Social Strategies for Socioeconomic Mobility

Pam Sornson, JD on May 15, 2023

Pam Sornson, JD

May 16, 2023

If an entire community benefits when most of its constituents are ‘upwardly mobile,’ why aren’t communities building into their infrastructures pathways to achieve that upward trend? Why do some residents have opportunities for growth when their neighbors do not? In many cases, the absence of social and economic resources that support upward mobility is intentional. In other cases, the question of how to ensure equitable access to a brighter future has simply never been asked.

 

Four Policies = One Upwardly Mobile Society

So how does a society create pathways to mobility that are accessible to all its inhabitants? As asserted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), providing equal access to growth opportunities for citizens, regardless of their original economic or social situation, is an easier target than trying to assure comparable growth outcomes for all individuals. Further, the OECD asserts that communities can open the doors to upward mobility opportunities for all their residents by following four primary recommendations:

Increase public investments in education and health care for lower economic population tiers,

Revise labor and economic policies to champion work/family balance

Focus efforts on attaining equitable wealth accumulation opportunities throughout their social strata, and

Reduce the regional divides and spatial segregation of their districts so that all residents can live, work, and thrive in the neighborhoods of their choice.

Adherence to these standards will facilitate upward mobility for anyone who takes advantage of their resources. Additionally, it will provide the cushioning needed to buffer the adverse shocks and undesired impacts of low-income volatility, which can erode the individual’s capacity to succeed while also placing an extra burden on the social safety net.

 

Increase Education and Health Care Support

Research indicates that children raised in adverse economic situations typically do worse than their more financially stable neighbors, both educationally and healthwise.

A constellation of factors negatively impacts children living below the poverty line, eroding their access and ability to embrace educational resources. In many cases, their schools lack adequate materials and supplies, while their parents are too overwhelmed by work and other concerns to support the learning their children need. When parents themselves are less educated, the cycle of poverty, both economically and educationally, repeats through the generations, impeding any progress toward upward m

An impoverished childhood also often means ongoing or life-long health challenges for the adults they become, including behavioral disorders, chronic disease, and even premature death. Children raised in impoverished conditions frequently develop conduct disorders such as ADHD or cognitive dysfunctions such as short-term memory loss, which can continue to plague them throughout their lives, even if they achieve any additional level of financial stability.

Providing all families with the food, housing, and healthcare support they need to survive and move forward reduces their drain on public resources while adding future economic assets to the community.

 

Assure a Work/Life Balance for Lower Income Families

Analysts recommend that policymakers acknowledge the additional burdens placed on their economically strained populations. Working multiple jobs or many hours a day keep parents away from their children for too long, especially during their most vulnerable early years. Social policies that facilitate suitable transportation or provide financial supplements to replace hours not worked can give parents ad children the time together needed to ensure an adequate learning environment in the home. Further, community-based child care, low-cost or free preschool, and other publicly funded resources can stabilize a family and build a foundation upon which they can grow beyond their current economic class.

 

Level the ‘Wealth Acquisition’ Playing Field

Data reveals that wealthier families tend to stay wealthy, and poorer families tend to stay poor, not because they are destined for those outcomes but because the systems are designed to maintain that status quo. Notable tax advantages, savings and investing resources, and multiple wealth-preserving economic exemptions all favor wealthier citizens while being unavailable to their less affluent neighbors. In many jurisdictions, the financial system is intentionally steered to reduce the tax rates for wealthy community members through a series of deductions and exemptions, so they pay a smaller percentage in taxes than their less-wealthy neighbors. In other areas, policies prohibited upward financial mobility by allowing banks to limit loan access to borrowers who would use them to buy houses or start businesses. The practice intentionally suppressed the economic growth capacity of millions of Americans.

 

Release Untapped Resources by Eliminating Segregation

The segregation of whole populations because of color, religion, or some other determiner has been a common practice in America since its inception. The effort has cost the country untold trillions as a result. Worse, the concept of ‘income segregation,’ the separation of communities based on their relative income levels, has been growing, even while poverty and unemployment levels are dropping.

Research reveals that people earning higher salaries tend to gather and live in close-knit neighborhoods, which are unaffordable to those who make less money. They intentionally or inadvertently ‘segregate’ themselves into these high-wealth factions, which are inaccessible to those not equally qualified. The practice reduces the opportunity for less-wealthy people to achieve the mobility necessary to join them:

Those high-earners frequently gained that capacity through access to advanced educational resources, assets that are only available to people with more financial resources.

Further, those wealthy community members then invested in the educational resources needed by their children to grow and thrive, and those children, in turn, moved to neighborhoods with escalated property values that froze out less financially secure families while spreading the income gap even wider.

These trends have been steady since the 1980s. Many of today’s wealthiest communities are the beneficiaries of the policies and practices that have effectively ‘walled in’ their economic advantages at the expense of their neighbors in general and their society at large. The community as a whole suffers because it can’t access or release the untapped resources trapped in the lower economic classes, who, in turn, can’t access the educational resources they need to raise their financial profile.

Four Open Doors to Upward Mobility

Pam Sornson, JD on May 15, 2023

Even without intentional barriers impeding their progress, many people find it challenging to identify the career or occupation they want and then also find a way to achieve it. Often, the family history doesn’t support the aspiration, or family resources aren’t available to meet the financial requirements. Fortunately, society maintains several ways for learners to engage in their chosen work, regardless of their economic background or lack of educational achievement.

Beyond college or university, four alternative avenues to jobs and careers are available to anyone who seeks them: apprenticeships, internships, entrepreneurialism, and union membership. Each entry-level option provides theoretical education and hands-on training for a specific occupation. Once begun, learners can quickly qualify for junior-level positions within the industry of their choice. They can then build on their foundational training over time to master escalating skill and competency levels. In many cases, these non-traditional students can earn more over their lifetime than their four-year university graduate cohorts.

 

 

Apprenticeships

In the ‘olden days,’ an apprenticeship was the only way to learn a new trade or occupation. There were no schools to teach hands-on skills, and those schools that existed were focused on more esoteric subjects, such as philosophy or debate. Master artisans took on an apprentice and taught them the skills necessary to provide that service to the community. The expectation was that the apprentice would eventually also become a master and remain in that occupation for life.

The popularity of the apprenticeship as a credentialed training alternative remains high in industries around the world. They are often favored because the qualifications to attain one are usually lower than those needed to qualify for entry into an academic school. A high school diploma, GED, or experience in a related field or occupation is often all it takes to be hired as an apprentice. Further, apprenticeships are usually paid positions, so people aren’t forced to choose between gaining training or earning money. And people who have completed an apprenticeship are also on track to make a solid living over their lifetime. Research indicates that 92% of apprentices who finish their programs and retain their jobs earn an average annual salary of $72,000, giving them the social and economic mobility to rise above their original economic class.

 

 

Internships

Like an apprenticeship, an internship offers the opportunity to acquire skills for a specific occupation or trade directly from the tradesperson or business. However, unlike an apprenticeship, which typically lasts one to three years and is usually paid, internships are typically unpaid, last a much shorter period (sometimes just one to three months), and may not lead directly to a full-time job.

Internships still provide educational and occupational value, however. Interns can quickly learn to handle mundane business duties, which relieves the staff from those obligations while helping the intern learn new occupational skills. They may also be tasked with seasonal jobs, short-term contract work, or other short-term functions that respond to company needs while also imparting a valuable educational element to the worker. In many cases, the intern learns more minor aspects of a larger occupational structure that they can build on through future on-the-job training opportunities.

A recent study drew data from 43 million LinkedIn profiles and determined that approximately 13% of all college graduates list at least one internship on their educational transcript.

 

 

Entrepreneurialism

Some people find it easier to create their own work than to find it through someone else. The ‘entrepreneur’ is that unique individual who sees a need to be filled and then develops a business to fill it. In some cases, these ‘occupational gaps’ arise when emergencies occur, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 era shut down many occupations but opened the door to develop many more. The ensuing “remote” economy, populated by entrepreneurs who aggregated skill sets and business assets in direct response to COVID-related demand, has exploded over the past three years, and continues to grow. Many of these new business owners never envisioned themselves as ‘entrepreneurs’ but took advantage of the COVID-driven opportunities to put their skills to better use for their own benefit.

One occupation that became especially valuable through the pandemic – and subsequently generated a whole new community of entrepreneurs – was that of the digital technician. In many cases, the worker recognized that their skill set was more valuable to their companies than those entities knew.  As organizations struggled to achieve the ‘remote work’ demands of the day with their (often outdated) digital tools, their sophisticated tech staff resolved those challenges while also building a new business opportunity for themselves. At the same time, the use of ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) was also on the rise. While many organizations are aware of the value that AI can add to their enterprise, they do not have on staff the digital talent needed to integrate it into their current situation.

As companies adopt more technology, including AI, the remote workforce, and a distributed business model, as examples, the demand for highly skilled digital technicians and software engineers will also rise. As a result, digitally skilled workers may find their brightest future as technology entrepreneurs, filling occupational gaps across virtually all industries.

 

 

Union membership

One other route to social mobility is that of union membership. Unions, a group of workers united around ensuring workplace standards are safe and fair, have been around for centuries. Their advocacy for their membership gives them a voice in many corners of the community and allows them to directly influence workplace conditions. Over time, the work of unions has established pay rates, work hours, benefits schedules, and other elements ancillary to the labor performed that would not have been made available without that collective pressure.

Unions have also played an important role in diminishing barriers and providing upward mobility for workers. One older study revealed that unionization resulted in wage raises of over 11% for typical female workers, who also gained access to health insurance and pensions in the process. Further, states with a high union participation rate enjoy a higher overall average wage than those with fewer union members.

 

Gaining upward mobility – socially, economically, or both – gives workers more opportunities to improve their lives and futures. These four options – apprenticeships, internships, entrepreneurialism, and union memberships – offer all workers, regardless of their original economic class, the opportunity to attain that mobility and move up in their little part of the world.

Pursuing Socioeconomic Mobility

Pam Sornson, JD on May 2, 2023

Pam Sornson, JD

May 2, 2023

Traditionally, the compensation for ‘labor’ – the performance of activities to achieve a particular economic end – has been valued according to the ‘class’ of the person performing it. In American society, being a member of one of five social ‘classes’ often determines how well that person succeeds economically throughout their life. Those born to the ‘upper’ classes earn more money for their labor and experience opportunities and benefits not available to those of the ‘lower’ classes. They typically do better financially over the course of their lives than their less well-off colleagues.

Further, people born into a ‘class’ usually remain in that class throughout their lives and don’t or can’t actively try to do otherwise. Those who do make the effort can achieve ‘upward social mobility’ – and a consequent economic mobility  – if they can overcome the obstacles impeding that progress. For individuals, breaking through those barriers – both visible and invisible – presents a formidable challenge. For communities, removing those barriers to social, economic, and upward mobility may be the key to securing future financial and social success for all their constituents.

 

What is Mobility?

The word ‘mobility’ means both:

the quality or state of being mobile, and

the ability or capacity to move.

Those elements are not the same, as is demonstrated by the challenges presented to people hoping to be ‘mobile;’ they may enjoy the ‘state’ of mobility, but societal barriers prevent them from actually moving.

In a societal context, the concept of mobility encompasses ‘social’ and ‘economic’ movement, and it can refer to downward, lateral, and upward activity in both instances.

‘Downward’ mobility, obviously, connotes a decline in capacity.

‘Lateral’ mobility reflects maintaining the status quo.

‘Upward’ mobility suggests an improvement in capacity.

Achieving both social and economic ‘upward mobility’ – socioeconomic mobility (SM) – is a goal many people pursue.

Social and economic goals are not the same, however, although achieving one often means achieving the other, too. ‘Socioeconomic’ movement happens when a person moves beyond their familial and economic class levels in either a decline or an advance. When upward movement happens, that person will gain a myriad of benefits that were not available in their previous life.

 

Measuring Socioeconomic Mobility

There are two measurements of ‘socioeconomic mobility,’ each determined by the particular person’s status in society:

‘Intergenerational mobility’ refers to changes in one’s socioeconomic position as compared to their parents (familial).

‘Intragenerational mobility’ refers to changes in economic status over the course of one’s lifetime (social ‘class’).

Having the capacity to achieve socioeconomic mobility of either type is linked to having opportunities to pursue it.

However, there are several barriers to achieving SM, primarily because the opportunities for advancement are not typically available to all. Unequal or inequitable regulatory hurdles frequently limit or bar access to resources that facilitate upward mobility as a form of economic growth. In too many cases, people are denied a comparable range of options for reasons unrelated to their capacity to work. Gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and even birthplace location are factors used to limit an individual’s opportunity to seek and achieve a higher financial status.

In other cases, those barriers are entrenched in a fundamental aspect of the societal infrastructure, creating a ‘closed’ mobility system. ‘Closed’ mobility systems intentionally deny equal rights of access to all their participants. ‘Open’ mobility systems, on the other hand, allow everyone access to resources that can enhance their SM status (although they, too, may incorporate a series of variables that can discourage success).

 

Closed Mobility Systems

In a ‘closed’ mobility system, specific segments of the population are intentionally excluded by definition from opportunities that would allow a change in their social status. The ‘caste’ system still exists in many countries today and is a closed mobility system. India’s caste system, for example, segments its Hindu population into five groups: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras, and Dalits (also known as ‘the untouchables’). The segments establish a hierarchy that puts Brahmins on top, and the actions and activities of the others are always made in deference to this group. Members of each caste are born into it, so they have no choice about their personal economic circumstances, nor are there ways for them to alter their reality.

Open Mobility Systems

In other communities, open mobility systems allow transitions between class segments. Optimally, all resources that drive upward mobility are available to all members of these communities. When that is the case, individuals can achieve ever-escalating levels of financial and social success depending on the effort they put into that process. Societies that encourage and embrace upward mobility as a community asset typically are healthier and more stable than those that don’t.

‘Hybrid’ Mobility Systems – an Ugly Truth

Other populations may appear – or even declare themselves – to be ‘open’ class societies while also integrating into their infrastructure both evident and hidden barriers to prevent people from moving upward economically; their rule base is essentially a closed system masked as an open one.

In this ‘hybrid’ construction, restrictions to movement are based on gender, race, etc. American society currently has several culturally embedded barriers that prevent people from moving out of their class toward a higher, more financially beneficial one. These barriers were built into the social network to dissuade lower classes from attaining upward mobility by making that objective almost impossible to achieve. This structural racism is used to retain existing – and foster further – discrimination against specific populations by manipulating public resources such as housing, employment, earning capacity, and access to health care, to name just a few.

Rules are set to make access to resources more difficult for some communities while easing it for others.

Using rent manipulations to contain certain population groups within specific neighborhoods, for example, can limit access to public transportation and education resources, healthy food sources, and other assets critical to well-being.

Maintaining these inequitable structures perpetuates the control of the upper classes over those in the lower classes and curtails the opportunity for the less well-off to pursue upward socioeconomic mobility.

 

Why Upward Mobility is Critical to Social – and Societal – Success

Suppressing economic growth in any segment of society also suppresses economic growth for the entire community. On the other hand, emerging research demonstrates that increased socioeconomic mobility within suppressed social sectors offers unmatched growth opportunities for the whole populace.

In a recent UK study, for example, data showed that even a modest increase in SM for a percentage of its citizens would significantly increase the country’s overall GDP. The finding underscores the premise that enhanced SM for some equals improved outcomes for all.

Further, pursuing that goal – upward SM for all – is essential for more than social justice reasons. Fundamentally, providing access to upward SM that facilitates class-crossing interactions and sharing builds relationships and stimulates economic growth.

 

For too long, talented, worthy, and exceptional people from the less-advantaged classes have been marginalized for reasons that have nothing to do with their value. When society removes the barriers they face and receives the values they offer, everyone – regardless of class – will benefit.

Dismantling Barriers to Socioeconomic Mobility

Pam Sornson, JD on May 2, 2023

Research suggests that stagnant socioeconomic mobility (SM) levels negatively impact an entire society, not just its marginalized population(s). Communities with infrastructures that support equity and equality across all population segments – and therefore have higher SM capacities – do better economically than those that do not. Regions with disparate and unfair socioeconomic outcomes within social classes, and low correlating SM rates as a result, can learn from their more prosperous neighbors how to reverse that course while improving the overarching economic situation for everyone.

 

Begin with Policy …

All too often, reduced SM levels result from biased and discriminatory legislation and rule-making. All communities exist through a system of legislated policies and procedures that address (or should address) the needs of everyone. In too many instances, however, those policies were crafted and implemented to further the goals of smaller subgroups within the community, thereby leaving the other subgroups unsupported. This group of unfair policies creates and perpetuates the cultural groundwork that impedes social and economic growth and limits the opportunities to achieve SM.

To repair the injustices caused by those obsolete policy patterns, today’s forward-looking leaders can identify how their constituents are affected by the existing regulatory infrastructure. In many cases, they’ll find that their current standards fail to address the fundamental elements of ‘social welfare’ for all their citizenry: security, equity, inclusion, and a fair distribution of resources. Instead, they may discover that current policy often intentionally limits opportunities for those in some classes to attain the resources available to other community members.

Access to adequate and equitable public transportation is one way previous governments have limited their citizen’s options. In one community, a plush and comfortable bus gets prioritized routing to speed wealthy patrons to their destination. Those who can’t afford the cost, however, must endure exposed bus stops, plastic seats, and the interminable dreariness of public traffic patterns.

Finding adequate housing is also a challenge for people with fewer resources. Discriminatory behaviors within the housing industry often leave people of color, the differently abled, or ethnically diverse without appropriate or desirable options. In many communities, the biases aren’t so much written as they are demonstrated in behaviors that direct non-white ethnicities to non-white neighborhoods, as an example.

Obtaining a high-quality education is also more challenging for some members of a community than it is for other members. Despite years of social debate and advocacy, the American educational system is one of the most inequitable systems in the industrialized world, where social status – not intelligence, talent, or skill – determines the quality and availability of education.

Remaking policies and their associated practices to reflect the community’s commitment to fairness will move toward righting the existing injustices while also boosting the economic capacity of all – not just some – of its residents.

 

 … Focused on Target Populations

To be most effective, any policy changes must be directed at the populations they are intended to benefit, using strategies to achieve the best outcomes for those public investments. These changes may (and will probably) require shifting public funding away from some programs (such as the plush bus system noted above, which was publicly funded) and toward others that provide service and support to marginalized community members.

Research from the Brookings Institute offers suggestions for policymakers to help guide them to a fairer community and a brighter economic future, with a focus on two pivotal public resources: housing and education.

Housing

A safe and sound home is the best foundation for the growth of any person, but America’s housing laws do not ensure that all citizens have access to this critical resource. Home rental rates and purchase prices are often out of reach for a sizeable percentage of the community, leaving them with no option but to seek more ‘affordable’ housing. However, in far too many communities today, ‘affordable housing’ is only available in inhospitable areas that lack adequate transportation, food, and safety services.

Consequently, Brookings suggests civic leaders reinvigorate their housing laws by incorporating these factors:

Use housing vouchers to target both populations and housing options. Use policy and practice to create ‘mixed-income’ communities with families from a range of economic classes.

Develop affordable housing options across the region, not just in small sections of the city.

Review and reform housing laws that prevent those who need housing from attaining it. Zoning restrictions, in particular, have played a significant role in keeping minority populations out of specified communities.

Enforce housing rules to ensure that they actually and effectively protect their intended beneficiaries. The number of laws passed that require the application of ‘fair and equal’ housing policies is irrelevant if they are not enforced or enforceable.

Education

The depth and breadth of educational disparities across the United States are alarming, as study after study reveals that students of color – in almost all regions – receive significantly fewer educational resources at all levels than their white counterparts. Long-established school systems continue to execute policies that provide different educational assets to whites than to non-whites, and those decisions effectively limit the economic capacities of the community as a whole.

Thirty years of research demonstrates that four factors directly influence student achievement and that white learners are much more likely to receive these factors than their non-white classmates:

smaller schools (300-500 students is optimal),

smaller class sizes,

a challenging curriculum,

and highly qualified teachers.

Despite the evidence connecting these influences to higher educational achievements, school systems that are predominantly for learners of color:

are much larger, on average, with some hosting as many as 3,000 students,

have class sizes that are 15 times larger than those found in white schools, and

accept significantly lower quality standards for both curricula and teachers.

Even integrated schools have a history of bias by directing non-white learners to lower-track classes with higher student/teacher ratios and less qualified educators.

 

The politically manufactured barriers in most of America’s communities continue to perpetuate the bias and prejudice that inhibits SM for marginalized people. As the country recovers from the recent global health crisis, it has an opportunity to reevaluate the negative impacts of its foundational civic platforms. Revising those to build in diversity and open opportunities for all residents can raise the economic value of the whole community, meet the needs of today, and lay the foundation for a more profitable – for all – tomorrow.

Women Delivering: Equity Achievements

Pam Sornson, JD on April 16, 2023

Since 1848, women have been fighting for full equality with their male counterparts, and the barriers they’ve overcome have been momentous. In the United States, women have achieved significant status as leaders, role models, and visionaries, and, in many instances, their voices and opinions carry the gravitas they deserve. The successes achieved to date, while not completing the entire mandate of full equality, now ensure that all females enjoy a plethora of protections, supports, and opportunities not imaginable by their distant ancestors.

 

An Obvious Place to Start: Becoming A ‘Person’

Fundamentally, the battle to become a fully emancipated and individualized person comes down to the identification of legal status as conferred and enforced by law. The law grants people the capacity to hold title to property, make decisions and contracts, and live independently of others’ influences. Men, apparently, are inherently ‘persons’ and ‘people;’ there has been no effort to deny them as a class from the benefits those statuses convey.

Women, however, have been fighting to attain protections and rights similar to men’s since before the American Revolution. For colonial women in the 1700s, recognized legal status was conferred based on marital status, and married female colonists were definitely at a deficit. The early settlers followed British common law, which, in 1769, defined wives as aspects of their husband’s person: “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.” Women’s identification as ‘persons,’ as ‘members’ in a group of ‘people,’ and as ‘electors’ changed slightly in 1789, when the new Constitution interpreted those words to include them; the new recognition did nothing to alter their subjugated reality, however.

Note, too, that not all ‘women’ were classified as ‘persons.’

Black women remained the ‘property’ of their owners, which negated their opportunity to defend themselves against their master’s brutalities. (That ‘ownership’ role was abolished in 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment, but subsequently, there was little actual change in how Black women were treated.)

Asian women were almost non-existent in the country through to the 1930s, with two federal laws (1924’s Immigration Act of 1924 and 1882’s Chinese Exclusion Act) explicitly barring both Asian men and women from entering the country.

The exclusion from the rights and protections conferred by law on men was also applied to Indigenous women and females from other cultures.

Curiously, single colonial women fared better. While they couldn’t obtain a license or college degree, they could form contracts, buy and sell real estate, and accumulate and own ‘personalty,’ which is any ‘thing’ that is movable. These opportunities arose by tradition in the colonies, where single women contributed significantly to the building and development of those early communities, but they weren’t actually ‘rights,’ as those are only invested through the passage of law.

The ‘person’ label did not provide women with autonomy or equality, either. Over time, each individual state developed its own standard for the rights offered to the women within its jurisdiction.

By 1777, even before the country was established, all existing states (colonies) had passed laws prohibiting women from voting.

In 1839, Mississippi allowed its married female residents to hold title to real property in their own name, but only if they had their husband’s permission.

In 1873, an Illinois rule excluding women from practicing law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1875, the federal high court also supported Missouri’s position that women didn’t have the right to vote because they (as a group) constituted a ‘special class of non-voting citizens.’

Consequently, by the late 19th Century, with no unifying national standard in place, women in the ‘United States’ were subjected to a multitude of differing rules and regulations based on where they lived, not on their fundamental status as human females. Not surprisingly, the confusion and inherent unfairness of the situation ignited the (still ongoing) drive to validate women as equal to men in general and equally valuable contributors to society. Only when this respect is universally accepted will women obtain and retain control over all aspects of their lives.

 

Validation and Control

Through the decades, campaign successes that established limited forms of validation for women as valued members of the community brought with them significant benefits. In addition to the right to own property (real and personal), women (married and single) also won the rights to form contracts, open businesses, participate in government, and speak out about things that mattered to them. Near ceaseless advocacy and political agitation beginning in the mid-1800s and continuing through to today have garnered many – but not all – successes, facilitating the American woman’s ability to do all those things and more.

Notably, one of the most significant gains for women was winning the right to work and earn as much as a man for doing the same labor, although those advances were hard fought and took years to accomplish. There was some forward movement in the late 19th Century (in 1879, the U.S. Congress overruled the Supreme Court and empowered a woman to practice in front of that body) and the early 20th Century (in 1938, minimum wages were made equal between women and men). However, real headway wasn’t made until the 1960s:

In 1963, the Equal Pay Act ordered that all workers be paid ‘equitably’ regardless of sex, race, color, religion, or other qualifiers. (Full enforcement of that Act remains elusive.)

In 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibited employers from discriminating against people who weren’t Christian white men.

In 1965, restrictive laws curtailing women’s work hours were repealed, allowing women to take jobs previously held only by men.

In 1969, a federal court agreed that women with the physical capacity to do the same work as men should be hired to do that.

After that, Congress passed a plethora of laws that granted to women many (but not all) of the employment and work-related rights that men had.

 

For 175 years, America’s women have struggled to gain full equality within their society, and society has suffered for lack of those resources. The successes they’ve achieved and the processes they followed to attain them are indicators that, as a group, women will only rest in this endeavor once they’ve reached full and complete equality with men as valued and contributing members of society.

Delivering Women: Establishing Full Equality

Pam Sornson, JD on April 16, 2023

The battle to achieve fundamental human respect and equality isn’t limited to women. People of color, religious communities, those who are differently-abled, and many other marginalized populations continue to suffer from the injustices and inequities embedded in global social and political systems. Yet, despite the apparent challenges within their society, many communities fail to address these problems, believing them to be insurmountable or, worse, unimportant. The reality is that any level of inequity or inequality in an organized association erodes that whole community’s capacity to achieve its highest potential.

 

Exclusion is Expensive

When a percentage of the population is unable to offer its value but instead is compelled to draw resources from the greater community for survival, then even its wealthiest members suffer unnecessary social and economic losses. That’s the conclusion drawn by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in its recent report, The Economic Gains from Equity. The authors evaluated data from the Current Population Survey that estimated America could add over $25 trillion in gross domestic product gain over the next 30 years by eliminating disparities that impede personal progress and community economic growth. The report’s findings mirror those offered by other notable global entities that have drawn similar conclusions regarding the connection between achieving equity and maximizing economic development.

The conclusion is not new, either. In 2016, the Altarum Institute and Kellogg Foundation released their joint dissertation making the Business Case for Racial Equity, which describes several economic and fiscal benefits that flow from closing the wealth and earnings gap between whites and ethnic minorities. In addition to generating higher total earnings for all workers – male and female – a more diverse workforce receiving equitable resources would also:

boost long-term economic growth,

increase tax revenues for both state and federal coffers, and

reduce the number of people requiring social safety services.

 

Inclusion Increases Incomes

The challenge now is to determine a strategy to achieve this level of equity and then execute it to pursue these economic goals. Analysts at PolicyLink suggest that communities adopt an intention of achieving “economic inclusion” by connecting vulnerable populations to new jobs while ensuring that those occupations provide the wages and benefits to support both a family unit and community-wide economic growth.

They identify four’ inclusion tools’ capable of moving the initiative forward:

Adjusting local and regional hiring policies and practices to engage women and minority workers and rewarding those entities that implement them.

Use government resources to develop and support minority and woman-owned enterprises, then contract with those companies to embed them into the community’s economic foundation.

Set living-standard wage and benefits rules to ensure all workers earn the value they represent, not just get paid what the market has established for their role or occupation. This strategy directly responds to the inequities revealed by the pandemic, when those workers deemed ‘essential’ to the economy were also typically the lowest-paid employees of the community.

Pour all necessary resources into the development of a well-trained and skilled workforce. The COVID-19 crisis eliminated thousands of jobs while creating a demand for thousands more new occupations. The emerging labor force does not yet have the tools or skills to perform these new roles. Societies looking to build a better future can invest in the resources needed to provide the training and education to ensure they have the employees needed to perform these new occupations.

 

Other entities, too, have weighed in on how to raise and empower marginalized workers. For example, UNWomen is an organization within the United Nations that champions gender equality for all women and girls, which, by definition, includes females of all colors, religions, and abilities. Notably, countries that follow the organization’s recommendations for empowering women see benefits across their whole population.

This group looks specifically at the barriers and obstacles women face in their everyday lives that impede their capacity to work, earn, and care for themselves. If successfully executed, its recommendations to remove these challenges would also unleash the economic value millions of women could contribute to their communities:

Invest in care services. Women perform the vast majority of global caregiving and caretaking services, and a large percentage of those efforts go uncompensated. One entity estimates that the annual value of these resources tops $1.5 trillion. The statistic demonstrates a double hardship for women: not only do they not get paid for their time or labor, but the men who are not doing this work are then free to manage their time and earn more money because they have no comparable obligation.  

Ensure funding for women’s organizations. In many regions of the world, the ‘women’s society’ provides a safety net for females that governments have not yet established. Too few resources, however, erode their capacity to provide the quality services women and girls deserve.

Protect women’s health. Poor healthcare systems for women cause multiple economic woes for both them and their communities, yet many societies continue to erode the few that are (or were) already in existence. The World Economic Forum estimates that a $300 million investment in woman-focused research could yield a $13 billion return by enhancing the gender’s productivity and longevity.

Support women’s leadership at all levels of government and throughout society. Women appear to be more attuned and sensitive to environmental issues, and countries with more women holding elected office have adopted stricter climate policies than those with predominantly male governing bodies.

Imagine the social and economic gains that could be achieved if these recommendations were applied to all groups of people.

 

The conclusion to be drawn from these circumstances, theories, and realities is that empowering everyone to contribute to their community to the best of their ability also empowers that community to achieve its highest potential. At this critical, pivotal moment in history, it may (finally) be possible to strategize a plan to achieve that goal.

Women in Labor: Generating Value

Pam Sornson, JD on April 4, 2023

Besides the obvious physical distinctions, the differences between men’s and women’s brains explain how and why their talents and skills differ so greatly from one group to the other. Women, for example, process information much faster than men, using much less of their mental capacity to achieve the comparable cognitive performance of men. Their brains have a heightened interconnectivity that simultaneously facilitates mental processing across several lobes. Men’s brains, on the other hand, are more specialized, using individual modules of brain anatomy to focus on one function at a time. Neither brain structure is preferable to the other; they each have their strengths and weaknesses as processing machines. But the differences between them do indicate that harnessing the capacities of both will bring better and higher values to the community. Continued reliance on the one – typically that of the male – to conduct all social business ignores the value and contribution capacity of the other.

These four women are examples of the benefits gained by a society when it elevates and engages the dynamic force of the female brain. Women’s individual styles, thought processes, and initiatives bring unmatched and unique contributions to their separate organizations in ways that the male brain can’t match, not as an alternative resource but as an equally competent and comparable one.

 

Julie Su – Nominee: U.S. Secretary of Labor

Ms . Su is the former California Secretary of Labor and President Biden’s current nominee to head the United States Labor Department. She has been serving as the deputy secretary for the U.S. DOL. In that role, she has worked with the President and his cabinet to amend federal rules and regulations to advance more equitable inclusion and worker well-being policies and practices. She was picked for the position based on her focus on human rights and finding justice for marginalized populations.  Her leadership in a 1995 legal case that changed California’s laws regarding sweatshops and the exploitation of immigrant workers is just one example.

As California’s top labor leader, Su was dedicated to prosecuting businesses that cheated workers out of their fair wages, including companies that inappropriately classified their employees as ‘independent contractors’ to avoid compliance with California’s labor standards. As deputy director for the U.S. DOL and as the potential top leader in that organization, Su will oversee 26 agency programs that provide services, guidance, and support to workers, employers, and industries across the country. The DOL focuses on work- and labor-related concerns that impact millions of Americans and provides governance and enforcement services for federal work-related laws, including the American Rescue Plan, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

 

Dr. Sonya Christian – Chancellor, California Community Colleges

In February 2023, the California Community Colleges Board of Governors unanimously selected Dr. Christian to lead the country’s most diverse system of public higher education. As the 6th Chancellor of the Kern Community College District, Dr. Christian was instrumental in spearheading funding for the Guided Pathways model of community college program organization. As a consequence of her leadership in this initiative, the State provided a $150M investment to launch the project to further pursue its “Vision for Success” metrics.

Her leadership as the Chancellor of California’s Community College system (CCC) allows her to expand her creative educational philosophies across 116 college campuses state-wide. The CCCs host more than 1.8 million students each year, 69% of whom are from diverse ethnic backgrounds. More than half (51%) of the graduates of California State Universities (CSU) and almost one in three (29%) of University of California (UC) graduates began their education at a community college. The 116 individual institutions together offer over 377,000 course sections, providing students from across the state the opportunity to pursue virtually any occupation or career. Dr. Christian’s influence on this network and the millions of people will be significant.

 

Kelly LoBianco, Director, LA County Department of Economic Opportunity

With over 15 years of public sector experience at the federal, state, and local levels, Ms. LoBianco has held numerous executive roles, including Executive Director of Training and Sector Initiatives for New York City’s Workforce Development Division. She consistently uplifts community voices to achieve measurable, equitable, and sustainable outcomes and brings considerable skills as a change agent for social services policy and programs in workforce and economic development strategies.

The LA County Department of Economic Opportunity (LADEO) is the county’s workforce development hub. It offers county residents opportunities to pursue new career pathways, access occupational upgrades, and launch new businesses and organizations. The LADEO is now tasked to deploy more than $156 million in economic and workforce development resources provided by the American Rescue Plan Act, better known by President Biden’s phrase, the “Build Back Better” plan. The agency will administer approximately $99 million in federal grant money to facilitate grants to hundreds of LA County small businesses, nonprofit organizations, talent pipelines, and more.

 

Carolyn Hull, General Manager, Economic & Workforce Development Department – City of Los Angeles

Ms. Hull started as leader of this group – the EWDD – in February 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic began, and she and her team distributed more than $63 million in coronavirus response spending. The money supported hundreds of economic relief programs, including the City of LA’s Small Business Emergency Grant Program, the LA Regional COVID-19 Fund, and the LA COVID-19 Child Care Provider Grant Program.

The agency itself steers workforce development initiatives to create the job training and career opportunities that result in thriving businesses. Its $21 million budget funds six dedicated programs, including:

Nine BusinessSource Centers that provide access to capital, tax incentive information, and employee training, among other services.

Economic development strategies that leverage public assets in support of private business growth.

Seventeen WorkSource Centers that provide employment-related assistance to regional residents.

Sixteen YouthSource Centers that offer educational and career preparation services for “disconnected youth” between 16 and 24 years.

The “Hire LA’s Youth” summer employment program that provides six weeks of paid work opportunities for local people aged 14 to 24 years.

Seven Day Labor Centers that offer fixed locations around the city where people can gain job skills, and businesses can find short-term workers.

 

These four women now manage hundreds of millions of LA County’s public funding resources, all of which are directed at building the region’s economy on behalf of all its residents. Individually, their exceptional capacities and unique female perspectives will undoubtedly advance the work and success of their agency. Together, their combined leadership force has the potential to generate more economic success than the County has ever experienced by using cognitive capabilities – uniquely female – that its prior male leaders simply did not possess.

Women in Labor: Unsung Value

Pam Sornson, JD on April 4, 2023

How society values labor is very often determined by historical practices and premises. Consequently, today’s reality regarding the value of work doesn’t necessarily reflect the actual benefit conferred by a person’s effort. Instead, economic and social realities reveal what the historical community believed was of value regarding that worker as a person. And in too many cases, inappropriate, biased, and discriminatory labeling of the person has resulted in an ineffective and inequitable valuing of the effort they contribute to their culture. The cost to the community of this type of ‘norm’ has been – and remains – exceedingly high.

 

Progress Marked

Women’s History Month in America – March – has just passed, and we’ve chronicled the successes of notable women in the LA area who have had and are having a significant impact on our regional workforce development efforts. As laudable as their accomplishments are, however, further research indicates that there is still much to be done for women here and around the world to attain a level of equity that would be comparable to that enjoyed by men. Not only would women and girls themselves gain immense benefits from being fully recognized as valuable contributors to society, but data indicate that the entire community benefits across all sectors when the labor and efforts of women are appreciated and valued equally to those of men.

 

Progress to be Made

Despite the fact that women make up fully half of the world’s population, they remain woefully underrepresented in terms of economics, social standing, and educational achievements. According to a paper released by the World Bank, approximately 2.5 billion of the world’s women cannot access the economic opportunities that could improve their lives. Instead, they face formidable legal and social barriers that prevent them from even pursuing such options.

The statistics are alarming. In the 190 nations surveyed by the Bank:

One hundred seventy-eight countries maintain legal systems that prevent women from fully participating in their economies.

Eighty-six countries place restrictions on the jobs available to women, while

another 95 countries will not guarantee equal pay for equal work.

Further, around the world and in addition to their lack of access to economic development, women are afforded only three-quarters of the legal rights enjoyed by men, generating an aggregate score of 76%, with 100% representing complete legal parity between men and women. The challenges presented by these disparities are many.

According to Mari Pangestu, World Bank Managing Director of Development Policy and Partnerships, the estimated lifetime earnings gap between men and women now stands at US $172 trillion, almost twice the world’s annual gross domestic product (GDP).

By any standard, such a yawning void of earning capacity between a man and a woman reflects significant inequity and unfairness. To explain it away, some people may suggest that men work more than women or that the products of the man’s labor provide higher social value than those of women. Neither of those assertions is accurate, however.

Research shows that women simply aren’t paid for all the work they do. Women perform 2.5 times the volume of unpaid household and caregiver work than men. That fact is evident in both developed and developing nations, too. In developing countries, men contribute an average of 1:31 hours per day of unpaid labor (women = 5:42) compared to the 1:54 hours performed by men in developed regions (women = 5:09). The relative economic stability of the country in which they live does not have an impact on the volume of unpaid work performed by men as compared to that contributed by women.

The data also reveal that, when they are compensated for their work, women are paid less money than men, even when they do the same job. Globally, on average, a woman earns just $.77 for every dollar a man earns for performing the same function, and women with children make, on average, less than that.

Having children is, in itself, a handicap for the vast majority of the world’s women. In many communities, Women with children face additional barriers to finding a fair and well-compensated job:

A child-encumbered female employee is deemed less reliable than her male counterpart because employers expect that she will need special accommodations to attend to her family. The boss doesn’t have the same expectation for male employees.

Many companies set rigid workdays and hours schedules, which don’t facilitate the flexibility that mothers or other caregivers often need.

Society, in general, still expects women, not men, to attend to family-related details while also anticipating the woman to perform at the same level of capacities and attentiveness as her male colleagues.

These circumstances aggregate to put women under tremendous pressure to perform all roles and expectations all the time, even though none of those activities provides the economic or social support she needs to succeed. Not surprisingly, many women elect to work for compensation only part-time and spend more of their days in their unpaid role of mother and home keeper. They then, because of the nature of their circumstances, sacrifice their old-age benefits, which are frequently calculated by the number of paid hours contributed to an employer over their work life or career.

 

When measured as an influence on economic success and social mobility, these statistics underscore how much of the value that women provide goes unrecognized and uncompensated. Finding a way to address and repair these inequities requires an analysis of the facts that generate these situations and then taking action to reduce and eliminate them.

Why Harness Worker ‘Agency’

Pam Sornson, JD on March 19, 2023

Measuring how employers value employees is only one element of the workforce development agenda. Another perspective examines how workers value their employers, which, it turns out, may have a bigger impact on current and future employment levels than was previously believed. Businesses that understand and facilitate their worker’s desire for ‘agency’ – the sense of having control over one’s actions and consequences – are more likely to have personnel who enjoy their work and are willing to contribute their valuable assets to share in the company’s growth.

 

Occupational Options Drive Employee Elections

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rearrange how the world works, it is also shifting the relative perspectives – and power bases – of workforce participants at all levels of that strata. These days, workers are commanding – and receiving – more recognition and respect from their workplace, but not through the use of vocal demonstrations or public agitation. Instead, they are asserting their value as a significant corporate asset and not just a commodity to be purchased. Employers who heed and respond to these new declarations of ‘worker agency’ may end up gaining a better workforce and a stronger company in return.

The newly popular opportunity to work remotely is just one of the influences on a worker’s decision about where to work and for whom. Throughout the pandemic, employees compelled to work from home using their personal technology were rewarded not just with an income but also with better control over their time – more agency over their occupational decisions. In many cases, companies continued to receive high-quality workforce performance despite giving up control over where or when those staffers were laboring. As the pandemic began to recede, the opportunity to work remotely became an attractive option for both existing and potential workers and remains so today.

That shift of power in the employee’s favor is having a profound effect on today’s workforce numbers. A 2022 survey revealed that many formerly employed people have voluntarily chosen to remain out of the workforce. Rather than acquiesce to their former work environment, which they found to be either uncomfortable, unfair, or both, they have chosen other methods of maintaining their lifestyle instead of returning to a job that they did not like. Of survey respondents, 36% reported being unemployed or furloughed from their former employment. Of those:

Almost one in five (19%) had adopted the title of ‘homemaker’ to describe their new occupation.

Another 17% had fully retired.

14% were working part-time, while 8% had started their own enterprise.

Notably, only 6% reported turning to some form of schooling.

Remarkably, the majority of these former workers who were intentionally shunning traditional employment opportunities were not financially well off. Almost nine in ten (89%) were earning less than $75,000 per year, and 83% of those were earning less than $50,000 annually. That reality suggests that, at least for some, living a reduced lifestyle because of financial constraints was better than making money doing something they didn’t enjoy doing or working for an employer they didn’t like or respect.

The survey respondents gave several reasons why they weren’t invested in finding full-time employment any time soon (some offered more than one reason):

28% cited ongoing health concerns that prevented them from looking for work.

27% were tending to family matters that would otherwise go unaddressed.

23% said family members were taking up the financial slack created by their unemployment.

Perhaps most relevant to workforce development professionals: over 40% stated that the wages in their industry weren’t competitive for their skill set and that they weren’t going to look until that circumstance improved in their favor.

While the survey itself was just a small sampling of the general unemployed population, it does reveal at least some of the very real and relevant factors that are impeding the country’s post-COVID economic recovery. Workers who can’t find employment that gives them both job and personal satisfaction won’t be contributing to the economic recovery effort.

 

Employer Options Encourage Economic Engagement

According to Deloitte, only 17% of business leaders feel confident that their companies are prepared to provide their workers with the employment standards now expected by many of the country’s unemployed. While most (84%) of the respondents to that 2023 survey acknowledged that ‘worker agency’ is essential to corporate success, thus far, they had only looked at or initiated the three major employee satisfaction practices that had arisen during the COVID-19 concern: insufficient compensation, home or office location, and control over working hours.

There are other opportunities and themes for employer/employee relationship exploration available, however, that may also prove fruitful:

Adopt the premise that those who share the corporate success journey should also share corporate success outcomes. For example, adding merit bonuses to compensation practices and instituting an employee profit-sharing program can enhance productivity across the enterprise.

Strategize, develop, and execute programs that support the worker-organization relationship. business leaders can contemplate how the employee’s voice and opinion can improve corporate practices and policies, for example.

Design tracking and monitoring practices to follow newly instituted procedures to embed those more holistic employment satisfaction conventions in place.

Doing nothing in the face of these workforce evolutions could prove disastrous. The global scope of the ‘workforce revisioning’ process suggests that how, when, and where corporate productivity is accomplished is no longer just a C-Suite decision. There are pockets of laborers in almost all countries who are clamoring for both more power and more satisfaction from their occupation, and that may be the new ‘workforce development’ normal.

 

Here in the U.S., survey responses appear to indicate that a significant proportion of the now-unemployed or under-employed population would rather not work than work at a job they don’t like. If that situation continues, then America will continue to face a critical shortage of workers in its national workforce. Organizations without a sufficient or well-trained workforce aren’t able to maximize their investments, market share, or profits. Reduced corporate productivity results in reduced tax revenues for communities. Employers, companies, and industries should note these concerns and do what they can to remedy their organization’s workforce challenges if they intend to remain in business and compete in the global market.

Rebuilding Workforce Power

Pam Sornson, JD on March 19, 2023

Economic recovery and growth for all are – or should be – the fundamental goals of the emerging global workforce landscape. However, in many countries, the ‘status quo’ of shareholder/business owner dominance over all economic decision-making remains in place, even though it erodes the capacity of the workforce and threatens to derail the rebound and recovery process.

Instead, organizations of all sizes might consider embracing a more equitable corporate management structure that encourages and adopts worker input as a critical element of leadership strategy. The shift in perspective doesn’t just improve workforce conditions in general; it is also a more viable path to true economic recovery for the greater community.

 

Strategic Declines

Economists have tracked the rise and fall of worker power over the past ~70 years, as post-war industrial activities triggered union growth, and subsequent corporate evolutions suppressed those efforts.

In 1964, union membership in America was at an all-time high, with union participation in the Midwest and West Coast states averaging more than 33% of all workers. Union membership offered significant benefits for all participants:

It held wages steady through shifting economic times;

It helped to reduce wage gaps among workers, especially between men and women and whites and people of color;

It assured better working conditions and safety protections on the job, and

It often offered better paid-leave opportunities than those received by non-union members.

The primary power of that workforce voice was to influence where and how the company invested its resources. Maintaining a capable and confident labor force was deemed a priority, so corporate leadership focused as much of its attention on those values as it did on other enterprise activities. Consequently, company revenues were distributed more equitably throughout the workforce, a reality that drove the growth and success of America’s middle class.

By the 1970s, however, the perspective that encouraged worker satisfaction was changing. Company owners and shareholders were working to erode the standards established by union demands and often used nefarious tactics to accomplish those goals:

Union activists were often fired from their jobs to remove their influence from the general workforce.

Corporations introduced ‘captive audience’ (mandatory) meetings to promulgate views opposing worker rights, often using veiled threats of unemployment and firing if employees balked at their assertions.

The emergence of a ‘union avoidance’ consulting industry throughout the 1970s demonstrated the popularity among business owners of efforts to limit worker power.

By the 1980s, complaints about unfair labor practices had grown more than seven times over that number in the 1950s.

The primary reason why these evolutions away from worker power were so successful is that the country’s laws facilitated those actions. From the 1940s through to the 1970s, several laws favoring employers over employees were enacted; it wasn’t until the 1970s, however, that businesses began pursuing those legal remedies:

The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act authorized the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to prioritize defending lawsuits against unions for their ‘secondary activities,’ such as cases involving illegal terminations of labor organizers.

Laws designed to protect workers frequently had ineffective remedies that didn’t address the problems that were occurring or weren’t properly applied by the courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court also weighed business interests with more gravity than worker’s rights and agreed to limit the employer’s bargaining obligations. Without a legally enforceable mandate to collaborate on workforce concerns, companies were free to fire disgruntled workers in favor of hiring those who wouldn’t rock the corporate boat.

Consequently, as labor power diminished, so did worker wages, protections, and benefits.

 

Facing a New Economic Reality

Over the past three years, economic upheavals have triggered a resurgence in efforts to rehabilitate the worker’s rights agenda. While some industries shrank and sluffed off their workers, others expanded at an alarming rate, and businesses engaged in those sectors are now struggling to find the staff they need to capture emerging economic opportunities.

At the same time, more workers than ever were taking control of their (existing or potential) work situation to demand better pay, better hours, better benefits, and a stronger voice at the C-Suite table. Despite the economic chaos experienced in 2020 as the world essentially shut down its industrial operations, more than 47 million workers left their jobs in 2021 in search of a better quality of life than their previous occupation was providing. While many have found new work that better suits their tastes and capacities, many of the sectors they left behind have yet to regain their previous stability. Several of these industries are those that had traditionally hosted union activities, and one that is particularly hit by job losses (and now suffers a high percentage of unfilled job openings) is durable goods manufacturing.

The manufacturing industry has long been based in America’s Midwest and still holds a significant place in those regional economies. At the beginning of 2020, however, it lost approximately 1.4 million jobs because of the pandemic. In 2023, it is still seeking both entry-level and skilled workers to fill those vacancies, and those workforce gaps are having a profound – and negative – on those local economies. The situation is becoming more dire as time passes, too, with experts predicting a record 2.1 million unfilled jobs in this sector by 2030. There is a myriad of reasons why these job positions remain unfilled, one of which may be because, for so long, workers on those manufacturing floors had no voice or control over the quality of or satisfaction they derived from their work.

 

Today’s economic uncertainties are roiling the conversations and decisions happening in board meetings, director’s offices, and workspaces. The confusion creates opportunities for new employer/employee collaborations that promise to improve the good fortunes of both. They also offer hope that the overall community will benefit too.

Defining the New ‘Workforce Ecosystem’

Pam Sornson, JD on March 6, 2023

Pam Sornson, JD

March 7, 2023

‘Human Capital.’ ‘Talent Management.’ ‘Employee Experience.’ ‘DEI.’ ‘Critical Skills.’ ‘Work Models.’ ‘Contingent Workers.’ While these individual terms are now familiar to most business leaders, they are coming together these days in a new configuration. They are being used to describe an emerging philosophy of workforce administration. Conventional practices no longer serve the needs of either employers or employees. Instead, as the pandemic recedes and new business habits materialize, optimal productivity mandates embracing the whole spectrum of worker capacity and utilizing those unsung resources to build a better workforce and a better community.

 

Business as Not Usual

The work world is evolving away from ‘one-size-fits-all staff management’ practices (typically time clocks, ‘regular hours,’ paid time off, etc.). Instead, tomorrow’s employment professionals are discussing the aspects of a new ‘workforce ecosystem‘ concept that embraces the shift away from ‘work-a-day’ norms and toward happier, more enlightened ‘productivity assets.’

Several factors are driving these innovative developments in workforce management, many of which were triggered during the COVID-19 era and most of which appear to be inevitable anyway, given the swift advance of technology.

 

Labor Force Factors

Three elements in particular drive evolving expectations in the labor sector:

The absence of available workers – The pandemic didn’t just force thousands of people from their jobs. It also drove thousands of others to quit intentionally. And despite significant job growth in the past two years, the country is still struggling to get work done, with three million fewer workers on shift compared to February 2020. The impact of those labor gaps is felt in every industry because businesses can’t compete, grow, or thrive without a fully functioning workforce in place.

The rise of ‘worker agency’ – Almost three years of global economic disruptions have dramatically changed the employer/employee relationship. In many instances, a dwindling labor pool transferred power over employment details from the boss – who needs workers – to the worker, who has little, if any, competition for the job. Consequently, incoming staff have a stronger voice with corporate leadership regarding wage rates, working conditions, and enhanced opportunities for bonuses and promotions.

Generational challenges – The era of spending a lifetime in a single career is ending as the baby boomer generation ages out of the workforce. Not only is there no population of any size to fill in those gaps, but those subsequent generations – the Millennials, Gen Z, and now Generation Alpha – together are smaller than the boomer group, and they have a decidedly different perspective on the meaning of ‘work’ and how they want to pursue their careers.

Marketplace Factors

The nature of work is also changing rapidly. Companies are struggling to adapt traditional methods and assets to emerging opportunities, even when those promise greater profitability and success.

Technology has completely eliminated some jobs while making many others distinctly more complex. The capacity for staff to work remotely adds unprecedented flexibility for both company and worker while also adding layers of management needed to oversee the associated risks and logistics.

‘Skills-based’ occupations have replaced ‘job title’ postings for many companies. Hirers are looking for qualified workers who have the skills needed for the job, so potential hires are prioritizing their skillsets over their past employment positions. In some cases, a worker well-skilled in critical activities is more valuable to the corporation than a less skilled but ‘better educated’ colleague. The deviation toward skills and away from book learning as the fundamental training format is engaging new work and career options among those workers who might not have pursued a job at all.

The need for agility is also becoming more significant for corporate success. Today’s markets move faster than ever, and new, competitive products and services are introduced daily. Keeping up with the competition is imperative to organizational survival, and having a staff that is capable of adapting swiftly to marketplace changes is equally critical.

 

Think Outside the Cubical

Looking ahead, today’s business leaders should be contemplating how they can improve their organization’s productivity in three years, five years, or a decade. That new iteration will almost certainly not look like today’s conventional ‘business’ configuration. But it should not look like an unorganized mishmash of traditional and innovative work management styles, either.

Instead, today’s leaders can strategize through the chaos to an enlightened and energized new enterprise by addressing and overcoming the two biggest hurdles to growth – an unprepared corporate culture and entrenched, inefficient work processes.

The management ‘mindset’ should be the first target for innovation. The corporate culture will transition into its new, more fluid configuration when managers intend to lead it there. This new workforce management strategy will require ‘executive control’ to shift from ‘direction’ to ‘orchestration.’ Rather than marshaling workers and their individual efforts, leaders at all levels of the organization should think of orchestrating the aggregated outputs of those human resource assets to achieve corporate goals.

Eliminate the now obsolete ‘job title’ composition of labor hierarchy and embrace the “workforce ecosystem” mindset as the new “workforce development strategy.” This ecosystem can be whatever the organization requires; it is essentially ‘boundaryless’ in that it incorporates and values the contributions of all workers, regardless of their title, role, or worker status.

Establish an open workforce objective that emphasizes skills and contributions over traditional ‘laborer’ metrics and provides the support that each worker needs to be successful, whether they are full-time employees, contractors, or some other form of paid contributors to enterprise success.

 

These days, employees want – and can command – better recognition for the individual skills and abilities they bring to their job. Companies that do well at satisfying these newly identified requirements can harness those added values into a corporate ecosystem that builds both a better business and a better community.

Risk as a Value Proposition: Evaluating Workforce and Human Risk Factors

Pam Sornson, JD on March 6, 2023

Risk is rampant these days, especially after the pandemic and its subsequent economic upheaval upended the global homeostasis. Many conventional practices and norms have been eliminated, and, in some cases, their replacements have yet to emerge. As a result, there are now yawning gaps and voids currently roiling the systems society relies on for service and support.

Other realities have also become starkly evident as the health threat recedes, especially when it comes to valuing labor. Some jobs were discovered to be obsolete, so they disappeared. Other formerly ‘menial’ occupations were revealed to be ‘essential’ to society’s functioning. In both cases, communities were dismayed to learn that their fundamental beliefs about work and its value were so incongruous with reality and, therefore, also unsustainable.

As the world approaches the post-COVID future, the workers who lost their jobs are clamoring for new, as yet undeveloped positions, while those who stoically performed the difficult ‘essential’ services are now demanding to be recognized – and compensated – for assuming those risks. The question is: how will the industrial community respond to these new demands and expectations?

 

Risk as a Spot Light

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed elemental yet hidden risks that are often inherent in virtually every industry.

In many cases, the risk grew from simply maintaining a product or service that suddenly presented a threat to life and health. When the government declared the spreading virus a national emergency, all kinds of ordinary, everyday activities ended abruptly, which also terminated the jobs they generated. Movie theaters went dark, restaurants closed in the thousands, and any form of public gathering quickly disappeared.

In other instances, the risk involved relying on (what eventually proved to be) unreliable sources for critical supplies and materials. Throughout the global supply chain network, most producers experienced at least some delivery delays of materials due to a lack of supplies, workforce, or both. Many reported a related escalation in costs as they paid ’emergency’ rates for any available substitutions.

In still other cases, the risk involved maintaining a fully staffed workforce to keep up with production quotas and orders. Any occupation that required a physical, human presence often also presented the risk of infection, which then prevented millions of employees from working lest they spread the disease throughout their organization. Many businesses closed for this reason. Further, as the pandemic wanes, many of those workers who became unemployed then are finding themselves in high demand for their skillsets and experience now. Accordingly, they are expecting higher wages than they received in the past, which presents an emerging risk to potential employers that they won’t be able to pay sufficient salaries to rebuild their labor force back to pre-pandemic levels.

These pre-pandemic risks are primarily related to the organization’s operational and financial activities, and many boards of directors focus their discussions on mitigating these risks to the corporation.

What they’re missing, however, is that these hazards are even more significant for their impact on the human workforce, which often bears the brunt of their effect. These leaders haven’t yet built into their management philosophy strategies to mitigate the risks to their human capital assets (such as infection by a potentially lethal virus), which means they also fail to protect the enterprise when those assets become unavailable. Managing the human risks within their enterprise is just as critical to their company’s success as managing the risks to their operational activities.

 

Embracing New Workforce Fundamentals

Shifting the corporate mindset to accommodate these emerging ‘human workforce risk factors’ is perhaps the best way for the industrial community to respond to new and evolving labor force demands and expectations. Not only would any such changes positively impact the workforce in general, but they might also enhance the agility and resilience of the organization as a whole.

The new management style goes beyond ‘workforce safety’ as the sole ‘labor-focused’ standard. It adds accountability for both internal and external factors that impact how, where, and why work is performed.

At the very least, the C-Suite should consider the physical, mental, and psychological risks their workers face each day and design compensation and benefits packages that reflect those heightened concerns.

In addition, an overarching review of corporate culture can embed ‘risk assessment and management’ at all employee and occupational levels to ensure that each worker is clearly informed of existing and potential risks and given the opportunity to choose to assume those challenges.

It also encompasses the well-being of the communities in which that labor is produced so that the company is assured of a strong workforce well into the future. Well-paying work builds well-supported communities.

Not least, the full implementation of this new style of human workforce management requires input and attention at all levels of leadership. Boards of directors, in particular, are responsible for considering the welfare of the workers who are building the value of the enterprise. A strong workforce emerges from more than just a robust HR office.

Many corporate directors may consider these evolutions too expensive or disruptive to be considered seriously. However, the dangers of maintaining the status quo most likely far outweigh the cost of improving the occupational situation of their workforce. These days, workers themselves are demanding improvements in their occupational environments to not only reduce risk to themselves but also to add value to them as people, employees, and community members. In addition, the consuming public is more aware these days of the values provided by all workers, not just those in the public eye for their high compensation levels. And since many of them “shop with their feet,” it is imperative for the leadership of every organization to be aware of and respond to their customer’s preferences, especially where social concerns are involved.

 

Risk is everywhere and is unavoidable. The very real threats posed to human workers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic are becoming far less tolerable to a society that has seen firsthand how damaging unmitigated risks can be. Organizations that intend to thrive through the pandemic and into a stronger, more resilient future will work now to mitigate and avoid future threats to the health and welfare of their human labor force. By doing so, they will build a stronger, more resilient workforce, as well as a stronger, more vital organization.

Get the PULSE in your inbox!

Name(Required)