Don’t say you’re swinging from vines; say you’re “high-end temping.” Last week, we looked at a Harvard Business Review article about “supertemps”—top managers “who’ve been trained at top schools and companies and choose to pursue project-based careers independent of any major firm.” And we asked whether that sort of temping is a good way forward for our society and economy.
Reader Sergio said yes, but stop rebottling old wine:
Use of the term ‘supertemp’ seems more of a gimmick than a realization that with a smartphone/laptop/tablet/computer in hand, ‘everyone owns a factory’ (Seth Godin), and because of this, the traditional structure of an organization is changing.
Reader Maverick18 also said, yes, bring on this new type of worker:
With an aging population with immense expertise, consultants and temps are a super source of skills as well as work ethic. . . . Fringes, unions and long commitments are avoided. Consultants and temps represent the evolution of a competitive labor supply. Those who provide the best value for their price are always backlogged.
And reader Holly Hope saw some good and bad:
The main drawbacks I see to the high-end temp phenomena are (1) corporate knowledge is not retained in the corporation (2) the corporate equilibrium will try to counter any changes made after the temp leaves, to bring the system back into equilibrium. If the temp is an effective change manager, then (2) may not be such a drawback. I think that the super-temp trend is generally good for the super-temps, if they can balance personal and work life.