Why Contract Work is a Smart Move for Brands and Workers

A new Wall Street Journal post only confirms what we should already know—employers don’t really want to ‘hire’ us.

At least once every two weeks, I get a flattering email from a brand looking to bring in a director-level digital strategist.

“Based on your experience, you seem like an ideal fit for our team.”

Many of the companies are well-known, respected brands with deep teams of smart marketers doing great work. I’m flattered, so much so that I often agree to a Skype chat or a phone call to make their affection official and my piqued interest real.

Recruiter/hiring lead: “We’re building a [content strategy team], and we’re looking for someone who [understands content strategy in relation to search]. Your skills make you seem like a great fit.”

Me: “Thanks. … The role sounds interesting. I’m familiar with the excellent work your content strategy and search teams are doing. …”

Recruiter/hiring lead: “… Are you mobile?”

Me: “I’m not a good fit for an internal role. I’ve done my time as a salaried employee. It’s not a good fit for my goals, interests and work style. I most enjoy being able to work with multiple brands, not one. Plus, I would not move simply for a job.”

The conversation tends to trail off after I utter the last two sentences.

They say “Let us know if you change your mind.”

I always think, “They’re probably saying, ‘This guy must be a royal a — h — e.’”

They want a butt in the seat who’s available to meet face-to-face daily with internal stakeholders. I want to be an external teammate, someone who can help a team or a project, but who won’t be a drag to the bottomline as headcount and who can go and come with the demand for my services.

What I’m really saying is “Why should I allow you to fire me?”

The new reality: contract work

I often tell people that I began consulting in 2011 for two reasons:

• The job offers that materialized weren’t positions I desired
• I don’t make for a good internal employee (more on that below)

Both of these are “alternative facts”—true, but far from the real reasons I hung out a shingle.

I’ve known since I was 12 years old that I wanted to own a business; the experiences of working in corporate America (e.g., ineffective managers, who-you-know-not-what-you-know politics, etc.) only solidified those views.

Plus, it’s empowering to cherry-pick the clients/brands you want to work with and, most important be able to do meaningful work for them without distractions or fear of hearing the dreaded, “You’re fired!”

Also, because so many brands are farming a lot of their plum assignments, you’re able to do contract work that’s fun and short-lived.

The train we should have seen coming.

As a recent Wall Street Journal article [The End of Employees] makes clear, contract work is a reality many employees and would-be employees must wrap their heads around-fast.

“Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people.”

The article cites examples from brands such as Virgin America, Wal-Mart, Google and Pfizer, among others, making the case that contract work isn’t the way of the future.

It’s the way of now:

“The contractor model is so prevalent that Google parent Alphabet Inc., ranked by Fortune magazine as the best place to work for seven of the past 10 years, has roughly equal numbers of outsourced workers and full-time employees, according to people familiar with the matter.”

It all adds up.

By hiring contractors, brands can more easily run lean and mean—that is get more done without the drag to the bottomline from headcount.

More contractors means…

• Fewer full-time employees
• The ability to quickly ramp up or ramp down staff as sales ebbs and flows
• Less overall expenditures for wages (as opposed to fixed salaries, benefits, etc.)

(Depending upon the industry, the gross revenue expended for salaries and benefits can range from 10% to 60%)

When viewed through this prism, contract workers are a win-win for corporations..

For would-be employees of those companies, the reality is austere.

• Lower pay
• No fixed salary and benefits
• Zero job security

The article talked primarily about how detrimental contract work is for internal contractors—those working internally at the brands, doing work that would typically be done by a salaried employee.

For those people contract work certainly can be a difficult pill to swallow.

However, that’s painting contract work with a very broad brush.

The silver lining of contract work

Anyone reading the WSJ article should have asked themselves two questions:

• What about the people who aren’t looking for full-time work? Might this be a good thing for them?
• If this is the new reality, shouldn’t we plan for it?

Talk to anyone who’s been downsized and they’re often quick to highlight how they’d love to work for themselves but either the timing isn’t right, their finances aren’t in a good spot or they need more time to pull everything together.

For these people, contract work can be a boon.

An internal role could allow them to remain gainfully employed, keep their skills up and, possibly, open the door for them to have the brand as a client when they go out on their own.

What’s more, contract work is also hugely beneficial for the self-employed, many of whom pick up the gigs as part of their regular work cycle.

Many times, brands are willing to farm out a significant portion of their work to freelancers.

These assignments often pay well, don’t require you to get bogged down with minutiae from internal stakeholders and are short-term, meaning you aren’t stuck doing work you don’t enjoy.

In fact, for the self-employed, or those folks who are burned out from working in an office, contract work is preferable to dealing with long-term clients, assignments.

As more and more brands make this reality even more prevalent, employees will either adapt or prepare to see “work” in a whole new light.

What are your thoughts on contract work?