The Happy at Work Podcast

Employment is Dead: Reimagining Work in the Digital Age with Josh Drean

• The Happy at Work Podcast • Season 6 • Episode 8

Share episode

Send us a text

In this episode, Josh Drean challenges traditional employment models and explores how emerging technologies are reshaping the future of work. From remote work dynamics to decentralized organizations, Josh shares insights on why current workplace structures are failing to meet modern workforce needs and what the future might hold.

In This Episode, You'll Learn:

  • Why traditional employment models are struggling to adapt to modern workforce needs
  • How emerging technologies like blockchain and DAOs could transform workplace structures
  • Why workplace flexibility is becoming non-negotiable for talent retention
  • How younger generations are reimagining work through digital platforms and gig economy opportunities
  • The shift from measuring time-based metrics to value-generated output

Quotable Moments:

"Zoom and Slack are not a workplace. They are tools that we use to do remote work. What we need is a workplace." - Josh Drean

Practical Takeaway:

Organizations need to shift from controlling how work gets done to measuring the value and output being generated. This means building trust-based relationships with employees and providing flexibility in how they accomplish their work.

Resources Mentioned:

Connect With Our Guest:

This episode challenges traditional workplace paradigms while offering practical insights into how organizations can adapt to meet evolving workforce expectations and technological capabilities.

To stay connected and continue the conversation, be sure to follow us on LinkedIn.

And don't forget to check out our previous episodes for more tips and strategies to boost your workplace happiness. You can find them on your favorite podcast platform or on our website.

If you have any questions, comments, or topic suggestions for future episodes, please reach out to us. We'd love to hear from you!

Stay inspired, stay motivated, and stay happy at work!

Laura Hamill:

Music, welcome back for another episode of the happy at work podcast with Laura Tessa and Michael.

Tessa Misiaszek:

Each week, we have thoughtful conversations with leaders, founders and authors about happiness at work.

Michael McCarthy:

Tune in each Thursday for a new conversation. Enjoy the show.

Tessa Misiaszek:

Hi and welcome to the happy at work podcast. We are so excited to have Josh dream here with us today. Josh is an advisor to the Harvard innovation labs, co founder of the work three Institute, and co author of the forthcoming book, employment is dead, published by Harvard Business Review. It's coming out in January of 2025 and endorsed by Adam Grant. So lots to talk about this podcast, but welcome Josh to the happy at work podcast.

Josh Drean:

Tessa, Michael, thanks so much for having me. So

Tessa Misiaszek:

let's just jump in, Josh, tell us a little bit about your journey and what has led you to write a book called employment is dead.

Josh Drean:

Yeah. And I feel like we do need to define that a little bit, because it's a it's a very bold statement, and I feel like most HR professionals will tune out immediately. Oh, so HR is dead, huh? Ai killed it. That's not, not what we're saying at all. Rather, we are talking about emerging technologies and how it's changing the way we work and our preferences for work. So I am squarely rooted in the employee experience employee engagement world, very much interested in, how do we engage our people in a way that gives them a work life balance, that helps them be their best selves, so that they can, you know, work at a way that provides value for the company. And we've seen so many challenges over the past few years with that, haven't we? So the purpose of this podcast, right happy at work is to figure out, how can we be happier at work. And I think there's two camps. There are individuals who will say the ownership is on the employee. Like you own your life. You are the master of your own destiny. What can you do within the structure to be able to make the most of it and be happy? There are others who say it's the leader's job. You know, executives are in charge of the people that they hire to bring on and work for them, if they want more productivity, then they should provide a better work life balance. The book takes a different approach. We believe that it's the structure of work that traditional models for employment are failing to adapt to the needs of the modern workforce, and as we try to stay within the rigid confines of employment, we are losing top talent, and we need to figure out how and why, because it's a problem today, but it will continue to be a problem so much so that, you know, businesses won't just be losing top talent, they will be losing everything. And so we we write about that in the book.

Michael McCarthy:

So I'm curious, what about the current structure of work? Do you think is inhibiting engagement, and what changes does your book suggest organizations make?

Josh Drean:

Yeah, we don't need to beat a dead horse, right? We've all seen the Gallup polls that employee engagement is in the toilet, right? It's 79% around there of employees are either not engaged or actively disengaged, and there's not enough people asking why this is such a dismal fact and why employees are disengaged. In my philosophy, is if we just ask them what they want and what they need, they'll tell us, and then it's up to us to actually provide that. So when you look at, say, a traditional model for employment, the goal is short term shareholder value. How do we provide the most value possible for shareholders? And a lot of times, that shareholder experience takes precedence over the employee experience, so much so that employees just feel like they're a cog, that they feel like they are generating plenty of value to the company, but they're only seeing minimal returns on that. And so I think when you really look under the hood and decide, how can we engage people more, it's the things that we're kind of unwilling to do, like they want flexibility, they want remote work, that's been very clear, and we are not allowing that to happen in certain ways in certain organizations. I know it's situational, but for the most part, employees want flexibility. Are we willing to give them a bit of ownership in the company, not just arbitrary stock that vests over time? This is contribution based compensation, a stake in the work that you in the value that you generate. So there's we call it the 10 operating principles of work, three the non negotiables of the modern workforce. And I ask people leaders all over the world, if you can't give this to employees, why should they work for you? They're seeking alternate and more attractive means of work at this time because they're not getting their needs met.

Tessa Misiaszek:

So I'm super curious. Josh, because I hear from companies that they're constantly battling this, this remote versus return to Office, versus hybrid work model, and the car fair Institute, we just did a workforce survey of 10,000 workers across the globe. And when you look at flexibility, it's, I mean flexibility is right behind compensation. I mean compensation always and will be number one why people stay in jobs, look for jobs, and so forth, but a close second in many instances, especially for those who are actually Gen X boomers, kind of the older generation, those in executive positions, they're wanting more flexibility. And I could spend a whole podcast talking to you about why I think that is, but it's kind of interesting that in that in the light of such data from Gallup, from corporate Institute, and what you're referring to, that more and more companies are now saying return to work or return to Office five days a week, and that they're even asking people to return to corporate headquarters that might be in different states and where they moved during the pandemic. And so what's your kind of take on that? And how do you feel like the market is responding to do you think it's a power play, really, between the market and employees as to who's going to kind of win in this battle of return to Office, versus remote versus hybrid? And where do you think we're going to

Josh Drean:

land? Yeah, I mean, the fact that we are so entrenched in an employer market right now, where they're the job market is very difficult to find a job. There's not a lot of openings. We're seeing layoffs happening. Employers have all the power, and they still are failing effectively, to get 100% of their people back in the office. Imagine when it just ticks back even a little bit, the power that employees will wield, it will be immense, and we can blame any layer, right? There's the real estate, there's the efficiency, there's we're just better as a team. So we need to all come back, right? I look all the way at the base of the problem, which is, I think employers are worried that the disengagement that employees are experiencing will continue to play out at home, so much so that they are taking naps, they're not working, they're doing the laundry, they are not working. And employees are saying, but look at the benefits, right? We're saving on a commute, which is saving not only money, but the environment. We are working later into the day, because we are in meetings all day. We're pulling up our laptops. So I feel like because we're working more, we should be allowed to pick up our kids from school, help them get settled and then get back to work. So I think a rigid model is not going to work. We see Amazon doing a very strong control push right now, and we'll see how that shakes out. We're seeing other organizations doing that. We're also seeing mid sized businesses who very much see this. They see who's doing layoffs. They're seeing who's doing RTO, and they essentially put out an offer you get to work remote. It's going to cost us nothing. It's a perk that you really, really, really want. So I think the data is clear. You know, 67% of employers have lost talent to remote work opportunities in 2024 what's that going to look like in 2025

Michael McCarthy:

so these are excellent points, and I'm going to ask for your advice on what I've seen as a consultant and organizations pretty much doing the same thing you are what they've noticed with remote workers who are on zoom with brainstorming, the creativity has dropped that those the water cooler moments, just the little things that just kind of pop up when you're having lunch together. That has dropped. Loneliness has increased among our remote workers, but they're really hesitant to share that because they don't want it to be weaponized as a reason to come back to work remote workers, or I should really say, everyone, including our younger workers, want connection, and it's harder to have connection on remote and one thing that I've been hearing, which I'm really surprised coming from remote workers, and I've heard this multiple times, is they're saying, Who needs culture? Culture doesn't matter. And I'm curious, how can they be happy at work and really get their fulfillment and connection if they are remote and have that creativity that you typically do get by being in person, how do we how do we make everything work in this any any thoughts?

Josh Drean:

Yeah, I agree. Remote work, as it stands today, is terrible in terms of the tools that we're using. And I like to say zoom and slack are not a workplace. They are tools that we use to do remote work. What we need is a workplace. You're absolutely right. Serendipitous connections at the water cooler need to happen. Being able to run up to my boss real quick and get a quick answer to something instead of having to find time on your schedule and having to reschedule, and I don't get an answer for a few days, like all of the pains of remote work are real, but it's because we don't have a workplace. And my argument is like, let's keep pushing into the future to embrace a digital workplace. My son is. Eight years old. He loves to be social. But the way that he is social in today's world is he gets together with his friends in Roblox. ROBLOX is an expansive, immersive world where he gets to be with people. He gets to go on adventures. He gets to learn to collaborate. He gets to earn currency and spend currency and build a whole society in this way, we have friends across the street that will come knock on the door and be like, Hey, can you play cool, slam the door and go back home so that they can get on Roblox together. This is such an organic way that the younger generation is collaborating together, that if we can embrace a virtual office and digital twins and AI, that makes it all possible, these emerging technologies will bring back a lot of the elements that you're talking about, so we get the best of both worlds.

Tessa Misiaszek:

I think that's so interesting. And you know, when we think about the workplace and engagement, you mentioned employee engagement, and then at the very top of the podcast, you mentioned also sentiment analysis and kind of the work you did it sounds like earlier in your career. Can you talk a little bit more though about how you think what is the difference between sentiment analysis and employee engagement, and how do you think we can really capture what people are feeling about work through sentiment analysis, and how can that help inform strategies about should people be remote? Should people be hybrid? Should people be in these digital workplaces? Like let us know your thoughts on that piece.

Josh Drean:

I love it. I'll try and keep it concise. Let's just make sure that trust is the foundation of any of the comments that I'm about to make. Self reported sentiment analysis has not worked because there's a lack of trust in organizations. There are plenty of stats that have come out that show especially frontline workers do not trust their leaders at work, and so why should they be honest there? So it's not about building a better engaged experience with employees, it's about the relationship. Are we building a partnership or a contract? How do you want your employees to work for you? And then what are we measuring? Right? In the old ways, we used to measure time, time spent in the office, time spent at your desk and with AI, we're getting so granular to the point where a lot of CEOs are getting excited about being able to count keystrokes or email sent or eye tracking software, right, like the amount of sentiment analysis that is not self reported that we can collect is scary to say the least. And I just want to remind us that, like are we just trying to track, you know, old school metrics that will allow you to see everything that's going on and just pick out the one guy who's not doing as well, and then either fire them or promote them whatever you do. Or are we looking at output? If you are still kind of in this micro managing control, we need to measure the old things. That was an outdated process decades, decades ago. What we need to be measuring is value generated output, productivity. Is the work getting done. If the works getting done is getting done. Well, even though you can't control as much, that should be a sign that things are working. And again, that's that's the trust element, which is kind of a hard thing to give up.

Michael McCarthy:

I think you're spot on with that. A few years ago, we interviewed the CEO of Rico USA, and Carsten Brun manages about 15,000 people, and he basically said the same thing, I measure output, not input, and if you're doing well at home, that's going to have a trickle down positive effect in the office. It seems to be working for him. But I wanted to share with you two statistics also coming from Gallup, one of my favorite places to get the stats, and one of their statistics was that 70% of your engagement is reflective of your boss. So if your boss is engaged, 70% is going to trickle down to you. If they're not, that's going to trickle down as well. And really shocking statistic, only about 15% of managers are comfortable managing the hybrid environment. So I'm wondering if you think the tough spot or the friction is with the manager, and if so, what should we do about that?

Josh Drean:

We are now getting into the probably next iteration that we talk about in the book, right, which is decentralized work environments, so web three, daos, Blockchain, all of this really hot, really buzzy a year ago or so now, it's kind of falling off. Has so many implications for work, right? Because it sounds like when we're talking about this, again, the structure allows us to only talk about being happy at work within these confines. All we're talking about is, how can you be a little bit more happy in this pretty terrible environment where you're not even doing anything that's fulfilling to you? Whereas, again, we see like these younger generations building tiktoks. Shops, and they are building worlds in roadblocks, and they are doing things that actually fuel their passions, allow them to be creative, which is quite lost in the corporate world. So what I like to say is that a decentralized environment will allow some of that passion to come back into play. Imagine a Dao, a decentralized, autonomous organization. The way that it works is, it is to answer your question. Is void of management. There is no hierarchy. Here it is the collective wisdom of the group. And you can use a tool like snapshot for anyone to say, we want to go this way. We want to go this way. We want to go that way. You all vote on it, and whichever vote gets the most is the direction that you head. So we don't need management as a tool anymore to sit above us tell us which buttons we need to push, how often we need to push them, and guide us as if it were the assembly line. We need your creative power, and we need you to be passionate about the work that you're doing. The only way that we can do that is if you become an active decision maker if you own a part of the work that you're generating, if you have the flexibility to work in certain ways. So I think that the answer to your question is, let's get rid of this outdated tool of management that doesn't serve us anymore, in favor of the collective wisdom. Okay,

Tessa Misiaszek:

I we're gonna need you to come back, Josh, because, listen, we're just getting started, and you just, I mean, kind of went down a road of, can we reimagine the workplace and stop trying to, even in a remote sensor in a digital sense, try to replicate a traditional work setting in an Office Online, and try to run it that way? What you're now saying is, let's just, let's throw the whole model out, right, and let's completely reimagine what a company looks like, what what the organizational structures are, and make it more around a populace, or almost, it sounds like you're saying democratizing Leadership in a way that allows companies to really have the people decide which direction the company is going in, and kind of have all the accountability shared among the masses. Is that, is that? What you're suggesting, I am

Josh Drean:

suggesting that to bring it back full circle, if you can't engage your employees and design an experience that they love, that they want, they will find attractive alternatives to work that exist outside of the traditional corporate structure. And when that happens, you're not going to be jumping from job to job. Great resignation. 2.0 is going to look like jumping to the gig economy, where you're mixing and Max matching several streams of income, or you're able to start a Dao, where you are working with like passionate individuals on a project that excites you on your own term.

Tessa Misiaszek:

Okay, so, so a Dao, and I'm so sorry. I feel so incredibly naive in this conversation, and I've been in this, in this business, for 35 years. So this is so illuminating. So a Dao is basically a shared project. So if you have a bunch of gig workers who are kind of working together, you could elect to be part of an organization and work on a shared projects for a period of time. Is that essentially what that describes, I've never heard that term before,

Josh Drean:

yeah, simply, without going into too much detail, the way that it would look like is, instead of a self reported resume that you wrote down yourself, give it to the organization, they have to verify that you actually have the skills. What if all of your projects that you've ever done, all of the skills that you have, are actually imprinted on the blockchain you've done them? We know you have these skills. It's not just a piece of paper coming out of school. We know you've done it that will allow AI to make match you on projects that match your preferences, that matches your skill set, and you don't have to work for one organization. You could work for several organizations on several projects, and continue to build that pedigree independent of the tools that we're using today.

Tessa Misiaszek:

Are there parts of the world that are doing this now? There

Josh Drean:

are definitely some like web 2.5 versions of this, right? We're moving to towards a skills based marketplace, and that is kind of the beginning step. I just take it a step further. Why do this internally for one company, when you could own your own company, which is your own personal brand, and shop yourself around to a lot of different places and make more money. So

Michael McCarthy:

I used to teach a course on blockchain when it first came out. So blockchain and dials, it's, it's interesting to have this start to see, like, where has it evolved? But as we close out, because I'd love to spend a few days talking to you about this. I'm curious about your perspective on really two things. So the tension that I'm seeing might be generational. You know, management's older. They have a different culture, they have different value system, and it seems to be quite different from younger generations. I actually know both generations pretty well. It's really not that different, but right now it seems to be perceived that way when you add in the fact. Fact that most Americans cannot afford to retire. And to give you a statistics from Fidelity, if you're 65 you're going to need about $2 million to retire and be pretty comfortable. You can't go crazy, but you're not going to have to be too economical. So 2 million is pretty much an easy number. The average 401, K balance in the US is about$45,000 which means these people are not going to be able to retire. And what I'm seeing in the future, and I'm just trying to use a little common sense in my crystal ball, which is probably not going to be accurate, is if these older people can't retire, they want to keep their jobs, they're culturally aligned with the value system of older management. And do you think that older management would say, I'm going to start seeing these older workers as attractive because we get each other, and that's going to be competition for the younger generations? I'm I'm curious if that, if those demographics are are something that play into what you're thinking, oh, one

Josh Drean:

100% you're absolutely right, right? People are staying in jobs longer. Leadership roles are not being passed down as fast as they have in the past. And the most poignant is that empowerment feels like a thing of the past. The younger generation doesn't even think that is possible, especially as they are graduating with loads of debt. 56% of college graduates right now are working high school level jobs, so they're not even getting into the system that promised employment at the end of their college degree, and 51% of them have to work a side hustle just to make ends meet when you're working two jobs just to pay for rent. We're not even talking about retirement. We're not even talking about we're not even in the same world at that point. And so I think the younger generation is abandoning a lot of these ideals of work is because it just isn't serving like I'm not going to retire. I'm not even going to be able to pay for life right now, so I'm going to prioritize living right now over work. They're fighting against that narrative that you need work to make you happy, and that alone is going to change the way we work more dramatically than anything else. Well,

Michael McCarthy:

I get that, but the point I was trying to make is that there's another workforce out there that might compete with their opportunities, where an older person who can't afford to retire, who's 6065 right now, might say, I'll come to work. I'll work for for health insurance or benefits, and I'm happy to you know, fit into the culture which agreed it was old. How do you think the younger generation is going to handle having that kind of competition? Do you think they would change or go to Yeah, I

Josh Drean:

mean, it's a good question, honestly, from my standpoint, I don't think they even consider that competition. In the normal situation, it's like, go get a college degree, go get a job at a nice health care company, work your way up the ladder and make it work, right? They're already seeing that there's not enough jobs available for them to get a corporate job. They're forced to do something different. So, so, and maybe that 65 year old is like, I obviously get the job because I have decades of experience over you. It's a no brainer, so I'm going to fit into that, right? It doesn't even seem like competition, it's and so what does Gen Z do with that information? They have to find out what's best for themselves, which unfortunately, is a short straw, it feels.

Tessa Misiaszek:

But as you said, to bring it back kind of full circle, they're reinventing the workplace, and they're reinventing the way in which they find work, and if the traditional corporate structures are not giving them jobs, then it's about how do I get my resume or my skill sets out there to people who need these skills to be applied to projects, and I can gig across 10 different projects rather than working for one company. And that's what it sounds like. Is kind of the future of where we might see this all going.

Josh Drean:

Yeah, I will just say that when you look at the value generation within these platforms of Fortnite and Roblox, when I say that, I feel like a lot of times, people are just like, Oh, it's a video game. It's not it is it immersive, interoperable worlds? It literally is the metaverse that exists today. And as a normal kid who's interested in playing in this, communities can build through the developer program, I can build my own world. I can invite communities in. We can generate value and income, real world income that we can use to pay rent. The average Roblox developer last year made $62,000 doing something that they love. It's developing worlds and inviting people in. That's not for everybody, but the fact that you can earn a full time income doing something you love and still pay for rent to no brainer,

Tessa Misiaszek:

wow. Well, there's Josh. We're just scratching the surface. So thank you so much for coming on and and I cannot wait to read your book employment is dead, which comes out in January, and we'll definitely do a book review on. The podcast, and would love to have you back, if you're willing, that

Josh Drean:

would be wonderful. Thank you so much.

Michael McCarthy:

We hope you've enjoyed this episode. If you'd like to hear future episodes, be sure to subscribe to the happy at work podcast and leave us a review with your thoughts. Are

Tessa Misiaszek:

you interested in speaking on a future episode, or want to collaborate with us. Let us know you can send us an email at admin, at happy, at work, podcast.com,

Laura Hamill:

and lastly, follow us on LinkedIn or Twitter for even more happiness. See you soon. You

People on this episode

Head Shot

Laura Hamill, PhD

Host
Head Shot

Michael McCarthy

Host
Head Shot

Tessa Misiaszek, PhD

Host
Head Shot

Braden Misiaszek

Producer