It’s almost time to buy Valentine’s Day chocolates — but if you don’t have anybody to share ‘em with, maybe you need to update your resume?

A recent survey found that slightly over half of respondents aged 20 to 40 had used LinkedIn to find a date. The strategy went viral on TikTok last year when one woman raved, “I can filter for an education. MBA, baby. I can filter by industry. I’m looking at doctor, lawyer, finance bro.”

Still, we can’t endorse this approach. First off, if someone isn’t expecting a thirsty DM — and why would they on LinkedIn? — it’s gonna seem real weird. Plus, it violates LinkedIn’s policies to “pursue romantic connections”; if your account gets deleted, that’ll have long-term career consequences. 

If you’re determined to mix career and dating apps, you might have better luck getting hired on the latter than finding your soulmate on the former.

Open Talent: Not just for tech anymore

Politics: Is red vs. blue dividing your company?

(Source: Harvard Business Review Press)

COVID accelerated the growth of freelance work. At the onset of the pandemic, 3 in 4 hiring managers expanded their recruitment of independent contractors (often despite full-time hiring freezes). But unlike wiping down our groceries with Lysol, freelancing was no temporary trend.

In the new book Open Talent: Leveraging the Global Workforce to Solve Your Biggest Challenges, John Winsor and Jin Paik of Harvard Business School aim to equip business leaders with a shared language to navigate the evolving talent landscape. They spoke with b. together via email about the new-school versus old-school approach.

b.: What is open talent, exactly, and why is there no going back from it?

Winsor and Paik: Until now, the term “open talent” has mainly been associated with tech workers, but what we’re discussing goes beyond that … moving past just crowdsourcing and gig work.

In this post-COVID era, digital technology has allowed for the rise of a new class of creators and freelancers by radically reducing the cost of production. These micro-entrepreneurs look at work as a thing to do, fitting it into their lifestyles, instead of a place to go or a definition of who they are.

The other big contributing factor to the growth of open talent is the lack of talent. Korn-Ferry estimates that by 2030, there will be 85 million tech jobs that cannot be filled because of a lack of candidates, costing companies $8.5 trillion. The war for talent is over. Talent won. No matter who you are, the best talent doesn’t want to work for you.

b.: What kind of solutions are best sourced through open innovation? 

Winsor and Paik: Open innovation, often through contests or community engagement, taps into a diverse pool of perspectives and capabilities, recognizing the potential for groundbreaking solutions beyond the confines of traditional in-house approaches. Governments and corporations have experimented extensively with open innovation for centuries. … NASA and others found open innovation solutions 4 to 5 times cheaper and 8 to 10 times faster. 

b.:  Is open innovation limited to enterprise-level organizations?

Winsor and Paik: In fact, the flexibility and adaptability of open innovation make it a valuable strategy for businesses of all sizes and types, including small businesses such as restaurants. … The key is to tailor the open innovation process to fit the scale and specific needs of the business, ensuring that the costs are justified by the potential value of the ideas and solutions generated.

b.: Is it safe to say that businesses still need (some) full-time, in-house employees? How can leaders know when to leverage freelance talent and when to hire a candidate the old-fashioned way? 

Winsor and Paik: It’s a strategic balancing act, tailored to each project’s needs, the organization’s objectives, and the resources at hand. Often, the most effective approach blends these strategies, drawing on the strengths of each to forge a path to success …

The first step on this journey is to experiment by starting with something manageable — a minor project, perhaps, or a problem that doesn’t strike at the core of the business. … By establishing specific goals for their open talent initiatives and measuring their success, leaders can clearly see the impact and value of this new approach.

Open Talent is available now.

(Source: Shutterstock)

Dr. Ben Baran is an associate professor at Cleveland State University and co-founder of Elevating What Works.

Conversations about politics can be tricky — and in the workplace, you don’t want them to create conflict. It’s likely that people on your team have differing viewpoints on a variety of issues and candidates, and if those differences turn into arguments, you may have a real problem on your hands.

The big issue is that high-performing teams need people who trust each other, and arguing about deeply held political positions can damage that trust. They may even avoid each other completely. This may even happen if people simply know about another person’s views; they don’t even have to be arguing about it openly.

So what might be some ways to get ahead of this potential problem? 

Researchers recently provided a number of insights to guide your efforts. You can do this, they suggest, by remembering ART — Acknowledge, Respect, and Trust:

• • First, acknowledge what the team’s big goals are and find opportunities to recognize how each person’s efforts contribute to those goals. That helps everyone see how everyone else is important for success.
  • Second, build respect and connections within the team by highlighting what people have in common. If any team members seem to be disengaging, have thoughtful one-on-one conversations with them to dispel any myths about other team members.
  • Third, be a role model of trust within your team. Show others how to be respectful by demonstrating curiosity and empathy with others.

Some circumstances might call for you to address political polarization in your team head-on. As a general rule, if it’s affecting performance or engagement, step in. When you do, address the topic in a caring way. 

Agreeing to disagree on political issues is totally acceptable, so long as all parties involved continue to work together respectfully.

• • 1920: Henry Leland reorganized his military engine company, Lincoln Motors, into an automobile manufacturer. He sold Lincoln to the Ford Company for $8 million two years later. 
  • 1989: AT&T reported its first loss ($1.67 billion) in over 100 years. 
  • 2004: The Mydoom virus first hit computers in North America. It’s the most destructive computer worm in history (so far), causing $38 billion in damages to businesses and individuals.

Written by Ali Saleh. Comic by John McNamee.