A newly-published study from scholars at Oxford University investigates the situation of the estimated 70 million people around the world who make their living in the gig economy through freelancing platforms like Freelancer.com and Fiverr. Through a combination of face-to-face interviews and a remote survey of digital freelancers in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, the authors gauged how workers in this substantial segment of the global economy felt about the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of work. TechCrunch’s Natasha Lomas outlines the study’s key findings:
The study paints a mixed picture, with — on the one hand — gig workers reporting feeling they can remotely access stimulating and challenging work, and experiencing perceived autonomy and discretion over how they get a job done: A large majority (72 percent) of respondents said they felt able to choose and change the order in which they undertook online tasks, and 74 percent said they were able to choose or change their methods of work.
At the same time — and here the negatives pile in — workers on the platforms lack collective bargaining so are simultaneously experiencing a hothouse of competitive marketplace and algorithmic management pressure, combined with feelings of social isolation (with most working from home), and the risk of overwork and exhaustion as a result of a lack of regulations and support systems, as well as their own economic needs to get tasks done to earn money.
Augmenting the competitive nature of the digital gig economy, the study found, is an imbalance of supply and demand for these workers’ labor: More than half the workers surveyed said there was not enough work available to them. People performing low-skilled tasks on these platforms must take a large number of gigs to earn an adequate income through them.
The lodging platform Airbnb has been vying for a share of the trillion-dollar global business travel market since 2014, when it first launched “Airbnb for Business” and began advertising houses and apartments with desks, Wi-Fi, and other essential amenities to users traveling for work. Since then, the service has been rebranded as “Airbnb for Work,” and on Monday, the company announced that it was growing exponentially, with almost 700,000 companies having employees sign up and book travel through Airbnb. That’s up from 250,000 as of April 2017. Business travel bookings tripled from 2015 to 2016, then tripled again from 2016 to 2017, Airbnb boasted.
In its blog post announcing these new user numbers, Airbnb also highlighted some fun facts about how people are using Airbnb for Work:
- Bleisure (combining business trips with leisure stays) – we continue to see people tack on weekend days to explore the cities they’re traveling to. More than 30% of Airbnb for Work bookings in the past year include at least one weekend night.
- “Traditional” business trips – a year ago, the average trip on Airbnb was six nights or more; today, the average stay with Airbnb for Work is about five days, and the fastest growing segment of trips is three nights or less. Business travelers are increasingly using Airbnb for shorter trips, which they may have booked hotels for in the past.
- Collaboration – nearly 60 percent of Airbnb for Work trips in the last year had more than one guest. Of the 60 percent of Airbnb for Work trips with more than one guest, nearly 40 percent of had three or more guests. Teams are traveling together to bond and collaborate.
- Mobility – we’re seeing extended stays and relocations being booked on Airbnb for many different reasons and lengths of time — ranging from long business trips or training sessions that require several weeks away, to on-site projects that can last several months to a year. In the past year alone, we’ve seen stays with Airbnb for Work 14 days or longer grow nearly 3X.
At a recent meeting, a select few heads of HR at global companies were having a high-level discussion on digital business models when one participant from a big consumer products firm brought the conversation back down to earth: “On a practical level,” he asked, “what is the value of having a chief digital officer?” He went on to explain that he was the only executive in his C-suite who had experience in a digital company and was trying to figure out how to drive digital business transformation at his organization.
This is a question that many experts and pundits have weighed in on over the past several years, with some predicting the demise of the role, while others believe it can have tremendous value. Our own data at CEB, now Gartner, suggests that about 1 in 5 companies has a dedicated leadership position for digital business transformation. Just slightly more (1 in 4) have an overarching digital strategy for their entire enterprise. (CEB CIO Leadership Council members can read more about what we expect the digital enterprise to look like by 2020 and how organizations are getting there.)
Many organizations are asking this question: Do we need a chief data officer? The broader question, however, is what governance structure best enhances the focus, speed, and scale of your digital transformation initiative—and there’s no one right answer. This was an important takeaway from the discussion at our meeting: All participants seemed to agree that organizations need some sort of dedicated digital governance structure, but having a single leader (other than the CEO) in charge of it isn’t necessarily the right solution for all organizations.
The HR leaders whose organizations had decided against appointing chief digital officers said they had done so because they tended to be more centralized in both structure and leadership philosophy. They were more confident in being able to set a consistent tone throughout the organization that digital business transformation was every leader’s responsibility. That said, these chief HR officers were careful to note that they did have some governance structure in place to ensure that the right people were making the right digital strategy decisions at the right time. These structures ranged from having leaders who were digital champions across the organization, to a small committee reporting to the CEO on digital matters, to standalone digital business operations where there was a team incubating new digital business ideas.
Google has launched its built-in job search function to the UK, the company announced in a blog post on Monday:
In the U.K., we’re working with organizations from across the job-matching industry to bring you the most comprehensive listing of jobs, like The Guardian Jobs, Reed.co.uk, Haymarket, Gumtree, The Telegraph, Reach plc’s totallylegal, CV-Library and totaljobs.com. This means anyone searching for jobs on Google will see postings from these sites and many others from across the web as soon as they’re posted. To ensure even more jobs are listed over time, we’re publishing open documentation for all jobs providers detailing how to make their job openings discoverable in this new feature.
This launch also builds on the commitment we made last year to help 100,000 people in the U.K. find a job or grow in their career by 2020. We’re doing that through our Google Digital Garage program, which gives anyone free training in digital skills and products to help grow their career, business or confidence. So far we’ve helped tens of thousands of people find their next job through free training at four city-center hubs and with partners across the U.K.
The search giant launched the job search feature in the US a little over a year ago. Google does not host job listings itself, but rather partners with job listing sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Monster, as well as country-level partners like the organizations mentioned above (The leading job search site, Indeed, has declined to participate). The feature was introduced to India and Canada this May.
Microsoft announced on Thursday that it was launching a free version of its workplace chat and collaboration tool Microsoft Teams for groups of 300 people or fewer, the Seattle Times reported. The move puts the Redmond, Washington-based software giant in more direct competition with Slack, the startup whose popular group chat system operates on a similar “freemium” model. Previously, Teams was only available to subscribers of the Microsoft’s Office 365 suite of productivity software; the premium version remains tied to the 365 suite, but smaller organizations are now able to try out the free version and choose whether to subscribe and upgrade.
Like Slack, the free version of Teams puts some restrictions on what users can do, but the restrictions are different. Slack’s free version allows for an unlimited number of users but limits these groups to 5 GB of storage space and only lets them save and search up to 10,000 messages. Teams limits the number of free users but does not limit how many messages they can save. It also gives them more storage space than Slack: 10 GB for the group, plus 2 GB per user for personal storage. The free version also includes the platform’s built-in integrations with Microsoft Office and unlimited integrations with third-party business apps, TechCrunch adds.
A recent article at the Economist described Uber’s user rating system for drivers as a strategy for supplanting traditional performance management, arguing that these ratings “increasingly function to make management cheaper by shifting the burden of monitoring workers to users.” Uber has an interest in ensuring that customers have a consistently good experience and thus is harmed when drivers perform poorly, but instead of devoting resources to monitoring and managing drivers’ performance, it counts on customers to assess it instead. Meanwhile, the platform gives drivers a strong incentive to earn high marks, “aligning the firm’s interests with those of workers,” with the risk of being deactivated if their average rating falls too low.
This type of outsourced performance rating has expanded outside of the gig economy, the author adds, pointing to the ratings and feedback companies increasingly solicit from customers online after they interact with employees, such as in a customer service call.
As the Economist points out, user ratings systems are an attractive method for crowdsourcing the monitoring of employee performance without having to spend the time, money, and effort of having managers do it themselves. And it’s no surprise that organizations are looking for an easy way out. Our own data at CEB, now Gartner, shows that 55 percent of managers believe performance management is too time consuming, and only 4 percent of HR leaders believe their current process accurately assesses performance. With all the effort that has ostensibly been wasted trying to fix performance management, leaving it up to the wisdom of the crowd sure is tempting.
This makes a lot of sense for Uber, which treats its drivers as contractors and will never need them to perform a task other than driving. Customer ratings may be all the performance information Uber needs to decide whether or not to allow a driver to continue working on its platform. With more conventional models of employment, this usually isn’t an option, so most organizations that choose to integrate user ratings into their performance management process must do so more carefully.
Scott Alan Ritchie/Shutterstock
Once the industrial base of the US, the Midwest has struggled in the high-tech era to capture the talent-driven growth enjoyed by coastal cities like Boston and San Francisco, but the region’s fortunes are changing fast. In the past year or so, a burgeoning Midwestern tech scene has begun attracting more attention from venture capitalists and Silicon Valley giants, with many local startups and big-company expansions focusing on the middle-skill roles for which the tech sector’s demand is insatiable, but that are still in short supply nationwide. These “mid-tech” or “new-collar” jobs are described as a 21st century analog to the factory jobs of the past—and as such, a promising path to revival for the industrial Midwest.
High-tech industries including major international firms have been making some big bets in the region: The Indian IT services and business process outsourcing giant Infosys is planning a sprawling campus near Indianapolis, which aims to create 3,000 new jobs within five years, while the Taiwanese multinational Foxconn Technology Group made a deal with the Wisconsin state government last year to build a display panel factory there, which will see the company invest as much as $10 billion and hire as many as 13,000 people. Several midwestern cities are on the list of finalists in the competition to host Amazon’s second headquarters, though Detroit, for example, didn’t make the cut, partly due to a lack of readily available talent.
Yet “mid-tech” companies and regional outposts of tech giants are just one side of the Midwest’s high-tech renaissance. Over the weekend, VentureBeat reporter Anna Hensel took a look at the growing community of AI and machine learning startups in the heartland:
“The real benefit of artificial intelligence is the application to traditional problems and products that the world needs, and the really successful companies have that domain knowledge that they can understand how to apply this technology,” [Chris Olsen, a partner at Columbus, Ohio VC firm Drive Capital,] told VentureBeat in a phone interview. “We see more of those domain experts in these industries [with] massive chunks of GDP that exist here in the Midwest.”