In part I of this blog, I argued that the desire for control over one’s career was more a function of human aversion to uncertainty than a realistic approach to working in today’s world. The pandemic has made this point stunningly clear: it has provided in-our-faces evidence that something other than politics, money or, even, Jeff Bezos can dictate how our world is functioning today. Although its facilities have now reopened, no amount of Disney magic could prevent the closure of its theme parks during the earliest months of the crisis; for anyone whose life goal was to be employed as a character on the Disney payroll (and I have actually had that client!), that opportunity simply and suddenly vanished, leaving Goofy out of work. Walmart didn’t need door greeters when its doors were closed, and many world class chefs at the top of their game continue to be bereft of gorgeous restaurants in which to present their efforts to appreciative audiences. 

Face it: in a non-linear world, it makes sense to expect uncertainty. While no one can predict how that uncertainty will manifest itself (Fuel oil crisis? Toilet paper shortage? Lockdown?) what we can know is that, in our globally interdependent world, we can’t anticipate exactly what will be coming at us in the future. What we do know, however, is that there absolutely will be curveballs that will not only change the way our world operates, but also what jobs and opportunities will be available to us in the marketplace. 

Change is not a recent phenomenon in the world of work. From hunters and gatherers to switchboard operators, changes have eliminated certain work roles and organizations while giving rise to new opportunities and employers.  What is novel today, however, is the speed with which workplace change occurs and the frequency of significant occupational transformations. The “givens” of the past---in-store shopping, Lord & Taylor, Wang Corporation, party lines, two mail deliveries a day, etc., all had an impact on what jobs were available, who was employed in them, what they did in these roles and where they could do it. And, of course, the disappearance of a job category or organization has a ripple effect: the death of Sears does not only mean fewer salesclerk positions. It also means diminished traffic to shopping malls, subsequent in-person retail failures of smaller shops and restaurants that relied on the traffic drawn by the large anchor stores and fewer opportunities for security personnel who patrolled these facilities. On the other hand, novel opportunities have sprung up, from positions in the facilitation and transportation of on-line purchases to virtual assistant roles, food delivery services and related websites from Yelp to Grub Hub. 

Should we accept and expect uncertainty? I’m convinced, and, I believe, most people would agree. The problem is not a lack of information, but rather our reluctance to tackle the distasteful challenge of reconciling what we now know to be reality, with our very human preference for predictability. People seek security; jobs no longer provide it. And yet, we still have to earn a living. So our choice is (a) to live in denial (how is that working for you?) or (b) step up to face reality and reframe our expectations. We must accept that security as we knew it---be a good employee and you can keep your job—is gone. There are just too many variables operating that can have an impact on job security that have nothing to do with you doing a great job. Let that belief go.

We need a new way of thinking about work. And this new way of understanding work must be reframed across the board, not just for each of us in our own mind, but systemically, as well. Take a common assumption about the relationship between education and work:  Once a student enters a liberal arts college, that student is labeled either by a self-declared major field or assigned a designation of “undecided.” Parents have been uncomfortable with the latter because they don’t understand how the work world works. They put pressure on their progeny to figure out what they want to do when they graduate and what they will study in preparation for that role. In reality, however, outside of a relatively few specific pre-professional or vocational tracks, students have a wide array of options for study, and few of them are directly linked to a specific occupational path. But the extraordinary price of higher education and parents’ hopes for their child’s success in the future makes parents anxious for their children to commit to what they want to be when they grow up and prepare accordingly.  

While that may be comforting to parents in the short term, the fact is that the work world doesn’t work that way. Most liberal arts majors develop an important set of skills, such as analytical thinking and the ability to communicate clearly in a written format. When the time comes to get a first job after college, whether those capabilities were nurtured as a philosophy major or a psychology major is relatively unimportant. Where do those philosophy graduates end up? They become associates at consulting firms, assistants on research projects or tutors in SAT prep courses. Psychology majors enter retail banking, or work with an agency resettling recent immigrants or ghost write social media. Lacking this understanding, parents often default to platitudes, such as “Get a certificate in education. You can always fall back on teaching,” or “Go to law school; you can do anything with a law degree.” This sort of incorrect advice is uninformed and unhelpful. Worst of all, it sets in motion a way of thinking about the work world that sets the stage for disappointment and dead ends. 

The alternative is a reality-based approach of planning for uncertainty. Instead of “undecided” status raising the specter of a future graduate wandering aimlessly in a vocational wilderness, what if we reframed not being committed to a major early on in college as an embracing of uncertainty? In this mode of thinking, a student who is not fixed on a specific major is viewed as openminded and opportunistic in the best of ways. It values adapting over deciding and shifts thinking away from the worship of the finality of choice.

That open mindset sets the stage for the development of better strategies for career security---and success--- in an unpredictable world. Instead of plotting a very specific sequence of education and work titles as the path to our desired ends, we would likely do better to develop a series of flexible and short-term goals for the future. While we may instinctively prefer the mythology of a linear career path pursued with a single-minded focus, in an unpredictable context, that is a risky choice. 

Maya Angelou once noted that, “When people tell you who they are, believe them.” That was a profound piece of advice, and I have expanded the basic idea to apply to other entities that tell you who or what they are: for successful careers in a time where chaos reigns, take note! When the world shows you that this is how it works, BELIEVE IT. And approach the world of work accordingly.

Are you a believer? If you are, stay tuned for my further thoughts on this topic (one I hold dear) and learn more about how one should operate for success in the VUCA (stands for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) work world. 

ADDITIONAL BLOGS THAT COULD BE OF INTEREST