The information age: career success in post-industrial America is a matter of choosing wisely

Bill Gates, among others, has played a significant role in re-defining the work place, particularly as we move into the 21st Century. As head guru, CEO and Chairman of Microsoft, Gates, among many others in the computer industry, has introduced computer software applications that simply make business operations work better, faster, more precisely and more profitably. What that means for the current workforce and its new arrivals, going into the 21st Century, is GOOD NEWS/BAD NEWS.

Since they are interrelated, I will define them as such. On the good side, are an abundance of employment opportunities that will lead to yet other key positions within a variety of industries. These positions will be challenging, exciting, interesting, broadly beneficial and rewarding. New technologies, with new computer hardware/software suites, will continue to contribute greatly to positive results on the personal and professional level. But there is a downside to these opportunities. When one technology related job is created in any industry-it has a tendency to consolidate and even eliminate many related jobs. Industry and employers benefit, but not necessarily the working professional. Working professionals, in fact, must continually reassess their job skills, particularly in the information technology arena. What works today is fine up to a rapidly changing point. IBM learned that lesson the hard way. They laid off many thousands of significant professionals to get back to a place where they could turn their losses into gains. They have done that in the past three years, but at a tremendous cost on the personal level-to its current and former employees. So please be warned. As good as new technology is it brings with it dramatic changes in the work place. Staying current in high tech zones will define survivors and future leaders. As smart and as informed Bill Gates is about his products and services, even he cannot keep up with where the technology is going. But he does have a clue and that brings us to yet another watch-out in the work place.

Today Microsoft has a leadership role in computer software applications. They dominate the field so dramatically they can even define who can play, in many respects. Not a few companies have broached their monopolizing tendencies, via legal means, government intervention or simply dedicating themselves to beat Microsoft at its own game. In the high tech industry IBM once played such a game and was knocked off their pedestal. Now it's Microsoft's turn to take the lead. And they claim "all's fair in the open marketplace" regardless of how one is positioned. Today Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. A multi-billionaire, his wealth recently doubled in a 15 month period. This footnote in history suggests many things, but primarily it suggests that creative applications of technology are highly valued on a global scale. Bill Gates and Microsoft do not merely introduce valuable (not necessarily value-added) products that are in high demand today. They enable millions of people and businesses to also do well in whatever endeavors they are pursuing. In this realm they are truly a value-adding entity.

But before I say too many wonderful things about the new technology applications and how the Information Age will be likened to the Golden Age of Greece (when all was looking up in what was considered the known world), I must cast a caution about what is equally troubling about Microsoft and any company, or hiring enfity, that gets carried away with what I call the "elitist syndrome". "The elitist syndrome is a sense that you're actually better than most anyone else-you name the dimension. It's an easy and dangerous psychological loop to get into because it's ego feeding on ego. In competition, any competition, it can give one a false sense of superiority. And this superiority thing is the problem.

I recall a USA Today observation about Microsoft's hiring focus and technique. I threw the damn article away because it irritated me. What I recall was a picture of mostly young computer whizzes sitting in judgment of other young computer whizzes. Again, on its face, that's cool, and I appreciate any number of techniques companies can use to select people. But in the hiring arena being elitist and being super selective and bragging about it is the worst combination for an employer. In Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews' book Gates, in Chapter 28, on page 378, under the title, "How the Sunshine Works," the statement is that Microsoft hires "Smart Guys." In fact, they have it, "honed to a science." According to Manes and Andrews, the type of interview used to select new talent is a stress interview. If you can take it, it might mean you can make it at Microsoft. Inferring that the work environment is stressful, so by the theory of relativity, stressful job interviews tend to eliminate people who can't take the heat or the insult or the challenge to their integrity. The thing is "do you fit in." "It may not be charitable, but it's efficient," Mike Slade (Microsoft employee?) is quoted as saying. And it's not just Microsoft. Many companies have their own ritual. I recall counseling a hiring manager, at one point, about not conducting stress interviews. I stated not only are they unprofessional, but one day you're going to attract a law suit for verbal abuse and possibly harassment. His response was, "So sue me, it works:' When I spoke to his supervisor about getting this manager to chill-out, he also told me it works. "We get good people this way." This vice-president even complained to my boss that I was getting involved with a process that works.

What works is a relative term. Again, my concern is essentially the mind-set, or an elitism that gets fixed in the mind that they are simply so smart-their "band-width" is so great that it would be below them to consider hiring many people from the actual masses of people who buy their products or services and sing their praises. I have always had a problem with this arrogant stance, even if it's Microsoft and the richest man in the world who hold it--because it works. What works today may not work so well tomorrow. And to the argument, on how can I take issue with any company's stance on demanding and only settling for the best to hire? Well, taken to an extreme such an effort can have completely unexpected processes that can take a life of its own. Take any extreme example where the idea is to have only the best and nothing less. Does any historical event come to mind that had such high ideals, to the extent of eliminating or selecting out people, in this case, who don't fit the mold. Me-I'm for diversity. The more diverse and contrary to the "mold" the better.

From a different industry, I remember many years back, when I was visiting the offices of one of the large television studios situated in Hollywood/Beverly Hills. I was on an errand for my employer and was picking up a video tape that aired on the news earlier in the week. As I was escorted through a variety of offices to pick up the tape, I couldn't help but notice the truly beautiful people who worked there. I mean model quality. Stunning. All working in some capacity, from receptionist, to secretaries, to messengers, to administrators, to executives. All beautiful people. That picture always stuck in my mind, particularly because I had worked, prior to that visit in "personnel" and have worked most of my 25 years in offices and positions that have everything to do with hiring, staffing, and considering people for employment-all underscoring the concept of equal opportunity. My thought that day in Hollywood/Beverly Hills, was simple. "Who is the personnel manager and how can they get away with not hiring highly qualified ugly people or people of color? I being one of those-ugly and Mexican American (I have been told I'm "ruggedly attractive", which translates to ruggedly unattractive). It's cool. I was besides myself that the picture was so flagrant-so selective. So obvious.

I came away thinking, who would ever hire a person like me in Hollywood/Beverly Hills? So my guard always goes up when companies become so selective they overlook a very large percentage of high potential individuals. So a word to the wise. If you want to work at Microsoft, first, go to the best schools and get the best grades and pass GO and collect the best jobs in the Information Age. However, if you know you're good and getting better all the time, but can't afford to get into the best schools be a good student anyway. Graduate and don't bother with Microsoft. Head straight for their competition. Somehow I imagine they'll welcome you with open arms. Because, like IBM, someone's going to beat Microsoft and you might-as-well get a piece of that action. So rise to the occasion. Microsoft is a great company and it can get even better. Maybe some day they'll advertise in Hispanic Times magazine and be more proactive in the Hispanic community. When they do this I predict they'll discover some truly high potential talent, quite capable of contributing to Microsoft's or any company's competive endeavors going into the 21st Century.

I will close by saying to those companies who would look to the future workforce and expect to find high percentages of good people there. What is your investment in education to make this happen? Do you wait until a talent is in full blossom and pick it? Or do you contribute to the nurture and growth of the very talent you seek to attract? If you do the latter you will be among the great companies of the 21st Century. If you do the former, you will inherit the wind.

COPYRIGHT 1997 Hispanic Times Enterprises
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group