I just finished reading this article by J.T. O'Donnell that appeared on one of my LinkedIn groups. I like the way that she describes the modern freelancer:
"Lisa is tired of working 'for' employers.
Now, she isn't ready to start her own company, but she does want to
find a way to feel in control of her career. So, she decides to build a
more flexible career gameplan. Lisa identifies she wants to solve a
particular type of problem within her industry and focuses on becoming a
subject-matter expert in her field. She researches potential employers
where she can gain some valuable experience to help her become more
knowledgeable. The pay is lower than what she could be making, but Lisa
doesn't plan to be at this company forever. Perhaps it will work out and
she'll be able to grow at this firm over several years, but she's not
holding her breath. Instead, she sets a 2-year goal for herself. In that
time, she learns as much as she can at the job, but also invests in
some online courses to help her supplement her learning. And, she
volunteers to do a project pro bono for a colleague over at a start-up
as a way to get additional experience....
Sometimes, Lisa ends up staying for an additional 2 years at the
firm she is at because the opportunity to grow is there, but other
times she knows she needs to move on. By now, she has a huge network of
colleagues she's amassed through her efforts. From former co-workers to
networking acquaintances, Lisa is able to tap into the power of her
connections and reputation to easily learn of new opportunities as they
arise. In fact, she gets calls frequently from people looking to hire
her based on recommendations they received from folks in her network.
Lisa is professionally emancipated. She is never underemployed. And best
of all, she is satisfied with the results...
Yes, Lisa's career gameplan takes a bit more effort, but the dividends are worth it, aren't they?"
It's a viewpoint that is, I suppose, of novel value to the chronically underemployed. That being said, I hate it when people giving career advice use hypothetical stories like this instead of their own experiences, whether it's themselves or someone in their network. (It's implied that Ms. O'Donnell is talking about her own career, but it's hard to tell for sure.)
Another update for today: I just read Frank Hoffman's (NDU's) review of Andrew Bacevich's Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country, which can be found at War on the Rocks. I've been meaning to take a look at Breach of Trust for a while, and Hoffman's review has piqued my curiosity even more. Bacevich is a longtime Iraq War opponent (and, some might argue, axe-grinder, since he lost a son in the conflict), and Breach of Trust continues Bacevich's penchant for writing books with provocative titles like The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War and Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War.
Bacevich has also advocated a return to conscription and doing away with the All Volunteer Force (see for example this 2010 article he wrote for The Nation), and he does so again in Breach of Trust. It is this prescription for "curing American militarism" that Hoffman finds most reprehensible, especially since it's a solution that is discussed in only two pages of the entire book! Hoffman tries to envision what such a modern-day conscript force might look like, and it's not a pretty picture at all:
"A conscripted force would presumably be less adequately prepared for
major combat, since the force would be largely concentrated on
individual training of each year’s influx of trainees. Such a force
certainly would not be more efficient, as a larger number of trainers
and a larger infrastructure would need to be established to manage a
larger training pool of trainees conscripted for two-year enlistments,
compared to today’s longer term force. No doubt the force could be
trained in individual skills, but it would lack proficiency in higher
order, collective tasks. Such a force would be hardly competent in the
environment posed by the complex character of contemporary conflict."
Overall, Hoffman criticizes Bacevich for promoting the idea of an American military that "would consign both allies and our own forces to a more unstable world and increased risks" and trying to "to provoke rather than promote a serious debate." Although I am generally sympathetic to Bacevich's views on the need to keep the American military adventurism in check, the idea of a conscript force is one that I find too absurd. I also hate it when someone as intellectually and rhetorically gifted as Bacevich delves into polemics.
Also, Bacevich appeared on The Colbert Report last month to promote Breach of Trust. See video here.
No comments:
Post a Comment