Reimagining Work. Peter Maglathlin

firm because they often could see no other way. Yet for all those millions of dollars companies paid, the consultants rarely delivered the news management most needed to hear. There's an inefficiency baked into a company that can't grow or shrink as the product cycle demands, and add or subtract skills sets as they are needed.

      Technology is doing its part to usher in a more decentralized workplace. We can videoconference via Skype, Google Hangouts, or Cisco WebEx. It's easy to share files using Google Docs, Dropbox, or Box – and for those who really are serious about online collaboration tools and networks, there are cool new products like Slack. There's also been a corresponding rise in co‐working spaces that allow people to rent a desk by the hour, day, or month. That strikes us as some of the early infrastructure work needed to build out the free agent economy, much like gas stations were needed to create a car culture.

      The last technological piece of the puzzle? Unicorn stars of the gig economy have brought marketplaces up to speed for people wanting to sell their services to consumers. But what about those who want to sell their services to businesses? Fortunately for us, this notion of a human cloud that allows any company to find any expert no matter what the task or project was gaining currency worldwide.

      It's our view that much of what is said and written about the future of work seems overly narrow in focus. It's never more obvious than when one of us is asked to speak at a “Future of Work” conference. The field seems to have spawned its own cottage industry of soothsayers and experts eager to charge lots of money for their advice. Small, incremental steps to “transform your workplace” are the coin of the realm at these gatherings. Workers seem desperate. So do their employers. Yet the solutions offered are mere Band‐Aids: airier workspaces, or more flexible schedules to accommodate both early and late risers. The more innovative voices recommended doing away with a count on vacation days, or allowing employees to figure out for themselves what tools or systems they needed to work at peak efficiency. Still, when a company perceives a crisis in its culture or its numbers, it responds with a new version of casual Friday, or free bagels in the mornings and permission to telecommute every other Thursday. Not exactly the stuff of sea change.

      We saw these issues rear their heads at a private gathering we held at our offices in the fall of 2016 for the HR directors of 15 of the country's most innovative businesses. We spent a day‐and‐a‐half brainstorming ideas and hearing from experts in the field. Among the things we learned from such cutting‐edge software and technology giants? Everyone seems to be feeling their way through the various crises and logjams. The good news is that the most successful businesses are open to thinking in a different way. They want to learn about the possibilities and opportunities of a project‐based approach to work that gives them the flexibility to access the best people in a dynamic talent market.

      But it goes further than that. What we're advocating for is nothing short of a complete disruption in the way businesses spend money on labor. A company needs permanent employees, of course, but technology allows for a radical shift in the mix of full‐time and free agents. While one group may stay in‐house and hold up the fort, there can still be a stable of regular go‐to talent that is called in on a need‐be basis. Think of it is as more of a Hollywood approach, where the talent is brought on board whenever a company needs the horsepower to take care of a given project. Companies will no doubt have their core of reliable stars. Just as a director tends to go back to the same cinematographer, a business would have its regular consultants whose invoices fluctuate quarter to quarter depending on the project load. These stars can hunker down as full‐time employees because sometimes that just works better for people. But others may want to test the waters of the on‐demand workplace.

      Managers don't need to bear hug their employees and never let them go. What about giving them freedom, if that's what it takes to retain their occasional services and keep them both happy and working part‐time for you? Maybe a person wants to travel less for the job because of kids, or conversely, just likes the challenge and stimulation of working on different kinds of projects each month. These on‐demand pioneers would be free to say yes or no to a project depending on what else they had going on and what else they needed. For us, the goal should be giving both sides the flexibility to operate at peak efficiency. Businesses have access to talent when they need it – and people are able to do their best work every day.

      Shouldn't that be the future of work?

      CHAPTER 1

      A Quick History of Work

      The caveman was the original freelancer. He honed a skill, put it to work, and with any luck, made a subsistence living. There is not much record keeping on the numbers from back then, but the species persevered, so we can assume it was step one on the road to today's workplace.

      At some point, trade and commerce began, perhaps in prehistoric times or maybe after that, depending on which historians you believe. Regardless, over the millennia a system evolved that allowed people to move their goods. Hunters could trade pelts for spices or teas and the bowls and utensils needed to eat. People learned about agriculture and created farms. A feudal system later emerged: serfs working on a lord's estate – in his fields, mines, and forests. Skilled trades developed: the blacksmith, the silk craftsman, the stonemason. A merchant class emerged. These were people fundamentally out for themselves in the developing marketplace – the small businessman or, to use today's terminology, the entrepreneur.

      The seventeenth century saw the birth of the modern‐day corporation – a legal construct that created a way for a group of people to act as a single entity. The Dutch East India Company was formed in 1602, and the Hudson's Bay Company, a Canadian entity, was incorporated a few decades later.