Comment by Amitai Givertz, March 17, 2007 at 7:17 am

Walter, thanks for your comment and interesting perspective.

Here is the challenge: It seems to me that we can easily define the problem, illustrate as you do the underlying issues that exacerbate the problem. But what are we going to do about it?

As entities do we try and insulate ourselves from the impact of worsening skilled labor and talent shortages, focusing on our own individual talent management/ coping strategies — workforce planning — or do we do something on a global scale realizing that this is a societal problem that could potentially sink us all?

You say, “…time will tell.” I laughed reading that. I used the alarm clock reference because that exact same phrase was used in one of the articles I read researching this post. “Time will tell” is an attitude that could be argued is a part of the problem here.

With respect, Walter, we are at the eleventh hour now. We are running out of time. “Time will tell” sounds like you might be resigned to being boiled alive despite your understanding of what is cooking. Is that true?

Comment by Amitai Givertz, March 18, 2007 at 9:06 am

Walter, you raise a number of points. My reply it is not to contradict you. Rather to explore the issues further and answer your questions I hope…

There are numerous deep rooted problems … more devastating than a talent shortage.

Without question; from the genocide in Darfur to a crack-addicted mother’s eviction from a tenement slum, it seems that life itself is quintessentially problematic, fraught with challenges that in the overall scheme of things make the talent shortage seem inconsequential.

Societal problems often transcend even the most concerted human efforts. If Mother Teresa and Bono — as two examples of compassionate activism with substantial organizations behind them — have failed to stem the creep of worldwide poverty and disease for the want of pennies a day, it is reasonable to assume that it may be beyond the activism of a couple of bloggers to solve the complex issues implied in the shortage of talent, workforce planning.

But is tackling this particular societal problem beyond SHRM? Is it beyond government? Is it beyond our business leaders? If you are implying that it is I might agree.

The laissez faire attitude of businesses is frustrating to some and quite sufficient and pleasing to others.

To your suggestion that there may be vested interests that are better served by the ongoing problems of a skills and professional shortfall, I would agree with you on that point too. But even assuming a no-holds-barred effort to reverse the talent shortage — and assuming no dirty bombs or melting ice caps to mess things up — fixing this problem will be a long time in coming. That’s an optimistic view to contrast what could be interpreted as cynicism in your observation.

For other possible cynics who may be reading this:

You could say as a provider my commercial interests in this persistent societal problem continuing are no different from the vested interests of the potentates. While it would be disingenuous of me to say, “Walter, my interests are purely humanitarian, there is no profit motive here,” it would be equally dopey for an employer not to try and turn the talent shortage to their competitive advantage, developing effective workforce and talent management plans. I would also contrast what one does in response to the problem — alleviating the impact versus what some do to apparently maintain the status quo — to be important too, making a contribution.
Walter, again thank you for making me smile. You’re right — nothing wrong with that. Your “laissez faire” reference to the attitude of businesses reminded me that in The Theory of Modern Sentiments Adam Smith — who I am sure you know popularized the term laissez faire in his 18th book “The Wealth of Nations” – said, “Stoical apathy is… never agreeable”

The problem is getting a call to action.

I think that is true as well. But if you accept the problem of a talent shortage is dwarfed by the likelihood that the “sky is falling” then the more important question becomes, “What action to take?”

…unfortunately it [this impending crisis] will not be solved in this forum.

On a macro-level, no, but on a micro-level if this discussion results in just one employer heeding the call, taking just one positive step in the right direction, then this forum will — most definitely — have served its purpose. We are already agreed, are we not, this “impending crisis” is just as critical for individual employers as it is for entire industries, communities and society-at-large. Some might suggest even more so. That is why this discussion and this forum is so important, even if the message resonates with only one or two key decision makers who can make a difference.

All that said, An Army of Davids was recommended to me as a good read. As I understand it, the author argues that these types of forum do have the potential to do much, much more than your comment suggests this one forum can achieve alone. If you have already read it I would be interested in hearing what you think.

…what do you suggest doing on a global scale to alleviate this societal problem?

Helping employers developing effective workforce and talent management plans is what I do. I do not provide solutions for problems of global proportions. It would be nice if I could. So, to answer your question as best I can:

If we focus on addressing the issues on a global scale, define the problem as “societal” we will fail. On a personal level I might take the view that my moral obligations are better served by working with those in my community who are in need than trying to change the world solo.

On a professional level my moral obligations are better served by working with those who want to implement systems and strategies that minimize the negative affects of the very global and societal problems we have discussed, the problems that should be addressed and accounted for in the context of a workforce plan. That is not “stoical apathy” but laissez faire in the true sense of the term — in my opinion — politically, economically, socially and morally defensible.

How can we be more proactive and less reactive?

If we can agree that the problems we have discussed can be adequately addressed on a personal, professional and corporate level and that getting mired in the impossible task of changing the world is beyond the average Joe, being active — doing something — is more important than whether our response is pro- or reactive. I am reminded of the old adage, however, “If you don’t have a plan of your own, you’ll end up being a part of someone else’s.” Need I say more?

Walter — and anyone else for that matter — feel free to contact me offline if you would like to explore these questions as they relate to your own situation and/or experience. Anyone can email me if they like, or comment here and share your thoughts. Become a “David,” why not?