Podcast
Podcast
- 07 Oct 2020
- Managing the Future of Work
How US community colleges can bolster the post-Covid recovery
Bill Kerr: US community and technical colleges urgently need to find a way to do more with less. COVID-19 is exacerbating inequality and accelerating the transformation of work, thus putting a premium on education and up-to-date skills. The recession caused by the pandemic is triggering budget cuts at all levels of government and hurting enrollment in two-year public institutions. Yet the recovery and long-term economic stability and growth depend upon the availability of affordable and practical post-secondary education. America's 1,100 community colleges attract a mix of criticism, concern and hope in workforce development circles. They are an essential resource for many groups, especially underserved communities. But their potential as engines of upward mobility is limited by dual track system that privileges academic programs that prepares students to transfer to four-year colleges—from which most don't graduate. Workforce development has often taken a backseat in federal funding as well. What will it take to upgrade this critical economic and social infrastructure? Welcome to the Managing the Future of Work podcast from Harvard Business School. I'm your host, Bill Kerr. My guest today is Tamar Jacoby, journalist and author-turned-policy advocate. Tamar is president of Opportunity America, a nonprofit focusing on economic mobility. The group's June 2020 report, The Indispensable Institution: Reimagining Community College, argues for better alignment with the job market, economic development goals, bolstering noncredit skills training programs, and providing students with the support and encouragement they need to succeed. Tamar is going to unpack these findings with us today. Welcome to the podcast, Tamar.
Tamar Jacoby: Bill, it's great to be here. Thank you.
Kerr: Tell us a little bit about yourself, the sort of migration from journalism to running a nonprofit focused on economic mobility. It's not one that we encounter every day. So, tell us a bit about your background.
Jacoby: I worked at the New York Times. I worked at Newsweek. I was a freelancer while I was a sort of a pundit and wrote books, and early in this century, I went to Arizona to write a story about an anti-immigrant ballot initiative. And I was interviewing Democrats, Republicans, business, labor, faith. And I realized that they were all on the same side, but they weren't talking to each other. And I said, we're canceling the interviews. We're going to have a meeting. We're going to build a coalition. We're going to fight back. And we did. And it was so much fun. And I realized one can make a difference if one jumps into the fray. And I made the switch. The metaphor I used at the time was I'd rather be part of the train wreck than writing about it. And so, I came to Washington and actually had a small nonprofit think tank that worked on immigration for about a decade. And about some close to a decade ago, I moved over to workforce. I'd always thought of immigration as a workforce issue. And economic mobility has always been in my view, the most important challenge for the nation.
Kerr: So, from that framing, what's kind of the central motivating theme right now or what gets you out of bed every morning to go and, with Opportunity America, get to work?
Jacoby: I mean, I see the future of work, which is not something new or coming really anymore, we're in the future of work and have been, really, for several decades now. I see that as creating a whole new labor market. Restructuring the labor market, I think, is the way to think of it. So that the education and skills that used to be good enough are no longer good enough for anyone. If you had a BA, now you need a master's. If you had a PhD, now you need postdoc. And most important, if you could get by with high school before, you just can't get by with that anymore. You need a different kind of skill. And problem solving and critical thinking, which used to be kind of reserved for, I don't know, managers and higher-level kind of workers. Everybody now has to be a problem solver and a critical thinker. And I mean, the place where you see this most clearly is in manufacturing. Now, you need both problem-solving, communication skills, teamwork, much higher order technical skill. And so, the question is, how's the country going to provide for that? And it's not easy. In the past, our job training programs were not that good. Community colleges have a lot of potential, but most are not yet living up to it. In some way, I don't think we've even recognized this need. We're all still focused on or many of us are still focused on, everybody's got to have a bachelor's degree. And a bachelor's degree is great if you get it and you actually get to the end, and you pick the right major—almost as important as getting it at all or as important as getting it at all—but many people don't. And so, I mean, I just see it as an urgent national imperative that we come up with an answer for people who aren't going to get a bachelor's degree, who are going to be needed in the new economy, both for the new economy's sake but also because I don't want to live in a country that's a two-tier country divided between the education haves and the education have-nots. And I think it's an imperative that we address that.
Kerr: The 2008 recession and the two million manufacturing workers that lost their jobs at that point—how did that shape your thinking as you come in to the 2020s now and kind of what we need to have in place for a recovery from Covid-19, as well as the broader closing these skill gaps?
Jacoby: In the crash that began the Great Recession, manufacturers laid off workers in droves. Two million people lost their job. And by 2010, the manufacturing employers and said, “those people don't have the skills we need anymore. We retooled during the downtime of the Great Recession," as companies often do in a downtime. So, you have a manufacturing industry needing lots of workers and you have lots of workers, but it's a mismatch now. And it was apparent to me in the first days of the Covid pandemic that what the pandemic was doing was accelerating the arrival of the future of work. Already in those first days, hospitals were making PPE [personal protective equipment] with 3D printers and FedEx was putting robots in its fulfillment centers. And every day for the first four or five months of the pandemic, there was another story in the paper about another industry that was figuring out how to have robots instead of workers. Partly because of safety and public health issues, but also because again, that's what companies do when they have to tighten their belt. The workers seem more expensive. And it seems cheaper to put in robotics or automation. And so, I feel we're heading for another experience like what happened in 2010 with manufacturing, where eventually the economy will come back, or some places are starting to come back, some sectors, but the people won't be qualified. It's an urgent issue we have to address.
Kerr: And help us think a little more—both in terms of since the 2008 period, but also very much live and present as you're working on this report—who are the types of people that are most affected by this skill gap?
Jacoby: What middle skill means is people who have more than a high school diploma or at least a high school diploma but no four-year degree. And that covers a huge range of jobs. It's everything from sort of a policeman, to a plumber, and a lot of other things, all kinds of IT work and all kinds of healthcare work. There's actually a kind of bifurcation in the middle-skill sector as well between the jobs that are probably going to get mostly automated away, or certainly transformed radically, and the jobs that are still going to be good jobs as the economy evolves. We need to figure out what those jobs are going to be—that are going to be the good jobs as the economy evolves—and make sure we're preparing people for them. Unlike 50 years ago or 100 years ago, or whenever it was, people in middle-skill jobs need human skills, problem solving, critical thinking, communication, teamwork. Because the future of work is happening so fast, the coding is going to change every year. There'll be a new code. But the skills and the ability to learn, you're going to need.
Kerr: Yeah, and a lot of labor economists talk about—either they call it the polarization of the labor market, the hollowing out—but as technology comes and hits what were these traditional middle-skill type roles, are you going to kind of be someone that they can keep up with the changes and move up into higher wage, better opportunities? Or are you going to unfortunately fall down into lower wage, lower opportunities?
Jacoby: And there will be fewer jobs probably. But they will be better jobs. What no one knows is how will the numbers balance out? But the one thing we know is it's a hard transition and we need to prepare for it.
Kerr: Before we jump into the recommendations of the report, tell us a bit about the group that you formed to think about this. What was the process that went behind the research that we're going to discuss?
Jacoby: I kind of posed this problem for myself, and this was obviously pre-Covid, but the problem of the future work is changing the labor market and that the skills we need and the kind of education we need are changing. My perception over some time was that there's no institution in America as well prepared or with as much potential to fill the need than community colleges. Very few people actually go through government job training. It's not very good. Research literature is very bleak and others who experienced it are bleaker and the boot camps of the world and sort of education disruptors are great. And we need more of them—I'm all for them. But they're only a few people. I think it's in 2018, there were 17,000 people in boot camps—17,000, something like 200,000 people in government job training, 12 million people in community colleges. And so, where are the students and who has the infrastructure, classrooms, teachers, machines, institutions? Community colleges. But community colleges are very mixed bag. My conceit at the beginning was a combination of kind of boldface name, higher-ed reformers, who anyone in the field will recognize as, “this is an important voice.” But then some people from community colleges, administrators, who know about the innovation happening on the ground. Because in this great sea of mixed success, the idea was to bring together some of these innovators with some of these big thinkers. We spent turned out something like nine months together, wrestling with “what should our vision of community colleges be in America?” And we wrestled with a lot of tough questions. And we met once every six or eight weeks for most of the day, and produced a report. And the report is a combination of sort of a bold call to action but also a lot of nitty-gritty how-to.
Kerr: So, there are 10 recommendations. What are the ones that you lead off with in a conversation is, “here's where we think we can do the biggest impact we should get started?”
Jacoby: Yeah. I mean, you framed it very nicely in your opening comments. Community colleges have always had at least two missions, many of them have four or five, but the two big ones were preparing people for transfer to four-year institutions. And that's an academic track and you’re learning standard academic things. And then there's the workforce side, which is preparing people for the job market. Most community colleges do some mix of the two. It varies widely what the mix is. Some colleges in some states, it's 90 percent transfer. Some colleges in some states, it's 80-, 90 percent workforce. And the biggest thing that we say in our paper is we’ve got to rebalance that. Right now, whatever the numbers are, and the numbers might be closer to parity, the identity of the institution—in most community colleges sort of writ large—is preparing people for four-year institutions. And again, that's a very noble aim. But here are the numbers. Eighty percent of young people arrive at community colleges saying they want bachelor's degrees. They want to transfer and get a bachelor's degree. Fifteen percent succeed, 80-15, not a good batting average. Community colleges need to continue to do the transfer function. They need to get a lot better at it. That 15 should at least double. Let's get 30 percent of people to bachelor's degrees. But even if you get 30 percent, you're still leaving half of people behind. The role that we think is not being done enough is the workforce side. Again, it's about doing it more, but it's also about being prouder of it as what you do and seeing it more as your mission. What you should be graded on, so to speak, what you should get funding for, is yes, people who graduate and go on to a four-year school, but also people who get jobs. And also, whether you really are working closely with the employers in your region, so that you're sure they're getting good jobs. And the frame has to change, not at the expense of transfer, but the frame has to change.
Kerr: One of your, I think, summary kind of ways of framing a recommendation is “no options foreclosed.” And so, I want you to talk through that. And I also want to kind of think a little bit about where you began our conversation, saying, “what are the critical things people need to have?” Well, they're problem solving, critical thinking, these types of skills, increasingly, on the job. And that seems like maybe there's also becoming a greater alignment in the set of skills that are necessary for both the work-based track, but then also the transfer. So, talk as to how you're balancing that tension.
Jacoby: It's not going to work to tell the welding student “come take Shakespeare and a course in the French Revolution, and that will teach you problem solving.” There's going to have to be more adjustment so that the people who know about how to teach critical thinking and problem solving and communication, what they're offering is more tailored to the students who are learning welding or nursing or manufacturing skills. You might teach people how to give a presentation to colleagues, or you might teach them—if you have to teach them history, let's teach them history of the Industrial Revolution or something. There are ways to make the problem-solving critical thinking perspective giving programs more relevant to people, and people who are in a hurry. But the people who are hoping to transfer, let's also give them some labor market skills that are useful in the labor market before they graduate in case they don't make it to a four-year institution, because so few do.
Kerr: Tamar, you've been highlighting the two dimensions of the workforce and the transfer side. Your report also goes into noncredit versus credit. And I think for some of our listeners, recognizing that there's a noncredit side to community colleges may be, first, eye opening. So maybe back in a little bit like why would we have that? And then second, how can that become more aligned with the credit side? What are some of the recommendations you make there?
Jacoby: Let's just think about the numbers. There are as many people in community colleges as there are in four-year colleges. Most of your listeners probably don't conceive of that. Community colleges are not just sort of over there in the corner. There's as many undergraduates at community colleges as there are in four-year colleges. But then, within community colleges every college has something that they call the noncredit division. So, what is that? What's a noncredit division at a community college? It's a separate unit. What's offered there does not have to be approved by the other faculty or by accreditors. And that gives us certain advantages. It makes it much more flexible. First of all, for students, you don't have to matriculate to the whole college. You don't say you're getting a degree. You just show up and you say, "I want that course that's going to teach me how to be an EMT, or how to be a certified nursing assistant or licensed practical nurse—all I want to learn. I don't want to take history. I don't want to take French. I want to learn how to do this skill." Noncredit side can do that. You can show up anytime of the year. And they'll say, "Our courses don't just start in September and go to June." They're all kind of staggered. But most important, if I'm an employer and I show up on the campus, and I say, "Hi folks, community college, I need a welding course right away. I need to hire some welders." The credit side is going to say, "Come back in two years," because that's how long it takes to get faculty approval and the accreditors approval and develop a course. And if you're in the wrong kind of state, send it through the state system. And the noncredit division is going to say, "Yesterday, tomorrow? How do you want it to look? What should we do? How should it go?" And that's a huge advantage. The noncredit side is much closer to the labor market. So, more convenient for learners who are in a hurry, and many learners are, especially older, midcareer adults who increasingly make up the student body at community colleges and are going to make up more and more of it in years to come. Learners in a hurry, but also employers. The downsides are, you can't use your Pell Grant. So it's hard to pay for the programs. And if you eventually want a degree, you haven't racked up any credit. And I guess the other downside that many people are concerned about is what's the quality control because there are no accreditors. And so, our report’s understanding of this was, we don't want to abolish noncredit because all those advantages are important. It's a hidden asset, really, for the college. But we do want to integrate it into the college. There should be some way of recognizing the learning and in many cases, there are but it's not uniform enough. The reform is that there has to be better bridges for students between the noncredit side and the credit side. The other needed reform is that the two sides of the house need to collaborate more and cross-pollinate more. And so, the noncredit side usually knows a lot of employers and has good relationships with them. Well, the credit side also teaches nursing and welding for credit, but they don't have such good relationships with employers. And the credit side maybe has more of those liberal arts teachers who can teach problem solving. It's cliché in the policy world, but the silos need to be broken down. And noncredit needs to be elevated and celebrated, so to speak, but also integrated. We need to solve for the challenges. A lot of this is going on out in the world. That's what's so exciting. But, again, the point right now is that it's happening in sort of isolated pockets. And there could be a lot more learning from each other in the community college world.
Kerr: Yeah, I think the very decentralized nature of community colleges lets them fit into their local environments very well. But you're also highlighting that there can be things that are happening across the 1100 community colleges that need to be elevated up for greater recognition. What are some of the examples you frequently talk about?
Jacoby: In the past, vocational education, job training, mostly systems taught—and this was true for community colleges, but also the government job training—they taught what they knew how to teach. And the real innovation in the past 10 years in workforce ed has been to realize you can't—and forgive the metaphor—humans aren't widgets, but you can't build the widget without knowing what the customer needs. And I mean, obviously, higher education has many customers—learners, and society, but also, if you're in workforce ed, employers. My metaphor is that in English, there's one word for snow. In some Eskimo nations they have 24 words for snow. And there probably could be 24 different kinds of employer engagement. But every college says, "Oh, I have 5000 employer partners.” And sometimes it's very deep. And sometimes it's really, they come to a meeting once a-year, and the faculty doesn't really listen to the advice. So, a great example is something that's known as FAME. That's short for the Federation of Advanced Manufacturing Education. It's known as FAME nationwide and it's organized by state. And what it is, is it was begun at Toyota about 10 years ago. Toyota and several other employers in the region came together and they said, "We're not just going to have a relationship that's one company one college, because what happens when somebody leaves the company or somebody leaves the college or the company doesn't need to hire anyone for a few years? That relationship falls into fault declines. Let's build a collective of employers in a region who need to hire the same kind of worker. In this case, we're talking about industrial maintenance techs. And let’s the group of us build a relationship with the community college.” It's something like an apprenticeship program. Students do spend time at the college and spend time on the job. But unlike many apprenticeship programs, they do get associate degrees at the end. So, they really are in the college. Now it's 400 companies across America. They find the community college. Instead of having the community college find them and say, "Come serve on our advisory board that we're not really going to listen to," the employers call the community college and they say “we've got a program. Are you interested in teaching it? If you do teach it, you're going to have to do XYZ. We're going to pick the students. We're going to help you find the best instructors. We have a curriculum. We need you to tear out your classrooms and put in something that looks like a factory floor.” And they're in the driver's seat, but it becomes a true collaboration because the employers can't teach. They need the community college and the community college needs the alignment with the labor market. So, it sounds like a hostile takeover, but it's not. It's really a collaboration to get to what they need. And it's a wonderful program.
Kerr: What are some of your recommendations to state local policymakers. And do you have another example of a state that's doing this well or a city or a county that's doing this well?
Jacoby: Before we go away from the college, can we talk just for a minute about a student support because that's a really important piece that often gets neglected? We need better supports that's much more focused on again, what you're going to need. If what you're trying to do is transfer, you need supports in that. But if what you're trying to do is workforce, you need supports in that. I had some conversations with some students recently where they talked about the coach who told them, she said, "I had this coach, and she came out of the industry, and not only did she help me pick the courses, but once I had the courses, we'd meet and she'd say, 'Here's what you need to get out of that course. Here's what you need to pay attention [to]. Here's why that course is important.'" And we all need that kind of encouragement and support. And so, that's just a super important thing that community colleges need to up their game and provide better supports that are more appropriate to where students are heading.
Kerr: That's great. Now, I'm going to take you back to policy because I also want to talk about that.
Jacoby: I like to talk about policy. So, community colleges, some states are centralized. There's a spectrum of centralization. In some states, there's a central office that decides almost everything. In other states, there is no central office and the community college responds to a local board. And it's like all centralization and decentralization. What you want is the right mix. Too centralized in the wrong ways is not that helpful and too decentralized in the wrong way is not that helpful. But the main lever that these central offices are—even in decentralized states actually—the main lever that the state has, is funding. And in most states, it's like four-year funding. It's for butts in seats. You get what's called full-time equivalent (FTE) funding. You figure out how many students you have, all told. And you add up the part time and the full time and you get a number, and then you get a certain allocation for that number. There's no metric for success in an FTE model. And there's no metric usually for, like, “what you're preparing them to do, do we need this in this region or this state?” And so, we have a number of recommendations in the paper about alternative funding models. What kinds of jobs do we need? And what kinds of skills do we need? And then you make the FTE funding, you relate it to that. So, you think what's of value and you make your per student subsidy related to your idea of what you want at the end. Why are we paying the same amount for someone who is not going to be able to do anything we need in the state as we're paying for someone who's going to be a critical part of what we're really trying to advance? So, they have a model called tiered FTE funding—tiered as in tiers. And if the program is in a high demand industry, you get more money than if it's in a low demand industry. And the money goes to the credit side and the noncredit side. Another important thing is, do they succeed in the end? Not enough state funding mechanisms have a success metric of any ... I mean, yes, graduation, but what's graduation? So many people are underemployed, unemployed, that's not the ultimate metric. Our group thought job placements should be the ultimate metric. I don't know any state that has really has a robust job placement metric, although there's some experiments. But Virginia has a great funding model. And again, it's money for noncredit. So, we haven't talked about industry certifications. It's a whole other little wrinkle. It's a credential that's conferred by you pass a competency-based test. Can you really do the welding? Can you really fix the machine? Can you really do the coding? And it's the industry comes up with a test, you pass it, and you earn a certification. The most interesting is everyone has skin in the game. The state pays some, the student pays some, and the college is on the hook to produce. And if it doesn't, it has to pay some. So, the way it works is the student pays the first third of the program, maybe it's $1,000, $1,500. If the student completes the program, the state kicks in with the second third. If the student doesn't complete, the student is on the hook and the student has to find the money for the second third. If the student takes and passes the certification exam, which is not given by the college but by the industry group, then the state pays the third third. But if the student doesn't take and pass the exam, the college has to pay it.
Kerr: We haven't yet talked about the public workforce system. And your tenth recommendation is towards a single public workforce system. And you talk about how the United States can't afford to have two overlapping and duplicate job training networks. So, tell us a bit more about that last recommendation and what it entails.
Jacoby: Government job training, how America does job training, is we allocate money in Congress that flows down to the states, that then flows down to the local areas. And there's something called workforce boards that are in these local areas that figure out how to spend the money, with a lot of guidelines from both the federal and the states. And then we deliver what we're going to do at things, they used to be called one-stop centers. Now, they're called American Career Centers. And this goes back to the numbers we were talking about a minute ago. There are 12 million people in community colleges. 2018, about 225,000, much smaller number, got trained by the government. Now, part of the problem is that there's not enough money for the public workforce system. And the other problem is, because we don't spend very much, they have to spend a huge proportion of the money on their rent, on the computers, on what's called career services, which is helping people learn how to do interviews and find the job listing and do the resume. And very little of it goes to training and very few people get trained. And some workforce boards are great and they have great relationships with employers. But some workforce boards have very weak connections to the employers in their region. So, in a typical region, you've got the community college system being kind of a mixed bag and trying to do job training, and you've got the workforce system a few blocks away being a mixed bag and trying to do job training. And it's tricky because we're not just as a country going to say, “abolish the workforce system.” And we're not just going to say, “abolish the community college system” and meld them together. But they need to cooperate much, much, much more closely. They need to think about who's best at doing what and maybe it's the workforce system is better at assessing the skills people bring in and putting them on a good path to something, and maybe the colleges are actually better at the training. And then you have to have a single address for employers to come. So, more comparative advantage and complementarity of the functions, much closer collaboration, and a single entity for employers, single portal for employers, but also this joint entity could take a big role in sort of economic planning for the region. There's some money in the federal funding for the workforce system that goes to the governor. And we're suggesting that—15 percent of every year's formula—and we're suggesting that that be dependent—that the governor not get that money if he can't bring his community colleges and workforce system together in a better way.
Kerr: There's a gap to be closed. So, Tamar, help us think about taking this forward with Covid-19 now being a permanent part of our life, and the implications that it's had for people dropping out of high school and not getting the education that they need at the end, building that part in.
Jacoby: We thought we were finished with the report on March 1st, or whenever we all sort of woke up to the Covid world. And of course, we realized, “whoa, we need to rethink.” But as we thought, the conclusion we came to is we're more relevant than ever. Because millions of Americans are going to need short job-focused upskilling and reskilling to get back to work. Some of them are going to need to learn how to do some safety thing in their public health-related aspect of their job. My favorite example is HVAC techs need to learn about HEPA filters. Other people are going to need to change jobs entirely at least temporarily. The airline attendants probably should find a new job, maybe online customer service, or the waiters in New York. And then they're the people whose industries are going to change because of accelerated automation. So, literally millions of people in industries that span the spectrum are going to need, not a two-year degree, not a class in the French Revolution or Shakespeare, but a class that can help them get a better job soon. Again, where's the infrastructure to do that? Really only community colleges. So, it's the same thinking, but the need is much greater now. The people who are going to lose their jobs are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s. And they don't want to go back to school and they don't have any time and they're really in a hurry, but they're going to need something. And, again, the real problem here, the real rub is that in most states, there's no money for that kind of training. You can't use your Pell Grant. You can't use your Pell Grant at a fast, noncredit, job-focused course. And in most states, there's no funding for these kinds of programs. And so, community colleges are there. They have the potential to pivot and do this, and many are trying. But I talked to somebody at a college every day about how we want to do this, and people are knocking on our doors, but we don't have the funding. Again, it's where that noncredit, the bridges kick in, and the possibility of what—the technical term is articulation of credit or credit for prior learning. We're not saying we want to relegate people forever to a world where there's no possibility of an academic degree. But we want to be able to help people right now. And community colleges are well positioned to do that by making exactly the kind of pivot that we were already suggesting they make before Covid. That pivot has become more urgent than ever now.
Kerr: Tamar, another big feature of the future of work is the rise of gig work, contingent work, things that aren't a full-time relationship. How does that factor into what community colleges are training individuals for, for the future of work?
Jacoby: We don't address that in our report, but we do address it indirectly, in the sense that this problem solving, this communication, this being in charge of your own career, this sense of agency—those are all skills that people are going to need much more intensively as the gig economy grows. You need to be flexible. You need to know how to learn. You need to be in charge of your career. You need to have job skills, getting a job and holding a job. You need to probably have more customer service skills. A lot is going to have to happen in the American labor market to make it, so to speak, safe for gig workers, probably starting with some sort of policy around portable benefits or some sort of incentive for employers to think about portable benefits.
Kerr: What's next for Opportunity America moving beyond just this particular report? Where do you see the future going?
Jacoby: We do have a big nationwide study of community colleges. So, we kind of did this in the wrong order. We did the normative part of the project first before the fact finding. I don't recommend that. Don't try that at home. But now, we're turning from the normative part to the fact finding. And this goes back to the point I've been sort of talking about all along about these pockets of excellence. We don't know how widespread those pockets are. We're sending a questionnaire to every single community college and hoping that we can learn something about what's going on the workforce side, especially what's going on the noncredit side. So, what's going on at colleges, especially in the black box of noncredit? And what are their relationships with employers actually like? Which of the 24 kinds of snow do their relationships resemble?
Kerr: Sounds exciting. We’ll have to have you come back and tell us what you find there. Tamar Jacoby is the president of Opportunity America, a nonprofit that's focused on economic mobility. We thank her for coming today to talk about community colleges, The Indispensable Institution, and how they need to be reimagined. Thanks, Tamar.
Jacoby: Thank you.
Kerr: We hope you enjoyed the Managing the Future of Work podcast. If you haven’t already, please subscribe and rate the show wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find out more about the Managing the Future of Work Project at our website at hbs.edu/managing-the-future-of-work/. While you’re there, sign up for our newsletter.