Distributed Spare Capacity To Place Ability

Technology is allowing a degree of sharing so large that new mediums of communication are creating a cascade of new engagements. As a result, we are entering a new era where solutions to market problems can be optimized by tapping into spare capacity held by individuals distributed in the community. Several monikers and catch phrases are used to help describe this new era: Shared Economy, Web 2.0, Crowdsourcing, Cognitive Surplus, Collaborative Consumption, App Economy, or Gamification. Welcome to the rise of the platformed business model to solve market problems!

In human services, adopting a platformed business model to place ability at best-fit can reinforce the career development paradigms of vocational guidance, career education, and life design. However, leaders in this space must accept that a fourth closely aligned paradigm is needed to subsidize development. I call it placement liquidity. I believe that best-fit is achieved by utilizing these four paradigms:

  1. Placement liquidity that views talent seekers and candidates as principals (i.e. buyers and sellers) in a transaction who may be characterized by willingness and compromise and who may be helped by participating in efficient marketplaces to eliminate pain points quickly.
  2. Vocational guidance that views principals as actors who may be characterized by individual differences, styles, and scores on personality traits and who may be helped by matching for resemblance to identify occupational fit.
  3. Career education that views principals as agents who may be characterized by individual development and readiness to make decisions appropriate to stages and who may be helped by implementing new attitudes, beliefs, and competencies to foster individual development.
  4. Life design that views principals as authors who may be characterized by autobiographical stories and who may be helped by reflecting on themes to construct a satisfying and productive life.

Depending on talent seeker and candidate constraints however, assistance may apply interventions that reflect any one of the different paradigms.

Most importantly, solution providers (professionals and academics included) must be aware that the market will not benefit from any solution unless it is built on a viable and sustainable business model to deliver the value proposition. As such, we shouldn’t forget the adage: “Businesses don’t fail, business models fail”.

What do you think needs to happen to see the improvements we are looking for?

The Enterprise and Placement Improvements

My previous posts titled Evaluating Placement Information (Parts 1 – 3) prompted a request for me to read an article by Don Fornes, CEO of Software Advice which sponsors The New Talent Times blog. I was asked by Software Advice to opine on the article.

The article, titled “The Psychological Profiles of the Dream Team”, was published on BusinessInsider and refers to a commissioned project by Mr. Fornes to analyze the high-performers at his company, to see what drives and motivates them. The research concluded with four distinct personality profiles which describes what makes their top players tick, the management style they respond best to, and how to identify and hire more people like them.

The following is my opinion about the problem the article addresses but in a more expansive view.

First, let’s define the problem. The problem is that an increasing number of people in the world are miserable, hopeless, suffering, and unhappy because they don’t have a good job—one that is a best-fit. The United States is no exception and, in fact, may be the poster child for workplace unhappiness.

Second, in almost all the content relating to ability placement there always seems to be an embedded assumption that we need to rely on the enterprise to make improvements. What if that assumption is wrong? What if the future of work is more about coordinating distributed work activity versus aggregated? Then, as solution providers, I think we need to design for the individual as a work network node, rather than designing for the enterprise as the work center, to realize the improvements we are looking for.

Third, we can look at the financial services industry for an analog to better understand how psychological profiles are used to help place capital at best-fit. After all ability is human capital. My experience tells me that psychological profiling of investors to facilitate the placement of financial capital at best-fit is more art than science. This is because the ongoing decision-making environment is extremely dynamic with very many variables. More specifically, in this space, best-fit knowledge may depend on tacit information held by individuals, distributed in a community network. If you accept this as a constraint and embrace it as such then you’ll be able to see the futility of trying to optimize the art of placing capital at best-fit.

So, in my opinion, psychological profiles can not be relied upon with a high degree of confidence to complete the job-to-be-done successfully. This is not to say that they are not an improvement but rather should be viewed as a sustaining innovation. It is my belief that to make the improvements we are looking for we need disruptive innovation.