New Zealand company to trial four-day work week

A New Zealand firm will be testing out a four-day work week in March and implement it in July if trials are successful, local reports said.

Perpetual Guardian, a trustee company, is purportedly the first major business in the country to do so, The Guardian reported on Friday (Feb 9).

The trial will take place for more than 200 employees in 16 offices in New Zealand over a period of six weeks, the NZ Herald said in a report.

Those who take part will not have any changes to their salaries, and they will not work longer hours for the four work days of the week – instead of working 40 hours a week, they will work for 32 hours.

“We have seen cases where employees work longer hours for fewer days of the week or they earn 75 per cent of their full-time salary, but that is not what we are doing here,” Perpetual Guardian founder Andrew Barnes told the NZ Herald.

Four-day work weeks have been tested in several countries such as Japan and the United States and in companies such as Amazon, Google and Deloitte.

In July last year, The Straits Times published a report about several Japanese companies offering such work weeks, with employees clocking the standard 40 hours a week over four 10-hour days instead of five eight-hour days.

IBM Japan has offered reduced hours since 2004. Employees may choose to work either 60 per cent or 80 per cent of the standard 40-hour workweek, with their salaries pro-rated accordingly.

In 2016, e-commerce Giant Amazon reportedly tested 30-hour work weeks for some employees at its Seattle headquarters.

Workers under the trials had the option to work Mondays to Thursdays and had to be in the office only from 10am to 2pm. The workers were paid as part-time employees, but received the benefits of a full-time employee who worked 40 hours per week.

According to the Ministry of Manpower’s statistics site, the annual average for total paid hours worked per employee in Singapore in 2016 was 45.5.

The figure was 45.1 as at September last year. Figures for the full year have not been released.

Remote Workers Are Outperforming Office Workers-Here’s Why

Have you seen any of these gimmicky office designs? Candy dispensers in conference rooms. Hammocks and indoor treehouses. Tech companies tend to be the worst offenders with the startup favorites: beer taps and table tennis.

Maybe there is fun for a moment when the candy bar drops — but does all that money spent on gimmicks deliver anything meaningful for the people who work there?

I have to wonder why company founders are trying so hard with these in-office “perks.” I get that the goal is to create collaboration and fun. But I think this is doing more harm than good. And research shows that the problem is only getting worse.

In fact, one study found that the number of people who say they cannot concentrate at their desk has increased by 16 percent since 2008. Also startling: The number of workers who say they do not have access to quiet places to do focused work is up by 13 percent.

It should not matter where people are getting the work done — as long as they are focused and working hard each day. This is one of the reasons why we founded Aha! on the premise and promise of remote work. Remote work is working for us. We are one of the fastest-growing software companies in the U.S. and a 100 percent distributed team.

I am not alone in this belief. Plenty of studies and surveys show the power of remote work when it comes to productivity.

Here are three reasons remote workers outperform office workers:

1. Productivity

With no office distractions and greater autonomy, remote workers have the freedom to get more done. This is something most people crave. According to a nationwide survey, 65 percent of workers said that remote work would give their productivity a boost. Another 86 percent said that working alone allows them to hit maximum productivity.

2. Teamwork

Despite the distance, remote workers make the best teammates. This is because that distance demands more communication. Without being able to lean on physical proximity, remote workers must reach out to one another frequently and with purpose. This leads to stronger collaboration and camaraderie. And all those long-distance video chats? An astounding 92 percent of workers say the video collaboration actually improves their teamwork.

3. Presence

Office life is littered with absences — workers who are calling in sick or sneaking out early to run an errand or get to an event on time. But remote workers do not need to make excuses. Since they are not tied to an office, they can design their workday to meet the demands of their lives. If they have a cold, they can work from home without spreading the germs to others. And if they need to run an errand, they can handle it quickly without losing a workday. This ultimately makes remote workers more present for their work and team.

These are just a few of the reasons that I say the most effective workers are the ones who do not work in an office. Remote workers are able to cut through the noise and focus on what really matters: meaningful work and being happy doing it.

No beer taps or hammocks necessary.

Remote workers or office workers — who do you think is more effective?

Flexible working vs. remote working – what’s the difference?

Being able to escape the 9-to-5, a culture of presenteeism and stifling office hierarchies is a dream many people crave – and the facts back it up. An estimated 14.1million workers want more flexibility in their work, according to The Guardian. But when it comes to asking your employer for changes in your work hours, or branching out on your own, it helps to understand the new terminology. Here’s what the new work language means.

So what does flexible working actually mean?

Think of this as the umbrella term for all the different types of work options now available to us. Flexible working simply means “any working schedule that is outside of a normal working pattern”, says FlexiWorkForce. It’s a way to work that suits your needs. If you’re in an office, flexible working could mean compressed hours (where you fit a week’s worth of hours into fewer, longer days), flexitime (where you work a set amount of ‘core hours’ and are flexible with the hours you work before and after these set hours) or annualised hours (where your number of hours for the year are set and when you choose to work – is up to you).

Is flexible working the same as remote working?

Sort of. Remote working is a type of flexible working, which means you aren’t commuting in to an office every day, and can also be referred to as ‘working from home’. Remote working means working from anywhere. In fact, some remote workers don’t even ‘meet’ their employers at all, instead, connecting with them digitally and from anywhere around the world. But for most of us, remote working ends up being based from our kitchen table or local café.

Do I have to be freelance to work remotely?

Not at all. Although remote working is hugely popular with freelancers, small business owners and start-ups, there are big changes happening in organisations, too. Research from the Institute of Leadership and Management found that working remotely has resulted in 13% performance increases – so it is a huge benefit to business. “It’s becoming increasingly acceptable, and beneficial, to implement more complex working patterns and reap the returns that they bring for both employers and their staff,” the research says.

So am I able to ask my boss to work flexibly?

In the UK, you have the right by law to ask your employer to work flexibly. There’s a good guide to the process at – although your employer can turn this request down. Then it’s up to you how you proceed. But things are changing in the workplace – now 77% of workers say that the option of flexible working would definitely make a job more attractive to them. The old-fashioned negative views of flexible working are dying out and more companies are recognising the great opportunities flexible working options offer them and their staff.All in all, the rise of flexible working shows that being ‘at work’ used to be a place you went to – now it’s more a state of mind.

5 Flexible Work Strategies And The Companies That Use Them

Policies like unlimited vacation and remote work help employees manage life’s demands. These companies make it work for the bottom line too.

Even small reductions in work hours can have long-term consequences on retirement security, benefits, health insurance, and job security. As many as 43% of people caring for their parents say that their professional career has suffered as a result of caregiving.

If we can create more flexible work options, the growing workforce whose parents are living longer can balance family obligations with work responsibilities in a creative and productive way.

There are many solutions that companies can explore in order to create more flexible work. Depending on the type of position and responsibilities, there is a flex strategy that will fit nearly every employee’s needs. Here’s a look at five flexible work strategies, and some of the companies that employ them.


Forget Bitcoin, Place Your Blockchain Bets

Bitcoin is overhyped. If you read my piece from earlier this spring – Spare the Bitcoin Spoil the Blockchain – you know I won’t be making any speculative bets on the crypto market. But what about blockchain, the distributed database and ledger system that powers bitcoin?

My quick take: There’s a lot of hype, a lot of talk and even more questions. But there is undeniably demand for solutions. Some analysts are projecting the market for blockchain-related products and services will reach $14 billion over the next several years. Interestingly, a lot of the buzz comes from technology companies that have nothing directly to do with blockchain. They talk-the-talk because the conversation is everywhere and so they want to be included, but few of them are actually helping their customers take advantage.

To gain some clarity, I spoke with Chris Kirchner, the co-founder and CEO of Slync, an intelligent, blockchain-based, platform that’s enabling blockchain deployment in the market. Slync is already running a number of pilots for enterprise clients and claims to offer a platform that makes getting started with blockchain fast and easy. My first question for Kirchner was around market adoption.

“No one has fully deployed blockchain in their supply chain yet. That said, many companies are actively piloting the technology around different supply chain use cases and seeing success. Once other pilots begin proving the business case, expect to see broader and more rapid adoption,” said Kirchner.

The application potential is broad. Blockchain could pave the way to faster transactions, easier compliance, more effective validation and lower costs. “We’re seeing a lot demand around asset tracking – really anything of value that exchanges multiple hands across the supply chain is a good use case for blockchain.”

The big benefits, according to Kirchner, are accountability, efficiency and transparency. “Anyone that’s ever run a global supply chain has known the deal. They’ve been hurt by a supplier. Whether it was an error, a shipping delay, a quality or safety issue. The point is, no one has been immune. Blockchain will deliver an improvement. It makes everyone more accountable by providing a clear, transparent view of a product’s journey by recording supply chain events – like an asset exchange from one party to the next — as they occur.”

The visibility created by blockchain —the ability for members to collectively track an asset on a distributed ledger— expedites decision making and reduces supply chain disputes. Today, when something goes wrong, there’s a blame game. Everyone ends up pointing fingers, legal battles ensue, “…and it ends up costing more in time and money than the actual shipment was worth,” said Kirchner. “With blockchain, there’s no need to point fingers or invest in lengthy investigations. Everyone can see who is at responsible, and when and where the breakdown occurred. It’s all there.”

While the potential benefits are immense, confusion around how to get started persist. As is the case with most emerging technologies, misinformation is deep.

For companies interested in testing blockchain across their supply chain, Kirchner said there’s four steps everyone needs to take: find a platform, pick an asset to track, identify the partners that will touch the asset, and agree on the critical information that needs to be collected and shared. “It may sound simple, but it all boils down to finding partners with similar goals for their supply chains. While network anchors can drive subordinates to participate, it misses the point.”

It is rare to witness a hyped technology live up to its billing. And while it may be too early a call with respect to realizing a grander vision of all-things-blockchain, in a pure supply chain context, it’s difficult to not jump on the current bandwagon.

Block chain delivers the transparency everyone says they’ve wanted. The collaboration it enables is based on a consensus protocol that quite literally exposes everyone’s hand. With that in mind, while blockchain’s adoption could be slowed by players that don’t want to have their bluffs called, I’m betting on a new, block-chain-based rules set that rewards everyone with good cards. It’s progress.

The Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Shaking Up Much More Than Money

Blockchain, the technology that underpins Bitcoin, may be poised to inspire solutions to key societal challenges, offering help with everything from trading carbon emissions to maintaining health records. But only if the companies and developers involved can agree on things.

That’s the argument Brian Behlendorf, the executive director of Hyperledger, an open-source project overseeing the development of various blockchain technologies, made Tuesday at Business of Blockchain, a conference organized by MIT Technology Review and the MIT Media Lab (follow the conference live on Twitter with the hashtag #bizofblockchain).

Behlendorf says that ongoing efforts to deploy these systems in different settings represent a technological shift with broad societal implications. “This is an opportunity to reinvent how much of the world works,” he said, speaking ahead of the event. “This isn’t just about finance.”

The blockchain on which Bitcoin is built serves as a distributed, cryptographically signed ledger that makes it possible track and verify payments without any centralized authority. The ledger is maintained by computers performing computations that eventually generate more bitcoins. The same distributed cryptographic approach can be used to verify all sorts of transactions (see “Why Bitcoin Could Be Much More Than a Currency”).

Among other sectors, the diamond industry is currently piloting the use of blockchain technology to  distinguish legitimately acquired diamonds from those sourced from conflict regions. By carefully examining the blockchain data supplied with each diamond, it should be possible to identify suspect diamonds and fraudulent transactions. Others are looking at how blockchains could verify carbon-trading deals or serve as a framework for securing digital health records, Behlendorf said.

One of the big challenges with Bitcoin and blockchain systems is their technical complexity and related questions about security. Hyperledger is meant to help with this issue by offering technical guidance and leadership to the community involved with developing its technology. This is also meant to help with some of the infighting within the Bitcoin community that has arisen as a result of its decentralized nature, threatening to undermine the currency even as its value rises.

Indeed, Behlendorf warned, the excitement and big claims surrounding Bitcoin and blockchains could turn them into victims of their own success. “There are over-inflating expectations right now,” he said.

But Behlendorf, who was previously the main developer for the world’s most widely used Web server software, Apache, remains bullish. He suggested that blockchain technologies could have the same transformational potential as the Web.

Bitcoin gained a huge amount of attention a few years after being released in 2009, as geeks dreamed of technological disruption to the world’s financial system and speculators spied an opportunity to profit from the currency’s ballooning value. Bitcoin’s own blockchain serves as the basis for a number of non-currency applications, but various alternative blockchains have emerged, too. Hyperledger is developing one that is designed to be more amenable to non-currency applications.

At the conference, speakers will discuss cryptocurrencies and other financial instruments, as well as various emerging blockchain applications. These include monitoring energy transactions, tracking supply chain logistics, and collecting payments for listening to music online.

Many of these applications are already here. The state of Delaware, for instance, is studying the use of blockchain technology from a company called Symbiont for business contracts. IBM and a Chinese company called Hejia recently announced a blockchain system for supply chain management.

Despite the challenges ahead, Behlendorf isn’t discouraged. “There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical, and there’s way too much hype,” he said. “But it’s a real opportunity to change the rules of the game.”

17 Blockchain Applications That Are Transforming Society

The early internet dealt with intangibles. You sent or received emails, corresponded on forums, read and distributed articles. This modern internet deals with assets, your most valuable immediate items that you can touch and want to protect. These assets are stored in encoded form on a network-to-network chain called the blockchain or ledger, where each participant sees who you do business with. This not only protects your business dealings and prevents theft, but, also, simplifies your affairs, quickens the process, reduces errors, and saves you from hiring a third party.

This decentralized blockchain system is going to change your life from the way you transact business or manage assets, to the way you use your machines, vote, rent a car, and even prove who you are. Along the way, it will transform banks and other financial institutions, hospitals, companies, and governments among others.

At its simplest, cryptocurrencies, or digital coins, are coins that are passed through an electronic network. You can make transactions by check, wiring, or cash. You can also use a type of virtual currency, most famously Bitcoin (BTC) but also Litecoin, Peercoin, or Dogecoin, among others, where you use an electronic coded address to make the transaction.

The more valuable the transaction, the more you want to protect it. Traditional systems hire a mediator, such as a banker or a remittance company to ensure trust. Islanders of Yap had a different solution. They kept a mental record of who owned what and referred to this distributed community record when disputes arose. The blockchain is this community record on a wider, digital scale. It extends across the globe, with computer users from Yemen, Rome, Vermont and so forth where each node in the network records and verifies the data of each transaction that occurs within the network. Records are permanent, comprehensive and public – which is why users love the blockchain for finagling questionable or risky transactions.

How it works

Each transaction is a digital ‘block’ that needs to be verified before it’s allowed to enter the system.

Questions include:

  • Is the money there?
  • Are sender and receiver reputable?
  • Is the request legitimate? And so forth.

Each computer on the network competes on unscrambling the answers, and the winning computer adds this ‘block’ to the ‘blockchain’ in the order that the ‘block’ arrived. The winner broadcasts his proof to the rest of the network, which checks that proof and verifies it before queuing the ‘block’ to complete the transaction. Parties involved are assured that participants have screened and okayed the transaction.

The process not only cuts down on fraud, such as double spending or spams, but also transfers funds simply, safely, and fast.


The Subtle Tyranny of Blockchain

The past months have become a new chapter in the evolution of blockchain technology. Ethereum’s fork in the wake of the DAO hacks. Bitcoin’s almost-fork in the wake of the (still unresolved) block size debate. All of this is leading to the growing frustration and even disillusionment of key figures in the crypto-currency community.

I left the Bitcoin community in 2012 for very similar reasons. In 2011, I was part of the group that helped Gavin Andresen design the Pay-to-Script-Hash (P2SH) feature. The design wasn’t very complex, it was backwards-compatible and provided crucial building blocks for improving Bitcoin’s security and performance.

Unfortunately, getting it deployed turned out to be very political. It was easy to extrapolate from this change to more advanced functionality still on the roadmap and get depressed about our chances to make important progress in the future. As the Bitcoin price rose, the number of stakeholders expanded and the amount of money at stake increasingly dominated the technical discussion.

Blockchains are systems of central state

With this context in mind, the recent situation with Ethereum is not surprising in the slightest. As a blockchain grows, the larger and highly vested userbase becomes more and more difficult to shepard. When combined with time pressure (i.e. the 27-day DAO split creation period), something had to give. There wasn’t enough time to get the sort of buy-in and preparation needed to safely hardfork a system like Ethereum.

At the root of the difficulty in updating blockchains is the need to maintain shared state. In any protocol, everyone has to act the same. But in a blockchain like Ethereum, everyone has to think the same. Everyone’s memory (also known as “state” in computer science terms) has to be exactly the same and evolve according to the same rules.

Shared state adds tremendous complexity and that has a big impact on developers: Blockchains are a pain to work with. Everyone who has done it knows what I’m talking about. The fact that blockchain has been largely ignored by major tech companies and embraced by the financial industry is partly because that industry has a relatively high tolerance for arcane and complex systems.

Harmony and consensus are valuable. If we didn’t agree on who is president or how much money is in anyone’s bank account, society would be unable to function. But harmony taken to the extreme becomes a detriment. In the Lego Movie utopia, “everything is awesome” only on the surface. Behind the scenes, there is tremendous diversity and a rapidly changing world, which doesn’t match the established consensus.

So how do we find the right balance between too much consensus and too little?

Xanadu and the Web

I expect that almost everyone is familiar with the World Wide Web. That’s probably where you are reading this very article. What you may not know is that there was a much older project, started all the way back in the 60s called Project Xanadu. Not only had Xanadu been around for longer, it also had a significantly more ambitious feature set than the Web. There would be no broken links in Xanadu and two-way links would be possible as well.

There are many reasons why the Web won in the end, but I believe its stateless architecture was critical to its success. Both Xanadu and the web are decentralized, but the web was much simpler. All it required was a minimal protocol and simple data format. No interaction was needed between websites, which meant that they could evolve independently from each other, and rather than waiting for the Xanadu creators to add a feature, many features that users cared about could be created just by changing a website or a client.

As active participants of the W3C and IETF, we’re always fascinated by the process by which the technology powering the web is updated. For instance, HTTP 2 was implemented under the name “SPDY” by Google who happened to control a number of web servers (Google Search, Gmail, etc.) and clients (Google Chrome). The fact that one corner of the system can be updated and good ideas can eventually spread to the system as a whole has been essential for the Web’s ability to keep pace with technological innovation.

A better way

What can the blockchain industry learn from Xanadu and the world of Web standards? Instead of blindly replacing centralized functions with blockchains, we should be thinking about ways to avoid having those functions be centralized to begin with. We need to build stateless protocols like the Web that can be incrementally improved upon in different corners of the system.

To illustrate what I am talking about, let’s consider the example of payments. Bitcoin is a replacement for existing centralized ledgers like the credit card networks. This is arguably a great idea. But Bitcoin still has a lot of shared rules that participants must agree to. I need to be on board with using proof-of-work as the consensus mechanism. I need to agree to the currency distribution function. I need to be ok with the block size limit. I need to accept the lack of anonymity.

By contrast, in adding one more layer of abstraction, the Interledger Protocol allows me to choose a ledger that has the consensus mechanism, the currency, the performance characteristics and the level of anonymity that I like and still seamlessly transact with someone who has made different choices in each of these categories.

That doesn’t mean that Interledger doesn’t require any agreement —we still need a common data format for instance. However, these choices aren’t going to affect me economically or politically nearly as much, which makes it easier to compromise. And, crucially, we don’t share global state, so at least our thoughts can be — once again — our own.

Real Global Unemployment Is 33%, Not 6%

Consider the world’s official figures on some of the major issues facing humanity. According to the United Nations, roughly 793 million people are undernourished; 767 million live in extreme poverty; and 2 billion do not have a safely managed water drinking service.

The global jobs situation? According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), unemployment is only 5.6%. That’s “only” about 260 million people. That feels low considering that for the past decade, Gallup’s World Poll surveys have continued to show that the entire world wants a good job.

The problem lies in how the world defines and measures unemployment. The ILO recommends a broad framework of labor force statistics to national statistics offices worldwide. Most countries collect these data using surveys.

These surveys ask people questions like, “Did you work 30 or more hours in the past week?” Then they ask whether they worked for an employer or themselves. If they aren’t employed, people are asked whether they are looking for work. The resulting data become the official employment statistics for the country.

You might assume that the world’s poorest countries have the highest unemployment rates and the richest countries have the lowest. Not according to the official unemployment figures. Some poorer countries such as Cambodia or Belarus boast some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world.

Rich countries such as France or the greater eurozone have at least three times the rate of unemployment of those poorer countries. In fact, there is no statistical relationship between GDP per capita and unemployment across all countries.

Here is the heart of the problem. Think of subsistence farmers in Africa or people selling trinkets on the street in India. Did they work 30 or more hours in the past week? Absolutely. Though their work is hardly meeting their needs, they still have what global agencies define as work. They are officially self-employed, which means they are not unemployed.

The reason official unemployment figures appear so low in some of these poorer countries is that so many of the truly unemployed are considered self-employed. In the developing world, the self-employed make up roughly 30% of the workforce. This can be confusing because when we hear “self-employed,” terms such as “small-business owner” or “entrepreneur” come to mind.

However, most of those categorized as self-employed in the developing world aren’t small-business owners or entrepreneurs. When you look at who lives on less than $2 a day, the self-employed appear almost identical to the unemployed. This is because most of these self-employed jobs aren’t really jobs.

So, What Is a Good Job?

Let’s consider a real job or a good job — the type of job the whole world wants — as at least 30 hours per week of consistent work with a paycheck from an employer. Based on this definition, 1.4 billion out of the world’s roughly 5 billion adults have a good job.

So who are the other 3.6 billion? About 1 billion people are self-employed; about 300 million work part time and do not want full-time work; about 400 million work part time but want full-time work; 260 million are unemployed; and the rest are out of the workforce. Not all of the self-employed are hopelessly unemployed, but we can conservatively estimate that at least half of them are.

Those 500 million added to the 400 million part-time workers who want full-time work and the unemployed total roughly 1 billion people who are truly unemployed. That figure of about 1 billion, which is just shy of one-third of the entire world’s adult workforce of 3.3 billion, would put global unemployment closer to 33% than to the 5.6% that the ILO estimates.

Measuring Whether People Love or Hate Their Jobs

There is another problem with current jobs metrics: There is no figure that measures the quality of people’s jobs.

I recently spoke with a global economist about measuring the quality of jobs. She told me her organization was hoping to accomplish this using two metrics: pay and benefits. The problem is that neither metric measures whether people love or hate their job. When people have a job they hate, they are more likely than people who do not work at all to rate their lives poorly.

One way to help quantify those intangibles is to ask people about their jobs and their work. Gallup does this through a metric known as employee engagement. Using a short list of questions, we categorize workers into one of three categories: engaged, not engaged or — worst of all — actively disengaged.

People who are engaged at work or, in other words, have a “great job,” can do what they do best, have the equipment to do their jobs effectively, and have a strong sense of mission and purpose in their work.

Gallup asked our engagement questions worldwide and found that between 2015 and 2016, out of the 1.4 billion adults who have good jobs, roughly 16% are engaged. Out of a global workforce of an estimated 3.3 billion adults who are working or looking for work, then, only 7% or 214 million people have a great job. This means about 3 billion people who want a great job don’t have one.

The dream of men and women around the world is to have a good job and, ultimately, a great job. Yet only 214 million people are realizing this dream. Global leaders need to make “great job” creation a top priority. Using better metrics to understand the real jobs situation is a start.

The 2018 Global Great Jobs Briefing is the latest of Gallup’s recent reports on the global workplace. The briefing updates the real jobs situation in 128 countries and shows where the greatest gaps remain between the good and great jobs that people want and need.

It complements the State of the Global Workplace report, which provides countries, leaders and organizations with actionable advice on what they need to close these gaps.

Find out how your country rates on good and great jobs in the 2018 Global Great Jobs Briefing.

Learn what countries, leaders and organizations can do to create great jobs in the State of the Global Workplace report.

Article Written By Jon Clifton, Global Managing Partner, Gallup.

Glassdoor’s sale for $1.2 billion shows how desperate we are to find better jobs

From a young age, we’re instructed about the importance of finding fulfillment in work. Many of us spend—at least—eight hours a day at work, so you better do something you love.

Yet most of us are not in love with our jobs, and the near-universal urge to look for fulfillment elsewhere has fueled the rise of a massive job-search industry and the sale of Glassdoor, the fast-growing job review site, for $1.2 billion.

Glassdoor announced on May 8 that it agreed to be purchased by Recruit Holdings, a Japanese HR technology company which also owns Indeed, the world’s largest online job board. Together, they give Recruit a potent array of tools for job seekers, and for employers.

Glassdoor’s employer-review model has proven wildly popular. The site, founded in 2007 and backed by venture capital, now contains more than 40 million reviews of more than 770,000 companies.

Behind its success is the same restless impulse that has led 560 million people to post their profiles on LinkedIn: Even workers with steady, full-time employment want more out of their careers.

At the heart of the jobs industry is society’s inability to efficiently match workers with their ideal careers. In surveys conducted by Gallup in 2015 and 2016, only 16% of workers globally who were in steady employment reported feeling engaged in their jobs. In a world with 3.3 billion adults working or looking for work, only 214 million, or 7%, have a great job—that is, they find their work meaningful and fulfilling.

Sites like Indeed and LinkedIn are working at developing better tools that match job seekers with their ideal jobs, and employers are increasingly turning to assessments powered by algorithms to identify the best fits for their companies.

But until technology can better sort the world of jobs and job seekers, there’s still a lot of opportunity for sites like Glassdoor that can make the job search just a little bit easier.

Read more: