that companies are failing to hire. And this, unfortunately, has been a trend for most of the past decade (unnoticed, perhaps, because the mortgage bubble was papering over latent weaknesses). At the end of the Clinton era, which also marked the end of a decade-long boom, companies that were opening or expanding operations added nearly 8 workers for every 100 already on the payroll. During the recession of 2001, the figure dropped to 7 per 100: optimistic firms were a bit less optimistic. The surprising fact is that when the recession ended, the percentage stayed at 7. “We never got our groove back,” asserts Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com. In the current recession, the rate has fallen to 6 per 100.

It’s hard to give a definitive explanation for this trend, but among the reasons are a decline in innovation in the aftermath of the tech boom, leading to fewer new businesses, and the aging of the population. More people have dropped out of the work force, and a smaller work force tends to dampen job totals. The percentage of adults who are working has fallen from 64 at the end of the Clinton era to only 59.5 now. Some of those dropouts are retirees, but some may be responding to the economy’s declining dynamism. Traditionally, it was a mark of Americans’ resiliency that, when times were tough, they relocated from state to state and region to region. Now, according to the Census Bureau, mobility is at an all-time recorded low. Perhaps people with underwater mortgages cannot afford to move. Perhaps the areas they used to move to, typically the Sun Belt, are too devastated by foreclosures. But the vaunted ability of the U.S. economy to renew itself seems a little tarnished. Maybe it’s no accident that this time around, folks on the unemployment line are staying there longer.

In terms of its impact on society, a dearth of hiring is far more troubling than an excess of layoffs. Job losses have to end sooner or later. Even if they persist (as, say, in the auto industry), the government can intervene. But the government cannot force firms to hire. Ultimately, each new job depends on the boss’s belief — or hope — that sufficient work will materialize. It’s a bit of black magic also described as confidence. Over the years, it is why America has not only attracted immigrants (whose arrivals are now slowing) but also generated more opportunities and — favorite word of politicians — hope for those born here.

The administration’s tilt toward so-called sustainable new jobs, in green energy and such, shows that it understands what is at stake, both for the country and for its political fortunes. Whether its plans will bear fruit is, of course, another matter. Along with double-digit unemployment, the country is facing a second potential scare headline: falling wages. Even during recessions, businesses don’t like to lower pay, because it reduces morale. But layoffs are also a downer. And in this recession, employers ranging from the State of California to publishers (including this newspaper) have cut back on pay. In effect, job losses have been so severe that businesses have been forced to spread the pain. In June, overall wage growth was zero. Zandi thinks the United States could see negative wage growth.

How would Obama, not to mention Congress, respond to declining employment and falling wages? The pressure for another stimulus (and greater deficits) would be intense. So would that for demagogic solutions like trade barriers. Robert Reich, the former labor secretary, says most lost jobs are not coming back. The huge question is when — or whether — new ones will take their place. Roger Lowenstein, an outside director of the Sequoia Fund, is a contributing writer for the magazine.

Thwart Bad Management: EQ vs. IQ.

Is your typical communication channel to your direct reports not working? Are people dropping the ball, doing the wrong thing, or not understanding your stated vision for the company? Your EQ might need a little polishing.First - Run out and buy Daniel Goleman's Working With Emotional Intelligence. And I mean RUN.

Why? Leaders (like you) are not defined by their IQs or even their job skills, but by their "emotional intelligence": a set of competencies that distinguish how people manage their feelings, interactions and communications. This book explains what emotional intelligence is and why it counts more than IQ or expertise to excel on the job.

My Take: I've always found corporate leaders who have used those IQ skills that got them where they are today will find their IQ skills will not keep them in the position that they have attained. That's why many C-Level executives have a typical job duration of 2-3 years (or shorter) at a company.

Why? When you are moving up the ladder, you tend to use more IQ (Intelligence) than EQ (Emotion). You need to get work done. You need to meet deadlines. You need to show results. The closer you get to the top, the less IQ you use and the more EQ you leverage to manage people, communicate strategies, etc. Unfortunately, when you are at the top, your position is ALL EQ and almost no IQ - and that is where most C-Level executives fail.

Working With Emotional Intelligence will help you address this.

Get It Done. Make It Happen.

That's my mantra. And I make all my clients tattoo it on their arms. Why? Because it works.

It all comes down to ACTION You can plan all day — and that's a good thing. But planning isn't everything. In fact, most executives do have some type of plan — either zipping around in their head or on a piece of paper buried on their desk. Unfortunately, execution is the real culprit. They are afraid or they don't know how to take that first step to begin the process. That's where I come in:

Make It Happen Take the first step. Do Anything. It really doesn't matter what you do first — what does matter is that you do something . . . immediately. I liken it to entering a pool for the first time — you can go in slowly and get used to the water (we all know how that feels) or just jump right in and the shock of the temperature is gone within seconds. If you need to do a series of informational calls to key executives, call one right now! Don't wait to plan — don't procrastinate to build a talk track — ring them up and start talking! You will surprise yourself.

Get It Done Check it off your list — complete it. So many people take a half-step into an activity and decide that it's too hard, will take too long, or it takes them too far out of their comfort zone. Here's where my coaching comes in — stop being a baby. You are an adult — with adult responsibilities. You must get it done. You are not in school anymore where a teacher will say "it's okay - you don't have to do that". You HAVE to do it. And the faster that you get it done, the faster you can move on to the next step.

And here's the best part: Once you start down this path, it gets EASIER. Trust me, it always happens.

Not moving forward? Get It Done. Make It Happen. No Excuses.

Who's Got Your Back?

Once again, Keith Ferrazzi's new book flips the idea of a self-help book on its head. Ferrazzi contends that people who build meaningful relationships with others can attain greater personal and professional success. Why you should read this book?

Your Four Mindsets: Intimacy, Generosity, Vulnerability, Candor This follows up on the mindsets Ferrazzi explored in his first book, Never Eat Alone. Building relationships, and repairing relationships, using these mindsets will greatly enhance and fuel all types of relationships, and increase your chances of maintaining strong, successful alliances. These four mindsets are core to building trust.

Build a Dream Team We all have dreams, and we need strong relationships to help us realize those dreams. Once we've accepted that conducting our relationships through the lens of the four mindsets contributes to our success, building a dream team to help us fuel our success is the next logical step. Ferrazzi outlines nine steps to building a dream team. Not sure if the steps work or not, since Ferrazzi doesn't present hardcore evidence that actual, real live individuals have used these steps successfully, but Ferrazzi's nine steps includes many practical and tactical ideas that logically should work, and seem worth trying.

Hold Each Member Accountable Without accountability in the group and among individuals, teams become lazy, complacent, loose focus, and derail. Ferrazzi does a nice job of explaining safe ways to implement accountability measures into your organizational, or dream, teams.

Hands down this will probably be the best book I read this year (Keith does it again!). Run out and get this book ASAP!

The Future of Work: The Last Days of Cubicle Life.

Presenting Part Ten of a Ten-Part Series (finally!) on The Future of Work from Time Magazine. By Seth Godin at Time.

When Frank Lloyd Wright unveiled the Johnson Wax Building in 1939, it showcased a new way of looking at work. One room, covering half an acre (0.2 hectare), was filled with women, lined up in rows, typing. Work didn't necessarily mean loud, dirty factories, but it still involved sitting in orderly rows, doing orderly work for a finicky boss.

In order to understand what your workplace is going to be like in five or 10 years, you need to think about what your work is going to be like. Here's a clue: employers no longer need to pay you to drive to a building to sit and type. In fact, under pressure from an uncertain economy, bosses are discovering that there are a lot of reasons not to pay you to drive to a central location or even to pay you at all. And when work gets auctioned off to the lowest bidder, your job gets a lot more stressful. (See pictures of cubicle designs submitted to The Office.)

The job of the future will have very little to do with processing words or numbers (the Internet can do that now). Nor will we need many people to act as placeholders, errand runners or receptionists. Instead, there's going to be a huge focus on finding the essential people and outsourcing the rest.

So, are you essential? Most of the best jobs will be for people who manage customers, who organize fans, who do digital community management. We'll continue to need brilliant designers, energetic brainstormers and rigorous lab technicians. More and more, though, the need to actually show up at an office that consists of an anonymous hallway and a farm of cubicles or closed doors is just going to fade away. It's too expensive, and it's too slow. I'd rather send you a file at the end of my day (when you're in a very different time zone) and have the information returned to my desktop when I wake up tomorrow. We may never meet, but we're both doing essential work.

When you do come in to work, your boss will know. If anything can be measured, it will be measured. The boss will know when you log in, what you type, what you access. Not just the boss but also your team. Internet technology makes working as a team, synchronized to a shared goal, easier and more productive than ever. But as in a three-legged-race, you'll instantly know when a teammate is struggling, because that will slow you down as well. Some people will embrace this new high-stress, high-speed, high-flexibility way of work. We'll go from a few days alone at home, maintaining the status quo, to urgent team sessions, sometimes in person, often online. It will make some people yearn for jobs like those in the old days, when we fought traffic, sat in a cube, typed memos, took a long lunch and then sat in traffic again.

The only reason to go to work, I think, is to do work. It's too expensive a trip if all you want to do is hang out. Work will mean managing a tribe, creating a movement and operating in teams to change the world. Anything less is going to be outsourced to someone a lot cheaper and a lot less privileged than you or me.

Godin is a popular blogger (sethgodin.typepad.com) and the author of 12 international best sellers. His most recent book is Tribes.

The Future of Work: Yes, We'll Still Make Stuff.

Presenting Part Nine of a Ten-Part Series on The Future of Work from Time Magazine. By David Von Drehle at Time.

The death of American manufacturing has been greatly exaggerated. According to U.N. statistics, the U.S. remains by far the world's largest manufacturer, producing nearly twice as much value as No. 2 China. Since 1990, U.S. manufacturing output has grown by nearly $800 billion — an amount larger than the entire manufacturing economy of Germany, a global powerhouse.

But growth does not mean jobs. While sales soared (at least until the recession), manufacturing employment sank. Using constantly improving technology to make more-valuable goods, American workers doubled their productivity in less than a generation — which, paradoxically, rendered millions of them obsolete. (See pictures of retailers which have gone out of business.)

This new manufacturing workforce can be seen in the gleaming and antiseptic room in Southern California where Edwards Lifesciences produces artificial-heart valves. You could say the small group of workers at the Edwards plant, most of them Asian women, are seamstresses. Unlike the thousands of U.S. textile workers whose jobs have migrated to low-wage countries, however, these highly skilled women occupy a niche in which U.S. firms are dominant and growing. Each replacement valve requires eight to 12 hours of meticulous hand-sewing — some 1,800 stitches so tiny that the work is done under a microscope. Up to a year of training goes into preparing a new hire to join the operation.

Highly skilled workers creating high-value products in high-stakes industries — that's the sweet spot for manufacturing workers in coming years. After an initial surge of enthusiasm for shipping jobs of all kinds to low-wage countries, many U.S. companies are making a distinction between exportable jobs and jobs that should stay home. Edwards, for example, has moved its rote assembly work — building electronic monitoring machines — to such lower-wage and -tax locales as Puerto Rico. But when quality is a matter of life or death and production processes involve trade secrets worth billions, the U.S. wins, says the company's head of global operations, Corinne Lyle. "We like to keep close tabs on our processes."

Recent corner-cutting scandals in China — lead-paint-tainted children's toys, melamine-laced milk — have underlined the advantages of manufacturing at home. A botched toy is one thing; a botched batch of heparin or a faulty aircraft component is quite another. According to Clemson University's Aleda Roth, who studies quality control in global supply chains, the successful companies of coming years will be the ones that make product safety — not just price — a "big factor in their decisions about where to locate jobs."

Innovative companies will also stay home thanks to America's superior network of universities and its relatively stringent intellectual-property laws. Consider, for instance, the secretive and successful South Carolina textilemaker Milliken & Co. While the rest of the region's low-tech, backward-looking textile industry was fading away, Milliken pushed ahead, investing heavily in research and becoming a hive of new patents.

U.S. manufacturing will also be buoyed by a third source of power: the American consumer. Even in our current battered condition, the U.S. is the world's most prosperous marketplace. As global economic activity rebounds, so will energy prices. The cost of shipping foreign-made goods to the U.S. market will begin to offset overseas wage advantages. We saw that last year when oil prices zoomed toward $200 per barrel.

Thus, even if fewer cars are built by America's wounded automakers, there will still be plenty of car factories in the U.S. They will be owned by Japanese and Chinese and Korean and German and Italian firms, but they will employ American workers. It just makes sense to build the cars near the people you expect to buy them.

Raised on images of Carnegie and Ford, we rue the loss of once smoky, now silent megaplants but are blind to the small and midsize companies replacing them. Ultimately, what's endangered is not U.S. manufacturing. It is our deeply ingrained cultural image of the factory and its workers.

The Future of Work: When Gen X Runs the Show.

Presenting Part Eight of a Ten-Part Series on The Future of Work from Time Magazine. By Anne Fisher at Time.

By 2019, Generation X — that relatively small cohort born from 1965 to 1978 — will have spent nearly two decades bumping up against a gray ceiling of boomers in senior decision-making jobs. But that will end. Janet Reid, managing partner at Global Lead, a consulting firm that advises companies like PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble, says, "In 2019, Gen X will finally be in charge. And they will make some big changes."

They'll have to, because the workforce Gen Xers will be leading will have altered almost beyond recognition. For one thing, Generation Y — the tattooed, techno-raised bunch born from 1979 to 2000 — is unlikely to follow in their parents' footsteps. They think putting in long years of effort at any one company in exchange for a series of raises and promotions is pointless — not that they'll get the chance. "Paying your dues, moving up slowly and getting the corner office — that's going away. In 10 years, it will be gone," says Bruce Tulgan, head of the consulting firm Rainmaker Thinking, based in New Haven, Conn., and author of a new book about managing Gen Y called Not Everyone Gets a Trophy. "Instead, success will be defined not by rank or seniority but by getting what matters to you personally," whether that's the chance to lead a new-product launch or being able to take winters off for snowboarding. Tulgan adds, "Companies already want more short-term independent contractors and consultants and fewer traditional employees because contractors are cheaper. And seniority matters less and less as time goes on, because it's about the past, not the future."

Superannuated boomers won't vanish from the workplace altogether: people in their 60s and 70s — because of either need or desire — will be among the 40% of the U.S. workforce that will rent out its skills. "Boomers will be working part-time as coaches, strategists and consultants," predicts Joanne Sujansky, a co-author of a book due out in June called Keeping the Millennials. "By 2019, there will be many more of those opportunities than there are now because boomers will need the income and companies will need their expertise." Says Reid: "We'll see an increase in job-sharing at very senior levels.

You might have two boomers who share the job of chief financial officer, for instance, which lets them keep working and also have some leisure time."

The Gen X managers who will be holding all this together will need to be adept at a few things that earlier generations, with their more hierarchical management styles and relative geographical insularity, never really had to learn. One of those is collaborative decision-making that might involve team members scattered around the world, from Beijing to Barcelona to Boston, whom the nominal leader of a given project may never have met in person. "By 2019, every leader will have to be culturally dexterous on a global scale," says Reid. "A big part of that is knowing how to motivate and reward people who are very different from yourself."

They don't teach that in B school — at least not yet. In fact, Rob Carter, chief information officer at FedEx, thinks the best training for anyone who wants to succeed in 10 years is the online game World of Warcraft. Carter says WoW, as its 10 million devotees worldwide call it, offers a peek into the workplace of the future. Each team faces a fast-paced, complicated series of obstacles called quests, and each player, via his online avatar, must contribute to resolving them or else lose his place on the team. The player who contributes most gets to lead the team — until someone else contributes more. The game, which many Gen Yers learned as teens, is intensely collaborative, constantly demanding and often surprising. "It takes exactly the same skill set people will need more of in the future to collaborate on work projects," says Carter. "The kids are already doing it."

The Future of Manufacturing, GM, and American Workers.

Some background: First and most broadly, it doesn't make sense for America to try to maintain or enlarge manufacturing as a portion of the economy. Even if the U.S. were to seal its borders and bar any manufactured goods from coming in from abroad--something I don't recommend--we'd still be losing manufacturing jobs. That's mainly because of technology. By Robert Reich

When we think of manufacturing jobs, we tend to imagine old-time assembly lines populated by millions of blue-collar workers who had well-paying jobs with good benefits. But that picture no longer describes most manufacturing. I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years this factory won't have a single employee on site, except for an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades the robots.

Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they're also becoming far more efficient at it. They've shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don't need as many manufacturing workers as before.

Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in twenty large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002--before the asset bubble and subsequent bust--twenty-two million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The United States wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11% of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16% of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20% decline, and China had a 15% drop.

What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity. As productivity rises, employment falls because fewer people are needed. In this, manufacturing is following the same trend as agriculture. A century ago, almost 30% of adult Americans worked on a farm. Nowadays, fewer than 5% do. That doesn't mean the U.S. failed at agriculture. Quite the opposite. American agriculture is a huge success story. America can generate far larger crops than a century ago with far fewer people. New technologies, more efficient machines, new methods of fertilizing, better systems of crop rotation, and efficiencies of large scale have all made farming much more productive.

Manufacturing is analogous. In America and elsewhere around the world, it's a success. Since 1995, even as manufacturing employment has dropped around the world, global industrial output has risen more than 30%.

We should stop pining after the days when millions of Americans stood along assembly lines and continuously bolted, fit, soldered or clamped what went by. Those days are over. And stop blaming poor nations whose workers get very low wages. Of course their wages are low; these nations are poor. They can become more prosperous only by exporting to rich nations. When America blocks their exports by erecting tariffs and subsidizing our domestic industries, we prevent them from doing better. Helping poorer nations become more prosperous is not only in the interest of humanity but also wise because it lessens global instability.

Want to blame something? Blame new knowledge. Knowledge created the electronic gadgets and software that can now do almost any routine task. This goes well beyond the factory floor. America also used to have lots of elevator operators, telephone operators, bank tellers and service-station attendants. Remember? Most have been replaced by technology. Supermarket check-out clerks are being replaced by automatic scanners. The Internet has taken over the routine tasks of travel agents, real estate brokers, stock brokers and even accountants. With digitization and high-speed data networks a lot of back office work can now be done more cheaply abroad.

Any job that's even slightly routine is disappearing from the U.S. But this doesn't mean we are left with fewer jobs. It means only that we have fewer routine jobs, including traditional manufacturing. When the U.S. economy gets back on track, many routine jobs won't be returning--but new jobs will take their place. A quarter of all Americans now work in jobs that weren't listed in the Census Bureau's occupation codes in 1967. Technophobes, neo-Luddites and anti-globalists be warned: You're on the wrong side of history. You see only the loss of old jobs. You're overlooking all the new ones.

The reason they're so easy to overlook is that so much of the new value added is invisible. A growing percent of every consumer dollar goes to people who analyze, manipulate, innovate and create. These people are responsible for research and development, design and engineering. Or for high-level sales, marketing and advertising. They're composers, writers and producers. They're lawyers, journalists, doctors and management consultants. I call this "symbolic analytic" work because most of it has to do with analyzing, manipulating and communicating through numbers, shapes, words, ideas.

Symbolic-analytic work can't be directly touched or held in your hands, as goods that come out of factories can be. In fact, many of these tasks are officially classified as services rather than manufacturing. Yet almost whatever consumers buy these days, they're paying more for these sorts of tasks than for the physical material or its assemblage. On the back of every iPod is the notice "Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China." You can bet iPod's design garners a bigger share of the iPod's purchase price than its assembly.

The biggest challenge we face over the long term -- beyond the current depression -- isn't how to bring manufacturing back. It's how to improve the earnings of America's expanding army of low-wage workers who are doing personal service jobs in hotels, hospitals, big-box retail stores, restaurant chains, and all the other businesses that need bodies but not high skills. More on that to come.

The Future of Work: It Will Pay To Save The Planet.

Presenting Part Seven of a Ten-Part Series on The Future of Work from Time Magazine. By Bryan Walsh at Time.

It's no secret that U.S. workers are in trouble, with the unemployment rate at 8.9% and rising. At the same time, the world faces a long-term climate crisis.

But what if there is a way to solve both problems with one policy? A number of environmentalists and economists believe that by implementing a comprehensive energy program, we can not only avert the worst consequences of climate change but also create millions of new jobs — green jobs — in the U.S. "We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc, or we can create jobs preventing its worst effects," President Barack Obama said recently. "We know the right choice."

What's a green job? It depends on whom you ask. Some categories are obvious: if you're churning out solar panels, you're getting a green paycheck. But by some counts, so are steelworkers whose product goes into wind turbines or contractors who weatherize homes. According to a report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, there are already more than 750,000 green jobs in the U.S. (See the top green companies.)

Environmental advocates say that with the right policies, those job figures could swell. The Mayors' report predicts that for the next three decades, green employment could provide up to 10% of all job growth. As part of its stimulus package, the White House directed more than $60 billion to clean-energy projects, including $600 million for green-job-training programs. The hope is that capping carbon emissions, even if it raises energy prices in the short term, will create a demand for green jobs, which could provide meaningful work for America's blue collar unemployed.

To some critics, that sounds too good to be true. In a recent report, University of Illinois law professor Andrew Morriss argued that estimates of the potential for green employment vary wildly and that government subsidies would be less efficient — and produce lower job growth — than the free market. "This is all smoke and mirrors," says Morriss. "I don't see how you can replace the existing jobs that may be lost."

The reality is somewhere between the skeptics and the starry-eyed greens. We won't be able to create a solar job for every unemployed autoworker. But with climate change a real threat, shifting jobs from industries that harm the earth to ones that sustain it will become an economic imperative.

Watch Out Boomers - The Millennials Are Coming For Your Jobs.

Watch out, baby boomers. The Millennials are coming for your jobs. By Nancy Johnston at The Baltimore Sun

This generational warfare is the story developing in the media, and as with most trend stories, it does have a kernel of truth. The baby boomer generation - born between 1946 and 1964 - has had a stranglehold on nearly every arena in American life, including politics, economics and the culture wars, since I was born. Even President Barack Obama, who campaigned on a promise to leave behind the boomers' old campus feuds, is, technically, one of them.

But with the rising technological wave changing the way we live, the way we work, and the way we think about the world around us, today's younger work force, born 1980 and after, is threatening the status quo. Even now, a coalition called 80 Million Strong is planning a D.C. summit in July to highlight this younger bloc, demanding that American leaders better serve this country's youth, both politically and economically.

"Today's 20-somethings are likely to be the first generation to not be better off than their parents." This is the first line of Economic State of Young America, a report released by Demos, a nonpartisan public policy think tank in New York City. And that's a troubling thesis for a generation that grew up being told they can do and be anything.

Sure, it's no surprise that with college tuition rising and job opportunities plummeting, the future isn't looking too bright for the youth of America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, after factoring for inflation, the average young white man in 2005 earned $35,100 a year, compared to $43,416 in 1976. While tuition at public universities has doubled since the 1980s, income has declined by 19 percent.

Those who can't afford college in the first place, or can't find employment after earning their degrees, have also helped raise the unemployment rate for Americans in the 16-24 age range 9 percentage points higher than the general population. Insurance and pension benefits are steadily shrinking, and no one my age labors under the belief that the dollars we send to the Social Security Administration over in Woodlawn will be waiting for us when we retire.

This recession isn't good for anybody. But blaming baby boomers for staying at the workplace at the expense of Millennials, or insisting that the youth are stealing jobs from their more experienced counterparts, are arguments far too simplistic to explain the destruction of the American dream.

If there's anything I've learned from the no-limits nature of the world that the Internet has wrought, it's that we do not live in a zero-sum society. We must foster an economy that provides jobs for everyone. From the traditional manufacturing and service jobs that have built the American middle class since after World War II, to the new "green" jobs and cyber-focused industries the Obama administration has declared a priority, there can and should be opportunities for everyone.

Yes, we need to make hard decisions now to address the problems the young and those not yet even born will inherit - climate change, Social Security and Medicare, the national debt. But setting them up as flash points in an ageist conflict between the me-generation boomers and the supposedly altruism-minded Millennials isn't going to accomplish that. The only way to solve those problems is to create an economic and social order that is fair to all - and the only way to agree on those hard choices is to embrace a political order in which all ages have a seat at the table.