This edition of i4cp's Trendwatcher is a departure from our traditional format. Rather than presenting the perspective of an individual, we're having some fun and taking two diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same important topic - contingent workers. As you read, keep in mind that our intent for both sides of the argument is to be provocative, with the goal of sparking conversation and new thinking on the topic. We hope you enjoy this experiment.
John: "Contingency Plans are Plan A, not Plan B"
Let's face it, the reality of the greater use of contingent workers is not only here to stay, but, in fact, has been growing steadily for decades. Business leaders understand that they need to keep costs low, remain nimble to changes in the marketplace and keep up on the hottest skills without having to invest literally millions of dollars each year in developing their employees.
Our State of the Contingent Workforce Report - which you yourself wrote, Lorrie - shows that high-performing companies not only use contingent workers more often, they also use them more strategically than low performers. Specifically, by using contingent workers, they can immediately infuse their businesses with the key high-level skill sets that are vitalnow, not a year or more from now using traditional learning and recruiting routes. It's kind of like buying the latest Smartphone with the idea that, by the time it becomes obsolete, you'll already be upgrading to the new model.
And, if you think that high-performing companies use employees simply as disposable commodities, you'd be wrong. High-performing leaders actually keep contingent employees in their jobs longer than low performers. Why? It's because they don't use contingent workers as simply a short-term way of saving some cash. Smart managers know that building a workforce composed of a critical mass of contingent workers is not just a short-term fix to financial tight spots or budget cuts. Instead, contingent workers represent a way of building a smart, up-to-date, yet nimble base of vital talent.
And contingency is not just great for businesses - it's terrific for employees too. Nearly a decade ago Daniel Pink espoused the advantage of contingency for the so-calledFree Agent Nation. Contingent work arrangements allow skilled employees to not only choose who they work for, but also give them the latitude to actually negotiate their specific work assignments, their work settings ... and even their bosses. This is especially great news for Generation Y, the most technologically savvy - yet dissatisfied - segment of the U.S. workforce. What better way to get to do the work that you love, get paid what your skills are worth in the free market, and - most importantly - have the flexibility to move somewhere else when you become bored or the boss becomes a pain in the ass?
No, Lorrie, contingency is not a bad thing. Not only is it here to stay, it's a great idea for everyone involved.
Lorrie: "Get Your Contingent Act Together Already!"
John, your points are well taken, but the truth is that far too many organizations don't have a handle on contingent workers. They don't know how many contingent workers they are using at any given time, how many staffing firms they're sourcing from or what their spend is.
Add to that the fact that there is too much turf-warring and internal power struggling over the whole issue of who ultimately owns the process and is accountable for outcomes and you have the perfect recipe for a big fat mess rather than a strategic approach to meeting changing needs. Sure, contingent workers are the right choice for some organizations and circumstances, but not always.
You say that contingent workers are not viewed by companies as disposable commodities, but in using temporary workers or contractors to come in and perform certain functions aren't we making some fulltime employees feel disposable? Some firms I interviewed during the course of this study admitted that the morale of their employees has been affected by the presence of contractors who are brought in to work on challenging or creative projects while the FTEs keep the engine of the organization chugging along. So while your super-creative contractors may come in and produce something really cool, does it balance the sometimes detrimental impact on your core workforce?
Your argument that the increased use of contingent workers is "great news for Generation Y, the most technologically savvy - yet dissatisfied - segment of the U.S. workforce," does not hold water for me. It sounds like yet another bit of HR posturing to pacify Gen Y who, as you say, welcome having the flexibility to move somewhere else "when they become bored or the boss becomes a pain in the ass." I say: Grow up, kids. Welcome to the real world. Everyone gets bored with their jobs from time-to-time and sometimes that boredom leads to making a change but it can also lead to an opportunity to be innovative or entrepreneurial. Quit whining and get busy.
What's next, John? Organizations fully staffed by employees who are completely unengaged with anything but their own career trajectory and the next assignment in the next company? And what are the implications in terms of the loss of institutional knowledge, the strain on the culture and engagement?
Sure, contingent workers may cost less, but what's the cost in the long run? The reality is that many organizations will have better outcomes in certain areas by hiring and investing in the development of fulltime employees rather than repeatedly falling back on using contingent workers and, in a way, staying on a carousel that goes around and around but never really makes progress or arrives anywhere.
The current market allows us an opportunity to recruit high-potential talent like never before, but I think some organizations are loathe to break out of the complacency the recession sunk us in to. Sure, calling a staffing firm to fill openings is easy. Finding new employees who are the right fit for your organization takes work and developing an internal pipeline takes time and money. But it's worth it.
John Gibbons is the Vice President and General Manager of Research and Development at i4cp. He has been a human resources practitioner, researcher and thought leader in human capital strategy for more than 20 years. His work has been featured in hundreds of publications and news outlets around the world including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CEO Magazine, CNBC, CNN and National Public Radio (NPR).
Lorrie Lykins, i4cp's Managing Editor and Director of Research Services, has been involved in human capital research for a decade and has authored numerous white papers and articles on subjects ranging from corporate volunteerism to, yes, the contingent workforce. She is an adjunct professor at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, FL, a contributing author to the ASTD Leadership Handbook (2010) and has been published in numerous journals, magazines and newspapers.What do you think? Share your opinions on the matter.
