Working Longer and Differently: The 21st Century Innovation Model

Working Longer and Differently: The 21st Century Innovation Model

To unleash productivity, innovation, and growth in the 21st century, we must realign discussions about the future of work to recognise the importance of aging and longevity – unprecedented, accelerating trends that are reshaping economies, societies and individual lives around the globe. Human history has never seen such a dramatic demographic transformation, with a billion over 60 – doubling by mid-century – lives reaching 100 as a matter of course and a world that has more old than young. This megatrend opens an opportunity to power historic prosperity, but only if employers and others across global society lead innovative strategies to transform the future of work for the era of longevity. As the World Economic Forum put it over a decade ago in their seminal Peril or Promise, the paths are clear and stark.

Despite the wide-reaching impacts of aging and longevity, conversations about the future of work typically focus on other trends. These are certainly important, but they’re not the whole story. Digitalisation is changing how we work – new tools enable virtual work, and artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies drive automation that is creating, disrupting and changing how we work and at what. There’s also an ongoing transformation of who works, as women have entered the workforce in huge numbers and employers focus on diversity and inclusion. Additionally, new types of enterprises are changing what work people do, with the rise of new industries like home care and new work models like the gig economy. Twentieth century manufacturing is being replaced by 21st century services.

Each of these reflects a broader trend in society, yet expert discussions still too often ignore perhaps the most fundamental shift in today’s world. This is population aging – a historic shift that impacts nearly every aspect of life and is only now picking up speed. As S&P Global warned in their equally prescient report about the same time as WEF’s, “No other force is likely to shape the future of national economic health, public finances, policymaking [and markets] as the irreversible rate at which the world’s population is aging”.

In the growing number of “super-aged” countries, like Japan and Germany, older adults already make up more than 20% of the population – and counting. At the same time, lives are longer than ever, routinely reaching into our 80s, 90s, and beyond.

Though this demographic shift has often been framed as an economic and workforce challenge, it actually opens up a number of opportunities. According to Aegon’s global survey of more than 16,000 people, nearly 70% of respondents envision working in some capacity later in life – transforming the traditional retirement model to create a new period for productivity and income.  In fact, OECD countries could realise a cumulative USD 2 trillion long-term increase in GDP if they raised the employment rate for those over 55 to match that of Sweden, the best in the OECD.

Research has found that these older workers bring different perspectivesimportant institutional knowledge and valuable mentoring skills. They can drive innovation and help to design products and services for the massive “silver market” of older consumers. And by extending their careers, they can support the fiscal sustainability of public and private institutions. Moreover, as the data around activity and healthy aging accumulates, working longer is also good for people’s health, and therefore societies’ exploding health costs.

However, there are several barriers to this longevity opportunity. To shape the future of work through the lens of aging, employers and partners in government must implement forward-looking responses to address three challenges.

First, while a growing number of employers recognise the demographic shift, few are actually taking action. Workplace policies that support later-life employment – new and creative benefit structures and innovation on work itself, such as phased retirement and new roles for older workers – have been adopted by some innovative organisations, but remain relatively rare.

Second, ageism is widespread in both the workplace and society. According to Deloitte’s global survey of business leaders, just 18% said that age is viewed as an advantage at their organisation, and 20% see it as an outright disadvantage. This reflects ageist attitudes across society, where it’s often assumed – falsely – that a 70 year old should not be working, is a drag on their employer and is taking the job of a younger person. Wrong, but a persistent myth.

Third, our underlying societal and policy structures are not aligned with aging and longevity. Consider education: currently, our institutions support learning until our early 20s, but then stop entirely. In the era of longevity, we need new models to support lifelong learning. And we need to reinvent a number of other social structures, including work and retirement, healthcare delivery and housing. In short, we need a new social contract.

Employers can overcome these challenges, and there are rich incentives to do so. Leaders in this area will tap into an underutilised, valuable talent pool, reach a huge consumer market and realise key competitive advantages. In the near future, not having an aging strategy – guided by principles for the multi-generational workplace – will seem as outmoded as not having a digital or green strategy.

The opportunity – for employers, policy-makers and society – is to design a new social contract that aligns to our 21st century’s demographic realities. Reimagining the future of work in light of aging, and then translating that vision into concrete changes, is an essential step forward.

We need a new conversation about aging and the future of work – including voices like yours.

  • How do you think work, jobs and careers will change as a result of aging and longevity?
  • What are the most important changes that employers and employees can take?
  • What are the wider social and policy efforts needed to realise the economic potential of longevity and the silver economy?
  • What are the most important opportunities and challenges for workers, employers and other stakeholders?
  • Where does the balance stand between employer and employee responsibilities for action?

Source: OECD Forum Network

Four Ways Work Will Change in the Future

Four Ways Work Will Change in the Future

At a Stanford symposium, experts discuss shifting education expectations, technology’s impact, and new worker demands.

By Louise Lee

In the future, a traditional college degree will remain useful to build fundamental skills, but after graduation, workers will be expected to continue their education throughout their careers.

Workers, for instance, may increasingly pursue specific job-oriented qualifications or applied credentials in incremental steps in flexible, lower-cost programs, says Jeff Maggioncalda, chief executive of online learning company Coursera.

Maggioncalda, who received his MBA from Stanford Graduate School of Business in 1996, spoke at “The Future of Work,” an all-day symposium held at Stanford’s Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center on August 30.

Speakers explored the changing workplace, new possibilities for higher education, and technology’s impact on careers and industries.

Embracing the Liberal Arts

Students are hesitating to major in the humanities and social sciences out of fear that those degrees will lead only to low-wage jobs, says Harry Elam, Jr.., Stanford’s senior vice provost for education. Yet those fields remain crucially important to industry, which needs liberal arts students for countless tasks, such as to help understand biases in data, facilitate collaboration, bring insight, provide historical perspective, and “humanize technology in a data-driven world,” he says.

For instance, machines should not only function but should also optimize human welfare. What if a self-driving car needs to go faster than the speed limit to avoid an accident? Should that car be allowed to break the law? These kinds of questions of the new digital economy “all require diversity of thought, diversity of approach, and diversity of background to address these complex issues,” Elam says.Those who major in the humanities or social sciences, especially fields like philosophy and public policy, can easily develop transferable skills that employers value, says Trent Hazy, a current student at Stanford GSB and co-founder of MindSumo, a firm that connects college students with employers by inviting students to submit solutions to challenges that companies post online.

Because many employers seek candidates comfortable with data and data analysis, humanities majors who also learn some quantitative skills by taking classes in, say, statistics or logic will have an advantage over those who don’t, says Hazy.

Learning Throughout Life

Speakers generally agreed that the traditional brick-and-mortar college campus will certainly remain because the face-to-face encounters in and outside the classroom are educationally and socially valuable. After graduation, though, employees will increasingly need continuing education to stay competitive, and companies recognize that, says Julia Stiglitz, vice-president at Coursera who earned her Stanford MBA in 2010. Already, some large firms such as AT&T use online learning in a “massive reskilling effort” to re-train workers. “There are all of these educational opportunities that are open to anyone who has the will and desire and ability to go through it, and as a result I think we’re going to see all sorts of new people come into fields they otherwise wouldn’t have access to,” she says.Anant Agarwal, professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and chief executive of online learning firm edX, adds that workers may think of continual training and education through online classes as earning “micro-credentials” that could garner credit toward a full degree at a traditional institution. Individuals could earn multiple micro-credentials over years, perhaps beginning even with a “micro-bachelor’s” in high school as a head start on an undergraduate degree, he says.Michael Moe, co-founder of GSV Asset Management, notes that over the course of their careers, people will augment “the three R’s” of reading, writing, and arithmetic that they learned early in life with “the four C’s” of critical thinking, communication, creativity, and cultural fluency.

Restructuring Roles and Workweeks

Research suggests that by 2030, about half of today’s jobs will be gone. Speakers agreed that automation will perform many current blue-collar and white-collar jobs, while independent contractors will fill a large fraction of future positions. Robots and other automation in the short term will displace individual workers, but technology over the long term is likely to create new economic opportunity and new jobs. “While automation eats jobs, it doesn’t eat work,” says Moe.Future workers’ attitudes toward employment will be different from those of today’s workers, forcing companies to change how they recruit and retain. In a survey of college students, respondents indicated that they highly value work-life balance and are interested in working from home one or two days a week, says Roberto Angulo, chief executive of AfterCollege, a career network for college students and recent graduates. “Students are switching from living for their work and shifting more toward making a living so they can actually enjoy life,” he says.Other shifts in demographics will force employers to rethink how they structure work and benefits. Many aging “baby boomers,” for instance, are remaining in the workforce past the traditional retirement age of 65 and may demand fewer hours or shorter workweeks. “There are different things people value at different ages,” says Guy Berger, economist at LinkedIn.

Aiming for Equity

Companies are committing to a diverse workforce for varying motivations. Some believe that diverse teams are just “smarter and more creative,” says Joelle Emerson, adjunct lecturer at Stanford GSB and founder and chief executive of diversity strategy firm Paradigm. Other firms, especially technology companies, believe that they’re disproportionately responsible for designing the future and therefore it’s simply wrong to leave entire communities out of their teams, Emerson says.Overall, Emerson adds, companies must understand that the same strategies that increase diversity also boost a range of other positive outcomes as well. For instance, “When people feel like they belong at work, they perform significantly better,” she says. They take fewer sick days and less time off.Speakers cited various initiatives designed to increase inclusion, such as reacHire, which trains and supports women re-entering the workforce, and Stanford’s Distinguished Careers Institute, which brings individuals with 20 to 30 years of career experience to campus for a year of “intergenerational connection” and learning with undergrads and graduate students. “There are so many people who are not 18- to 22-year-olds who are still interested in being alive, alert, connected, and contributing,” says Kathryn Gillam, the institute’s executive director.“Diversity is a fact, inclusion is a practice, equity is a goal,” says Dereca Blackmon, Stanford associate dean and director of the Diversity and First Generation Office.

The Future of Work is here… what are you doing about it?

The Future of Work is here… what are you doing about it?

#futureofwork #digitaltransformation #shiftmindset #leadership

Retraining and reskilling workers in the age of automation

The world of work faces an epochal transition. By 2030, according to the a recent McKinsey Global Institute report, as many as 375 million workers—or roughly 14 percent of the global workforce—may need to switch occupational categories as digitization, automation, and advances in artificial intelligence disrupt the world of work. The kinds of skills companies require will shift, with profound implications for the career paths individuals will need to pursue.
How big is that challenge?
In terms of magnitude, it’s akin to coping with the large-scale shift from agricultural work to manufacturing that occurred in the early 20th century in North America and Europe, and more recently in China. But in terms of who must find new jobs, we are moving into uncharted territory. Those earlier workforce transformations took place over many decades, allowing older workers to retire and new entrants to the workforce to transition to the growing industries. But the speed of change today is potentially faster. The task confronting every economy, particularly advanced economies, will likely be to retrain and redeploy tens of millions of mid-career, middle-age workers. As the MGI report notes, “there are few precedents in which societies have successfully retrained such large numbers of people.”
So far, growing awareness of the scale of the task ahead has yet to translate into action. Indeed, public spending on labor-force training and support has fallen steadily for years in most member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Nor do corporate-training budgets appear to be on any kind of upswing.
But that may be about to change.
Among companies on the front lines, according to a recent McKinsey survey, executives increasingly see investing in retraining and “upskilling” existing workers as an urgent business priority—and they also believe that this is an issue where corporations, not governments, must take the lead. Our survey, which was in the field in late 2017, polled more than 1,500 respondents from business, the public sector, and not for profits across regions, industries, and sectors. The analysis that follows focuses on answers from roughly 300 executives at companies with more than $100 million in annual revenues.
Among this group, 66 percent see “addressing potential skills gaps related to automation/digitization” within their workforce as at least a “top-ten priority.” Nearly 30 percent put it in the top five. The driver behind this sense of urgency is the accelerating pace of enterprise-wide transformation. Looking back over the past five years, only about a third of executives in our survey said technological change had caused them to retrain or replace more than a quarter of their employees.
But when they look out over the next five years, that narrative changes.
Sixty-two percent of executives believe they will need to retrain or replace more than a quarter of their workforce between now and 2023 due to advancing automation and digitization. The threat looms larger in the United States and Europe (64 percent and 70 percent respectively) than in the rest of the world (only 55 percent)—and it is felt especially acutely among the biggest companies. Seventy percent of executives at companies with more than $500 million in annual revenues see technological disruption over the next five years affecting more than a quarter of their workers.
Appropriately, this keen sense of the challenge ahead comes with a strong feeling of ownership. While they clearly do not expect to solve this alone—forging creative partnerships with a wide range of relevant players, for example, will be critical—by a nearly a 5:1 margin, the executives in our latest survey believe that corporations, not governments, educators, or individual workers, should take the lead in trying to close the looming skills gap. That’s the view of 64 percent of the private-sector executives in the United States who see this as a top-ten priority issue, and 59 percent in Europe
As for solutions, 82 percent of executives at companies with more than $100 million in annual revenues believe retraining and reskilling must be at least half of the answer to addressing their skills gap. Within that consensus, though, were clear regional differences. Fully 94 percent of those surveyed in Europe insisted the answer would either be an equal mix of hiring and retraining or mainly retraining versus a strong but less resounding 62 percent in this camp in the United States. By contrast, 35 percent of Americans thought the challenge would have to be met mainly or exclusively by hiring new talent, compared to just 7 percent in this camp in Europe
Now the bad news: only 16 percent of private-sector business leaders in this group feel “very prepared” to address potential skills gaps, with roughly twice as many feeling either “somewhat unprepared” or “very unprepared.” The majority felt “somewhat prepared”—hardly a clarion call of confidence.
What are the main barriers? About one-third of executives feel an urgent need to rethink and upgrade their current HR infrastructure. Many companies are also struggling to figure out how job roles will change and what kind of talent they will require over the next five to ten years. Some executives who saw this as a top priority—42 percent in the United States, 24 percent in Europe, and 31 percent in the rest of the world—admit they currently lack a “good understanding of how automation and/or digitization will affect our future skills needs.”
Such a high degree of anxiety is understandable. In our experience, too much traditional training and retraining goes off the rails because it delivers no clear pathway to new work, relies too heavily on theory versus practice, and fails to show a return on investment. Generation, a global youth employment not for profit founded in 2015 by McKinsey, deliberately set out to address those shortcomings. Operating in five countries across over 20 professions, Generation operates programs that focus on targeting training to where strong demand for jobs exists and gathers the data needed to prove the return on investment (ROI) to learners and employers. As a result, Generation’s more than 16,000 graduates have over 82 percent job placement, 72 percent job retention at one year, and two to six times higher income than prior to the program. Generation will soon pilot a new initiative, Re-Generation, to apply this same formula—which includes robust partnerships with employers, governments and not for profits—to helping mid-career employees learn new skills for new jobs.
For many companies, cracking the code on reskilling is partly about retaining their “license to operate” by empowering employees to be more productive. Thirty-eight percent of executives in our survey, across all regions, cited the desire to “align with our organization’s mission and values” as a key reason for taking action. In a similar vein, at last winter’s World Economic Forum in Davos, 80 percent of CEOs who were investing heavily in artificial intelligence also publicly pledged to retain and retrain existing employees.
But the biggest driver is this: as digitization, automation, and AI reshape whole industries and every enterprise, the only way to realize the potential productivity dividends from that investment will be to have the people and processes in place to capture it. Managing this transition well, in short, is not just a social good; it’s a competitive imperative. That’s why a resounding majority of respondents—64 percent across Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world—said the main reason they were willing to invest in retraining was “to increase employee productivity.”
We hear that thought echoed in a growing number of C-suite conversations we are having these days. At the moment, most top executives have far more questions than answers about what it will take to meet the reskilling challenge at the kind of scale the next decade will likely demand. They ask: How can I map the future against my current talent pool and processes? What part of future employment demand can I meet by retraining existing workers, and what is the ROI of doing so, versus simply hiring new ones? How best can I tap into what are, for me, nontraditional talent pools? What partners, either in the private, public, or nongovernmental-organization (NGO) sectors, might help me succeed—and what are our respective roles?
Good questions all.
Success will require first developing a granular map of how technology will change the skill requirements within your company. Once this is understood, the next step will be deciding whether to tap into new models of online and offline learning and training or partner with traditional educational providers. (Over time, a more fundamental rethinking of 100-year-old educational models will also be needed.) Policy makers will need to consider new forms of unemployment income and worker transition support, and foster more intensive and innovative collaboration between the public and private sectors. Individuals will need to step up too, as will governments. Depending on the speed and scale of the coming workforce transition, as MGI noted in its recent report, many countries may conclude they will need to undertake “initiatives on the scale of the Marshall plan.”
But for now, we simply take comfort from the clear message of our latest survey: among large companies, senior executives see an urgent need to rethink and retool their role in helping workers develop the right skills for a rapidly changing economy—and their will to meet this challenge is strong. That’s not a bad place to start.

About the author(s)

Pablo Illanes is a partner in McKinsey’s Stamford office, Susan Lund is a partner of the McKinsey Global Institute, Mona Mourshed and Scott Rutherford are senior partners in the Washington, DC, office, and Magnus Tyreman is a senior partner in the Stockholm office.