Bill Kerr: What makes for a good job match? Skills fit, rising pay, sense of purpose? Mismatches reduce productivity, stalling careers and driving up labor costs through turnover. So catching the signs early on and, better still, understanding the worker experience in more detail, can pay dividends for both sides.

Welcome to the Managing the Future of Work podcast from Harvard Business School. I’m your host, Bill Kerr. I’m joined today by Harvard Business School Professor Ethan Bernstein and author Michael Horn, co-founder of the Clayton Christensen Institute and lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Ethan and Michael co-wrote, along with Bob Moesta, the book Job Moves: 9 Steps for Making Progress in Your Career. We’ll talk about how people navigate their careers, what motivates and frustrates them. And we’ll look at how employers can collaborate with workers on job design, training, and planning. Michael and Ethan, welcome to the podcast.

Michael Horn: Thanks so much for having us, Bill.

Ethan Bernstein: Thanks, Bill.

Kerr: Let’s start with a bit of your backgrounds and research and how you came to collaborate. Michael, why don’t you kick us off?

Horn: Yeah, absolutely. So I’ve been working in this field of education, upskilling, the future of work since 2006 when I graduated from the Harvard Business School and joined up with [the late Harvard Business School professor] Clay Christensen, to author the book that became Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. And then, at about that time, Ethan entered the doctoral program here, and we got to know each other, because Clay was one of his dissertation advisers. In terms of the work that we did together—Ethan and I—our third author, Bob Moesta, was the founder of this jobs-to-be-done theory with Clay Christensen. Bob and I started collaborating quite a bit, including the book Choosing College in 2019, which was looking at, how do we understand why people choose any post-secondary experience, whether that’s a boot camp, an online course, a full college experience, a master’s degree to really make progress in their lives. And so that brought us together, because Ethan had been collaborating with Bob since 2009.

Bernstein: Yeah. So in 2009, Clay asked me to come and see Bob do a jobs-to-be done interview of a customer. And one of the things that frustrated him was when teams in high-quality, high-talent organizations would go to great lengths to create a product, and then that new product would fail. Similarly, people go to great lengths to find a new job. It could be a different internal role, it could be an external role. Sometimes they move their families, they change their lives, they upskill in various ways to get that new role. They get it, and then six to 12 months later, over half, sometimes two-thirds or even three-quarters, say they already knew it was the wrong role for them. That’s a failure of matching that we should be able to do something about. And so, since then I’ve been studying workplaces, workplace trends. In particular, I study increased transparency and increased connectivity at work, how that impacts employee behaviors, and how those behaviors change performance. And along that path, I was also asked at the Harvard Business School to create the “Developing Yourself as a Leader” course. And so the intersection of those two has gotten me very interested, Bill, in some of the workplace trends and future-of-work trends that we’re talking about today.

Kerr: Ethan, let’s continue on that and think a little bit about the labor market trends that are visible to many of us, but are focusing and coming into the book, and the need for it right now.

Bernstein: One of the things that we certainly see a lot of in the trends in the labor market, at least in the matching part of the labor market, is AI. And I think we were hoping that AI would make us better at finding the right employee, the right person of talent for the right role. What it seems to have done instead is upped, by huge magnitude, the sales process for each. Now, instead of having a funnel full of 1,000 people, you have a funnel of 100,000. And you can process all that, because the AI is helping you do it. And the applicant is saying, “I’m going to use AI to help develop my resume.” And so we like to say what basically this means is, the job description looks like it’s looking for unicorns, and the applicant is trying to be a superhero. And so, instead of actually trying to find better matches, we end up in a situation in which we’re just trying to sell ourselves faster into a process that’s ultimately going to fail to find that match.

Kerr: It’s a fascinating bend on the technology. Do you think, though, that perhaps we have become more specialized in the skills that we need on the job. So, is it just harder to make a match compared to maybe a more general technology environment that existed a couple of decades ago or earlier?

Horn: Yeah, it’s certainly been my observation. And there’s an explosion, as you know, of certificates in different skills, over a million now. A lot of the employers say that they’re really looking for T-shaped employees more and more, right? They want these broad skills that cut across different roles—the critical thinking, communication, knowing how to show up on time, things of that nature. And then, they want more and more specificity around how you’ll actually put the technical skills into action. And people are representing themselves as superheroes, and we are having trouble making the match on both sides.

Bernstein: You mean that entry-level person with five years of experience never existed, Michael?

Horn: And that’s gotten worse, right? I mean we see it all the time now. Bill, your colleague Joe Fuller, right, with his work with Burning Glass Institute, and they’ve done a lot of work looking at the explosion of entry-level roles, asking for multiple years of experience, being able to show that you’ve, in effect, done the job even though it’s an entry-level role. And the other thing we know that seems to be happening with AI, is it’s actually wiping out a lot of those roles that we thought of as entry level. How do you even get your experience to get started in the industry to build that specific skill set and, ultimately, if you want to progress through an industry?

Bernstein: And yet, it should be easier. So if you look at workplace trends, we have more thinly sliced roles than we did before. We have more side gigs, we have more ways of up skilling people within their roles than ever before without actually having to find them a whole new role and waiting till somebody vacates a role. We also have much more data on the individuals in the workforce, in the organization.

Kerr: So we’ve been talking a lot about the labor market conditions and we haven’t yet laid out the hypothesis or the thesis of the book, which is the jobs-to-be-done methodology that was originally developed by Clay Christensen and your co-author, Bob Moesta, walk us through that.

Horn: So the jobs-to-be-done theory was developed in the mid-1990s by Bob Moesta and Clay Christensen. And the basic insight was a relatively simple one, which was that customers, when they’re looking to make progress in their lives, they’re not looking to hire a product or service for its own sake. We want to understand the circumstance or the situation that someone is in that is causing them to say, “This is the outcome I really desire. What does progress look like for me?” So that helped Bob work with hundreds and hundreds of companies in all sorts of industries—from air defense missile systems to consumer packaged goods to healthcare and, yes, even education—to help them build products and services that were actually lined up with the progress that individuals wanted to make. Over time, he and Clay developed this really rigorous protocol for how to suss out what were the jobs to be done in any given question, if you will, or any given sector.

Bernstein: So in that Aldrich classroom in the afternoon in 2009, I sat down, and I observed this protocol. He teased out in very specific ways the job that that a particular individual had hired a new product to do for them. And after that, I walked up and said, “Well, I spent time this morning giving career advice to some MBA students. If I’d interviewed them, couldn’t I have given them better advice about how to hire their next job for their own career story, for their own progress in their career?” And Bob said, “That sounds interesting.” And all of a sudden, 15 years later, we have a lot of data. We didn’t have to adapt the protocol that much, quite frankly, and we could use it as a validated instrument to take a look at exactly why it was that people were switching jobs. And so we were able to leverage much of the work that Clay and Bob had done in jobs-to-be-done theory in order to do the research for this book.

Horn: And I would say the fundamental premise, Bill, that comes out of that, is people actually hire jobs to make progress in their careers. And we rarely think about it that way, right? You’re making a choice. The problem I think is, very rarely do we see ourselves as having that sort of agency or intentionality of, do I really understand, to Ethan’s point, the root causes of what I’m trying to achieve here? Because if I did, in many cases I think people would make very different choices.

Kerr: So, Michael, given that kind of framing and the way that you can lean into what the job looks like for you, what you can gain from that, tell us a little bit about the target audience for the book. Where in a career stage or what types of transitions is the book going to be most useful for?

Horn: So I think the book has three core audiences. The primary and first and foremost is that individual who’s feeling some sort of struggle with where they are in their career right now, thinking actively about a job switch, or they don’t know if they should be thinking about a job switch, or perhaps they’re already in the process of starting to interview. The other two audiences that were equally important, one is mentors and managers and people who are supporting individuals in their job seeking process. And another core argument of the book is that job searching is and should be inherently social. And then the third audience is employers, themselves. How do they design roles? How do they design human resource processes that much better help individuals be engaged, make progress in their careers, and frankly then on their side, have much more productive workers that contribute much more to the bottom line or the mission of the organization?

Kerr: Yeah. Let’s pick the second one and dwell upon it a little bit longer. Give me a little bit more background about how the manager or the adviser for a group of workers might benefit from taking this mentor approach. What are some application examples?

Bernstein: In the field of leadership and organizational behavior, it’s been at least two decades when we’ve been saying, “Find your authentic leader inside of you, find the ways in which you can develop yourself as a leader, and create the person you’re looking to be in 10, 15, 20 years.” In theory, that has been attractive to all parties. In practice, it has been difficult. Managers have been trying very, very hard for this time to be useful mentors, coaches, and managers all at the same time. And it’s tough, because frankly there’s no common language, and we haven’t had a good sense for the why, for the causation. Our list of potential menu items for the forces that push people away from a position and pull someone toward one are also frankly the reasons why employees quit. Having a menu of 30 items that you say, “So which ones of these do you feel are operating for you right now, and which quest do you think you might be on?” The framework, the list, and then the process provides the capacity, if you will, the substrate upon which, as Michael suggests, you can have a real social process around development, which makes the individual feel like there’s a customized approach to their progress.

Kerr: That’s interesting, because it’s both, as I’m understanding it, like a conceptual rethink of how you’ll manage your team and their career-development process, but it’s also potentially just a way of formulating the decision-making process and the job placement in a way that helps the worker feel like they have more agency, more ownership, more involvement in their career. So a lot of companies are trying to, they’re trying to increase the employee responsibility for what’s happening in their career and their personal development.

Bernstein: So the responsibility we gave them a while ago, we think. Now we actually have given them the capacity, the means with which to use that agency well. Our book paves the way for that to be both a meaningful and practical process, because managers can’t spend all of their time doing development. They have to actually manage the work, too.

Kerr: Michael, let me go back to you. And the first person, and not surprising, in your list of three was the individual, herself, and thinking about her career development, I’d like you to tie this back to your prior book, because in your prior book you talked about education institutes as being, what’s the job to be done there? What is that future arc looking like?

Horn: Essentially, we interviewed a lot of adult workers who were going back to get more education to further their career in some way—to get back in the workforce, to get upskilling. And one of the big segments that we observed, Bill, was these groups of individuals for whom the employer was paying for that education. And some employers would basically give a very limited menu. And other employers were more thoughtful about this set of choices. But for the former group, what we often saw was that available choices were like, “You can take healthcare programs or nothing else.” And the frontline employee at a fast-food restaurant was saying, “Healthcare has literally nothing to do with where I see my career trajectory going. It is zero relevance to the things that I want to do, but I guess I ought to sign up for this program, because my manager said I ought to do it.” And the challenge with that is that the moment the learning or education program got difficult—which it always does, these programs are not easy—you were like, “What’s my deeper why for being here?” You didn’t have one. And so 74 percent of those individuals would drop out or look for another program somehow. And if they were employed, that meant often switching employers. So this program that was extremely well-intended was seen as irrelevant. And then, on the employer side—and to connect to theJob Moves book—it wasn’t understanding what’s the progress that I’m actually trying to make in my career? Because if you understood that progress, then you could have aligned the education benefit or opportunity much more tightly.

Kerr: Yeah, let me continue on where you ended there. And I’d like to try to be a curmudgeon for one second here. We are hiring people to do the work of the firm, and we should be optimizing around that, and I don’t understand why we should be engaged in thinking about it in terms of the job to be done for the candidate, himself. How would you respond to that kind of critique of this approach?

Horn: Yeah, no, right. It’s why are we catering to these people? We need them to do stuff for us, and they ought to roll up their sleeves and do the work. And I think the answer is, why should I engage? Well, because they’re not engaging with you, and disengaged employees are not actually productive employees. We are not saying create the dream job for individuals. That should not be the objective for managers or companies. But as you figure out what’s the progress you’re trying to make, to also understand what historically in labor markets has been thought of the supply side, but we think of as the demand side individuals seeking their next job and deciding what they’re going to hire. We think if you don’t understand that, you’re not going to find the right employees. And I’ll give Ethan plaudits here. An early part of the process that we were designing to help individuals make progress in their careers was looking a lot at what drives and drains your energy. And Ethan said, “But that’s only half the equation. We really have to understand what are their current capabilities, what are the shelf life of those capabilities, and which ones do they want to invest in going forward?” Because if you don’t, like you as the individual could imagine, I’m ready for this huge job for which you’re eminently unqualified for. And so you got to put these two things to together. And yes, they’re interdependent, but if we don’t wrestle with that, we’re not helping the organizations, nor are we actually helping the individuals themselves.

Bernstein: I was talking about the book recently with one of the top financial services firms in the world, and a managing director stood up at one point and said, “I am so tired of massaging this generation like Wagyu beef.” And I get it, I really do. It’s a lot of work, and it’s not necessarily the work of the firm. On the other hand, I have some sympathy for individuals, because skills are depreciating so quickly, the world is changing so rapidly, adaptation is so necessary for skills to be relevant to the future that they feel as if they don’t make progress every day or every week, they’re falling behind. One solution certainly would be you just hire for a limited amount of time, and then when someone’s learned that role, they leave, and we just are okay with people coming and going. But the costs of ramp up, the things we lose when talent leaves. I mean, there are justifiable reasons why organizations want retention. It’s all about trade-offs, but among the trade-offs, I could imagine organizations and managers making, this one seems like a pretty attractive option.

Kerr: Yeah. As I kind of recap, I think what we’ve been describing at both the manager level and then also at the individual level, there is a benefit toward improving the agency that individuals bring into the workplace by thinking about in terms of the jobs we might get better matches overall. And then, now you’re speaking to everyone’s inner CFO by saying, “If we’re going to have lower rates of turnover, that’s going to have financial benefits for the company as a whole.” Michael’s third of the three was the HR department, which is where a lot of this rubber is going to hit the road. So tell us a little bit about some of the implications this has for HR policies and practices, and what would you anticipate being potential points of resistance toward taking this mentor model?

Horn: I would say there’s a few things, Bill, that we think HR can do to help support managers and individuals in this process on both sides of the equation. The first one is we’re all familiar with the exit interview, right? We all know how uncomfortable and often proforma it feels, and even if you get a real data point on why someone’s leaving—which you often don’t—it’s too late, right? And so the big thing that I think we’re encouraging here is, we are giving you the sets of reasons why people leave jobs, why they quit. So let’s understand on the way in why they just left their most recent role and why they’re coming to you. And then, let’s manage against that throughout the process, right? Let’s keep coming back to those forces that we talked about—the pushes, the pulls. And it might mean, hey, we can slightly change this job. We can give you a stretch assignment, because it’s in the interest of the organization. Or it might mean we have to have a different conversation, but at least let’s be transparent and in lockstep. No surprises, fewer costs on both sides, much more supportive relationship. The second one would be very different job description process. The job description today, as we joked about five years’ experience for an entry-level role, dozens of skills listed that sort of overwhelm any lay reader as you look through most job postings these days, lots of credentials, degrees, different experiences required to get a certain job—to screen people on the front end of the process, rather than actually describe what does someone actually do on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis, and have you had experiences in your schooling, in past roles, whatever it might be that shows that you can actually do this job and you have the potential to grow into it fully. And while Ethan has taught me that we’re not going to eliminate job descriptions as they’re currently written anytime soon—because they serve as really important legal documents for hiring and firing—that if you can develop shadow job descriptions for each role that really detail the actual experiences in work, itself, then we have a much better job of communicating to the potential job seekers, “This is what you’ll actually do, and show us where you’ve done these sorts of things and we can make better fit.” And then the third thing I would briefly say is, embedding this in the actual HR suite of tools themselves in the performance management systems, in particular, so that it’s not on the manager, but it’s actually there as part of the set of prompts. So these conversations that are happening, anyway, are much smarter; they become the real processes or playbook of the organization.

Bernstein: For HR, I think the patterns of 30 forces that lead to the four quests provides, again, a common language, but also a process by which a senior managing director, a senior leader, a senior HR person can say, “I want all people leaders in this organization to have a conversation on a quarterly, whatever, semi-annual basis about each individual’s pushes and pulls, figure out what quest they’re on.” Different quests require different kinds of advice, different kinds of mentorship, different kinds of moves. Track that, as Michael suggests, not just from the start of an employee’s time at the organization, but throughout, and let it inform the conversations and the moves that are made—internally, across roles, perhaps even within slices of roles—so that the individual feels like they’re making progress. And the organization tracking this in the background can think about how all these things piece together and help the individual understand the trajectory that’s being built in the process. So I think the resistance is a belief, or a lack of belief, that that partnership between manager, mentor, and HR can work well.

Kerr: I very much like the idea of the “jobs to be done” from the employee perspective as a way of having a vocabulary that could sit between the operational manager and the HR department, given how important talent is to organizations, and increasingly so. What is the cadence that you think a company should bring for updating this with employees?

Bernstein: Across the assets we’ve talked about in the book, there’s probably different timelines. So a quest—most people we think over the course of their career will see all four quests, but those quests are probably relatively stable for at least a few years, maybe until a next major job move. Whereas the pushes and pulls, those are probably more annual, somewhere in the monthly, quarterly range. I think we’re suggesting that if you know the trajectory of these things over time, then you know where you’re trying to focus your time today. And that makes for a much more pointed touchpoint kind of conversation, maybe quarterly, that then feeds into an annual or quarter, whatever it is, once, twice a year kind of conversation about the quest and how that’s figuring into the progress the individual’s making.

Horn: Yeah, well, I’ll just quickly give you two anecdotes, Bill. So two n=1s. One, Joe Carver, who’s someone we talk about in the book, who implemented our process with his team at his organization, he basically used this as a really a quarterly check-in with employees, but then he would use it as a group conversation, I think on an annual basis was what he told us. The reason it was group was to show you this is the DNA of how we now think about managing here. The other answer I’ll tell you is, actually, again from our third co-author, Bob—who actually he’s in the gig economy largely, he consults, but he’s really doing, like me, a portfolio of things—and he recently took our assessment at jobmoves.com for himself. And it showed him, he was in one of our quests, “regain alignment.” And when he looked at the actual forces, he was like, “Oh, I am saying ‘yes’ to a whole bunch of tasks that actually do not lean into the things that I want to be doing or developing right now in my own career. It’s a few no’s during the course of the next few weeks that’s going to get me back on track. You don’t have to make these dramatic major moves, but you can do these small tweaks along the way.

Bernstein: If I can highlight just one thing, much of the work here is the individual’s work. And so part of the answer to your question, Bill, is if the employee is ready to have this conversation once a month, maybe that’s the right cadence for them at that particular point in time. Maybe for others it’s going be once a year or even once every two years. But I think it’s incumbent upon the talent, upon the employee to be defining this as well.

Kerr: It strikes me we’re not going to have enough time to have you recite all 30 of the forces or drivers, but it might be helpful for us to have you quickly outline the four quests. What are the broad categories that you find people in?

Horn: So there’s pushes that cause people to say, “What I’m doing right now is not quite right.” And there are pulls that are like gravitational forces pulling you to something new. We found 14 pushes, 16 pulls. And then, when we looked back at the data of the 1,000-plus individuals who have actually switched jobs, we found that they cluster in four different what we call “jobs to be done” or “quests for progress,” because we didn’t want to overuse the word “jobs.” So the first quest we found was when someone says, “I need to get out of what I’m doing right now. The way I’m managed, the way where the company is going, seems like a dead end. This just isn’t working for me. I need to escape, in effect, to a place where I’ll be respected and can do some work with people that feels meaningful enough.” It’s really about the pushes on this job. The second one, if you will, at the opposite end of the pole is, “Help me take the next step. I’m at a career or personal milestone. I’m ready to take that next step in my career.” This is the one that sort of feels the closest to traditional career progression, climbing the ladder, if you will. This is the closest to, “Okay, I’m ready to move from manager to senior manager, director to senior director,” whatever it might be. And then on the opposite ends, if you will, we have “regain alignment.” And this is where people are saying, “What I do on a daily basis is not lining up with the capabilities that I’ve developed or want to be known for. So I’m feeling either disrespected in some way, or I’m feeling like, gosh, it’s just out of whack with the things that I want to develop and be known for, and where I want to go in my career.” The fourth quest is “regain control.” And these are people that are saying, “The what is actually largely in the right spot, but how I’m working—the use of my time, how it energizes or doesn’t energize me—I want to reset on that dimension of how I do my work. And so I need to search for a job or fix what I’m currently doing so that it aligns with how I want to do my best work.”

Kerr: We can see the four different types of quests or jobs to be done. It seems like, in most and maybe even all of them, there’s going to be some measure of training or reskilling, which are very important topics for workforce management, period, today. How closely do you think the skilling programs need to be tied to the jobs-to-be-done framework? What’s the connection between those?

Horn: I’ve started having conversations with schools that serve adult learners and education programs, saying that, if you can much more deeply understand the quest for progress that someone’s on in their career, you can much more fine-tune what program and skills they’re trying to acquire and get them to the right place. But then the second thing that I think is really important, particularly for education programs that are not, say, really short term—under three months—is, actually, can you embed parts of this process into the development of the students that you’re educating so that they can get a better sense of, “What do I actually want to do when I leave this program? And how does that inform the choices I make, in terms of courses I may take or who I network with, or the prototypes that I build around what I could do next?”

Kerr: I have been thinking through this conversation mostly about full-time work, but the workplace has many different arrangements. Now, you earlier even talked about Bob in kind of a gig-based workplace and role. How would you apply this book and its ideas toward gig-based work?

Horn: Gig work, taking a side gig, taking a side hustle, something like that is a great way to experiment with something before you maybe make a full step or full jump, or plunge into something completely different—a great way to learn about, “Does this really align with what I want my next job to do and how I want to work?” And it’s something that you can repeat relatively quickly in lots of different gigs over time. I think the second thing is, given that the world of work—whether full-time or in gigs—is much more fluid. You can think about, “How do I build a set of things together that scratch the different itches and things that I want to do that maybe aren’t found in one place?” And I think the gig economy is an incredible tool to help far more individuals find that sense of progress and purpose in their careers, even if it’s not just in one place.

Kerr: I could imagine if people adopt your mental framing, the gig workplace will become a more attractive opportunity or a place that they’re more naturally going to look for a place they can get that “job to be done.”

Horn: Yeah, I think that’s right. And a third piece of that also is, you actually find that people hiring for gig work are also much more articulate about what they want because you specify in the contract, “This is what the outcome is. This is what I want your day-to-day to look like. This is what I want you to accomplish.” And so I actually think that’s a great template as we think about, how do we more thinly splice or tailor full-time work, but also how do we create a set of options where people can actually find fit much more easily? The gig economy, I think, on both sides of the ledger offers a lot of promise.

Kerr: Ethan, as we think about the book—and then also you have a Harvard Business Review article about Why Employees Quit, and it gets into kind of even how the dialogue can lead to more meaningful work—I want you to look ahead with me five, 10 years’ time. What could be different? What would we feel is better about the labor market or even about a particular company’s kind of workforce as we put these things to practice?

Bernstein: Let me start with a story from the book. Alex was a long-time employee at a large organization. He loved his job. And then, one day he discovered that, because a number of changes the organization was making—the headquarters was moving, and he was senior enough that he had to move with it to keep the job. He and his wife had set up their life there near the headquarters. His wife’s family was there, they had kids. There were lots of reasons why a move would’ve been very costly for them. He ultimately decided with his wife and family that he couldn’t move. He worked with Bob to try and go through our process, and he became a zealot of the process. In fact, at one point, he got to the stage where he wanted to test his theories, and he asked permission to come in and talk to the manager about this. The manager said, “Of course.” And Alex taught the manager the whole process and then shared with him what he, Alex, thought he’d want to do next. And the manager said, “Well, you could do this virtually for us.” And he’s still there today. That, to me, is the win. We are, in the HR world, so used to measuring wins in terms of how long we retain people. I don’t know if four years is too long or too short. I don’t know if 18 to 24 months is too long or too short. I’m not sure what the right answer is, but those are the indicators we’re tracking. I’d rather recognize, quite frankly, that people today make progress by moving, whether it’s moving a part of the job or moving the entire job. And I’d rather track how many moves are successful. Some of that might be time based, but a lot of it is more like Alex’s story—how much of what the person is hoping to achieve. Again, understanding our book is about trade-offs, not about dream jobs. How much can we actually fit the person to a role that’s also highly productive for the organization for a period of time? And then again, transition successfully, and then again transition successfully. I want to get good at moves, and to me that would be a win in five or 10 years.

Kerr: This has been a fantastic conversation. The book, to remind our listeners, is Job Moves: 9 Steps for Making Progress in your Career, and it’s done with Bob Moesta. Thanks for coming, guys.

Horn: Thank you so much for having us.

Bernstein: Thank you. This has been great.

Kerr: We hope you enjoy the Managing the Future of Work podcast. If you haven’t already, please subscribe and rate the show wherever you get your podcasts. You can find out more about the Managing the Future of Work Project at our website hbs.edu/managingthefutureofwork. While you’re there, sign up for our newsletter.