Nobody is safe from change and globalization. Just because you survived or even prospered in this current round does not necessarily mean the next one is safe for you also.
And just because you suffered in this round, does not mean that you will not prosper in the next. AnyCareerCouldBenefitFromChange.
Safety Myths:
-
I'm too smart
- BrainsAsaCheapCommodity. Are you really so brilliant that you are worth more than 3 PhD's in India (whose total wages are still less than yours)?
-
I'm safe because I am in management
-
only an introduction of views by MIT Tom Malone expressed in the 2004 book FutureOfWork, access to full article needs subscription. Without this access, I am guessing that because organizations will be much flatter, need for management (middle) is much reduced. Another factor in reduction in management is the increasing use of external contracting firms for large chunks of business needs.
- http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/tom_malone_on_d.html
- There is a resource page linked to the book at
- http://ccs.mit.edu/futureofwork/reading.html
-
Any one else has good links to "analysis of management jobs of the future"?
My job requires too much interaction with customers
-
In the future bandwidth may become so cheap that large-screen ultra-high-definition TV's might be in every office such that physical meetings and visits are not cost effective. Thus, a $3-an-hour person in another country may be able to interact with a customer just as well as you. With an untapped population of more than one billion, there are bound to be a lot of techies with good people skills in India and elsewhere. (Remember also the case of Tom in OfficeSpaceMovie.)
-
Um, there's more to it than having a nice big television screen and a camera at each end. It's limited by its very nature: 2 dimensional. How do I pass you a card that I just scribbled on? How do I make a low-key remark that I don't necessarily want everyone to hear? How do I get you to demonstrate how this doohickey works on my computer? Fair enough, each of the previous could have a technological solution (scanners/faxing, private messages, remote logins/robotics); but they all have the same disadvantage: it's yet another piece of equipment that one has to come to terms with, it isn't actual physical interaction. Or do you think anyone could have a healthy relationship with their wife/husband over such a setup? -- WilliamUnderwood
-
Microsoft already thought of that: NetMeeting. :) (Well, MS probably didn't think of the more, er, interesting uses to which their software is put...)
-
That's precisely my point (and I'm sure they did think of those uses): for vaguely similar reasons, I'd prefer to be in the same room as my developers, and the same room as my wife. -- cwillu {Isn't that a little on the kinky side?},
-
But "prefer" goes out the door when bean counters are pressured to find shortcuts.
-
-
I'm safe because I do physical cabling and installation
-
If the bandwidth gets cheap enough (above), then remote Mars-rover-like robots can do the physical stuff. Ethiopians may be doing the cabling for 30 cents an hour.
-
The point about cabling is not that it takes brains to do, but that it takes presence. A robot that can cable is not going to be cheap, regardless of where it's controlled from. A person who can cable is a lot cheaper to hire.
- I disagree. I don't think a robot will cost $40k a year to maintain in the not-to-distant future. Plus, other remote-bots can repair and maintain it. It does not matter if they are a bit slower, they can work night-shifts as the world rotates different countries into sunlight.
-
I'm safe because I kiss butt better than anyone else in my department.
- You win that one. Then again, maybe not. For the same price one can hire 4 remote butt-kissers. If one can scour the entire world, the chances are they can find somebody with better butt-kissing skills than you.
Domain knowledge: I'm safe because I understand a particular market/customer/problem domain that some anonymous Indian outsourcing firm isn't going to bother to learn about.
- I find that many companies don't value domain knowledge much. They don't seemed bothered by starting over. This is my experience. Maybe your current set of bosses cares, but the next group may not. WhyIsDomainKnowledgeNotValued
This strategy is sometimes called NicheFocus
The danger is that at some point, the less-optimal but cheaper generic solution from someone else will look better compared to your specifically tailored solution. Your overheads need to be paid for by a small market, the bigger players can spread them much more widely. This is why (in another domain) it's difficult to make a success of running a small local shop - supermarkets may have products that don't meet your needs that well, but the price means you shop there anyway.
You can translate the local specialist understanding into a competitive advantage, but you need to have a small market (or other local players will enter it because they note business is there to be had), and a area where your local knowledge provides a big quality improvement.
The small market thing applies to local shops - you don't see normally a row of identical small newsagents etc because they all serve the same local area, and that can only generate enough business to support one. So you end up with a strategy that includes signalling to people how little money there is in this business to discourage them from entering it :)
This is why ConsultingSeemsUnsafeButUnsaferThanWhat?
It is an almost-satisfactory last-resort. Contracts don't always pay well in a flooded market.
See also TheyCanFireMe