10 years from now.

Where will we work? Who will we be working with? What will the work place be like? How will we communicate? What will communicators be called? How does the smart communicator prepare?

If most days you feel there's just no way you can handle everything on your plate, take-heart. Trends point to some relief after all these years of doing more with less and trying to cram career and personal life into what seems like an ever-shorter day.

The trendy term to describe where we might be working 10 years down the road is: distributed work. This can mean anything from a home work space to a satellite corporate office to a vehicle equipped with cell phone, fax, modem and porta-potty.

Where will we be working?

Two changes in society are facilitating the distributed work phenomenon, says Joseph Coates, futurist and president of Coates & Jarret, Inc., Washington, D.C. Those changes are:

1 - Employers want to save money

2 - The rise of two-income and single-parent households creates a need for more work flexibility.

Coates indicates that the two-to-three percent of distributed work done today will increase to 20-25 percent by the year 2005.

The one downside to this that could affect communicators is what Coates refers to as an "information sweatshop." He writes in the publication Employee Relations Today that as we move away from direct supervision of the employee to supervision of the task, it will spur intense competition among temporary, part-time, contract workers and others in a downward spiral of competitive bidding, leading to the possibility of an information sweatshop.

Another futurist, slightly cheerier, describes the distributed work phenomenon this way: Companies will create "enterprise networks" - virtual organizations that link people in widely scattered locations around shared missions and common tasks. So says Phil Burgess, president and CEO of the Center for the New West, a Denver-based think tank, writing in a recent issue of Forbes ASAP magazine.

And on a much happier note for communicators, he adds: "Leadership in the information age will favor those skilled in symbol manipulation (journalism, public relations, acting and advertising.)"

Who will we be working with?

Probably one of the most controversial thoughts on the subject of who might make up the work force 10 years from now comes from venerable management guru Peter F. Drucker. Popular thinking suggests the work force will be diverse, with perhaps a majority of women. Drucker isn't so sure.

Writing in the October 17, 1994 issue of the Wall Street Journal, he says:

"In any work that requires skill or confers status, men's jobs and women's jobs have been distinct and separate throughout all but the last few decades of history, in all cultures and civilizations. ... In knowledge work today, however, men and women increasingly do the same jobs and are competing and working collegially in the same arena.

"This is still an experiment-though practically all developed countries (beginning, of course in the United States) are engaged in it. For all anyone can know so far, the experiment may fail and be abandoned or sidelined after a few decades. I consider this unlikely, but it cannot be ruled out."

Drucker goes on to point out that women working outside the home is a reversal of history. His observations are included here only to show how social and cultural changes drastically affect what the work world might be like some years in the future. Similar unforeseen events might include a global war, reversal of the international trade trend and a drift toward isolationism, or other dramatic, sweeping changes in direction.

Rather than women leaving the work place altogether, perhaps a more realistic possibility might be women leading the way in adopting distributed work, or working at home.

The purpose of pondering any of these "what if" scenarios is simply to consider: What impact would they have on the work place and on the communication function?

What will the work place be like?

When machines pulled agricultural workers from the field to the factory during the Industrial Revolution, the work force, and the work place, changed dramatically. Today, 60 percent of Americans are information workers, and that fact will just as dramatically change the work place as the move from field to factory.

Some social scientists have suggested that as technology continues to displace workers in the years ahead, simply having a job could indeed become a privilege not enough work to go around. The biggest problem that raises is: How do we distribute wealth? Considerable communication to taxpayers, workers, politicians and others would be required to help implement any such dramatic policy change which, in effect, would pay people to permanently stay out of the work force.

In addition to fragmenting geographically through distributed work, a likely scenario for tomorrow's work place shows it growing increasingly democratic - computer networks that essentially make all participants equal already are leveling the hierarchy. One question: Is the work place likely to become more of a forum for political debate than it is today? Today's unmanaged E-mail systems invite that kind of free-for-all activity that might be either good or bad for employees and employers - it would most certainly, however, be different from today and would most certainly have serious communication implications.

Another question along those lines: If downsizing continues and work forces are reduced further, will increased labor organization occur, especially among heavily disrupted white collar management ranks? If so, what challenges would this activity suggest for communicators?

What will the communicator be called?

As humans struggle to keep up with computers, and computers struggle to keep up with wave after wave of change in the work place, at least one communicator suggests we seize the opportunity to swap our designation of communicator to "director of change." Writing in last month's Communication World, Dave Freeland, says: "It sounds faster, is organizationally focused, and tells it like it is." Before you dismiss the thought that you might have "Director of Change" on your future business card, consider it wasn't long ago that human resources folks were called personnel managers. And, I just read recently that physical education teachers are becoming practitioners of Kinetic Wellness. Change comes in all forms.

What are the issues driving organizational communication today?

We began this peek into the future by asking IABC leaders and members what issues are the most important in determining direction and action in the communication field today. If we know where we are, maybe we can get a better idea of where we're headed.

From a laundry list of options, IABC executive board members and members of the Communication World editorial advisory committee, plus CW readers through a fax poll, selected issues they felt most important in shaping the field today. Some issues emerged as those the majority agreed on:

* Measuring communication effectiveness

* Adding value through communication

* Strategic communication

* Re-engineering the communication function

* Communicator's role in employee empowerment

* Consulting role to senior management.

No big surprises here, and nothing likely to provide much of a look into communication's future. What the answers suggest is that there is wide agreement among communicators that we should be focusing on these rather broad and general communication areas to create sound and successful programs.

But even these seemingly sacred cows can come under discussion. Consider for a moment this Wall Street Journal headline discussing measurement of expenditures in technology: "For years, companies tried to measure the return on technology investments. Then they stopped caring." The article goes on to explain how "...companies and experts are writing off the search for a ROTI" (return on technology investment). "The reason: Information technology systems are so thoroughly intertwined with a company's operations that their impact is impossible to isolate from a host of other factors."

Sounds strangely like what we've been saying for years about measuring communication. The article's thesis is that measuring the return on the U.S. $200 billion spent annually on computers and related equipment is too costly and complicated, and that companies, in effect, are continuing to fund the investment on faith that it cuts costs and improves processes - even though no one can prove it.

If organizations can' provide such undocumented largess for technology during these highly competitive and cost-conscious times - just because it's tough to measure - we should push for the same take-it-on-faith approach for the communication function. That's not to say we should stop searching for an easy and cost-effective way to prove the return on the communication investment, but it may be time to stop obsessing about it. It's a better pursuit for doctoral candidates than pushed-to-the-wall communicators.

Another of the buzzword topics that always makes the top 10 hot topics list is strategic communication. It's probably time to remove it since it's truly difficult to imagine any communicator operating non-strategically, meaning not plugged into the organization's goals and objectives. The days of conducting communication for any purpose other than advancing the organization's objectives are long gone, if indeed they ever existed.

... and from Hyperspace 

To expand our search of issues facing communicators, we launched our questions into IABC/Hyperspace on CompuServe. A thoughtful reply came from Scott Bonikowsky, 74672,733, who recently solicited CompuServe member feedback on a similar topic. He offered a couple of futuristic findings on the changing skill requirements of communication professionals:

* "Broad societal issues are driving change into the communication profession, whether we accept this proposition or not. Among the drivers: continued economic volatility, rapid technology change, intense competition (including consolidation within industries, strategic alliances and barrier-free trade), consumer activism, selected government interventionism, complex work-force issues and market fragmentation.

* "There will be increased competition from other professions (such as legal, human resources and marketing) to carve out organizational roles and responsibilities that communicators previously 'owned.' Examples would be public affairs, investor relations and product promotion."

Pretty broad agreement exists among communicators on those observations, I feel, and so does CW editorial advisory committee member Frank Wylie. He echoes the warning that the communicator's turf is endangered if we don't get employees to buy into the company mission, which he considers our number-one priority.

Wylie says: "The job of the PR/communication person is to use his/her special skills to help the organization define and then achieve its mission. To the extent that we do this we shall succeed. To the extent that we do not, we will be replaced by another discipline that attends the mission more effectively."

Another recent study, this one of IABC/Dallas members, was beamed down from IABC/Hyperspace by Dallas chapter member Tom Geddie, ABC. Results revealed the challenges communicators face at work, the greatest of which is productivity, or more precisely, increasing theirs to meet the escalating demands of their employers. Second most important is winning acceptance and understanding of the communication function. Third is keeping up with change.

What should the smart communicator do to prepare?

So from our "soft sensings" of communicators at various IABC levels, we see some patterns developing that should aid with planning the function:

* Change isn't likely to diminish in the years ahead.

* Technology isn't going to go away, either, and must be used to help cope with increasing demands from employers.

* Communicators don't feel their departments today are organized to handle today's - much less tomorrow's - problems.

Of course, no one knows for sure what will happen 10 years in the future, but there are enough signals along the road to suggest a general direction. Here are three suggestions:

1) Cultural, economic and technological factors are aligned for a strong move toward distributed work. Future-oriented communicators should consider this in planning for equipment, office space and the type of people to help accomplish their mission.

Rigid, highly structured approaches will be too slow to solve the fast-breaking problems as corporations become more "virtual" and "edgeless." Communication systems, processes and the people who manage them will have to be more adaptable and flexible. Invest in systems and people that work equally well whether around a conference table, or connected electronically to home a few miles away, or to a customer or client's office a continent away.

This move to distributed work offers a possible solution to the run-ragged syndrome afflicting most communicators. Workers want it to save the time commuting robs from their activity-packed days; employers want it to save costs; and the technology already exists to make it work. The remaining barriers are primarily sociological - many workers simply enjoy the social experience of working with others. Unless something drastic happens to alter the course, however, distributed work is highly likely to increase dramatically.

2) To meet employers' demands for lower operating costs and increased productivity, most communication departments will have to be re-engineered, namely streamlining processes to produce quality work in minimal time. Cut out things that don't matter to your audiences, even if they do matter to you.

Most organizations are grappling with ways to add a workable global dimension. The communication function must be re-engineered to help - and not by just adding the rest of the world to the press release distribution list. Just hurrying up and doing the same old things, but a little faster, won't likely fit the virtual organization's mission. In the jargon du jour it's called "thinking outside the box."

3) Most re-engineered communication departments also will need a dedicated communicator/technologist who understands both worlds. With the emphasis on speed and flexibility, technology will no longer be just an option. A top priority, which combines the two, is reining in E-mail and managing it as part of the communication function. Costs of wasted employee time spent reading irrelevant messages can be saved if communicators and MIS technocrats cooperate on the problem. A Wall Street Journal item (November 22, 1994) shows how the tempo of the problem is increasing: "In a 1993 survey, 52 percent of 189 businesses queried complained of E-mail problems, double the number from a 1991 survey." Electronic newsletters with built-in feedback mechanisms are needed as a first step to meet employee demands for fast, flexible information.

With technology, stay on the leading edge rather than the bleeding edge. Few communicators have the time or inclination to blaze new technology trails. Let those who do work out the kinks, then implement the systems. Your life will be much calmer ff you stand at a safe distance and watch the wheels come off the pioneers' wagons, much the way savvy communicators did with desktop publishing.

In conclusion, if you're thinking about how to move ahead during the next decade and beyond, focus on developing generalist core competencies: planning, leadership and, of course, communication. A global outlook will give you an edge. Think big - thinking of yourself as a middle manager is a sure ticket to Dinosaur City. Management in the years ahead won't be the happy hunting ground of the past. Each delayered survivor will have to make a value-added contribution to the problem at hand. If you can make that cut, you'll be on a team of decision makers who will be shaping the future, not wondering where it's going to take them.

RELATED ARTICLE: COMMUNICATORS NAME TOP-OF-MIND ISSUES

Get a roomful of communicators together and start them talking about the hottest issues they face in their jobs, and you'll probably find that "Measuring the value of communication" gets them nodding their heads.

Our recent fax poll of hot issues netted only 31 responses, so it certainly doesn't represent anything close to a scientific study of IABC members' opinions. Instead, it represents just the views of those 31 who responded. To those 31 we add another dozen or so members of the executive board and Communication World editorial advisory committee.

On the survey form we asked them to rank issues with a (1) if they thought them "very important." We tallied the issues which netted the most number-one rankings to get a sense of which ones respondents felt most important.

In addition to "Measuring communication effectiveness," most (over half) felt the following issues most pressing:

* Adding value through communication

* Strategic communication

* Re-engineering the communication function

* Communicator's role in employee empowerment

* Consulting role to senior management.

The above issues represent those which are "top of mind" with both the leaders in IABC and those members responding to the fax poll. These are by no means "leading edge" issues - on those, we found little agreement, even among our small sample. The issues they identified as the most important ones are neither new nor particularly controversial; however, they correlate positively with previous scientific studies IABC has conducted. Consequently, our discussion can be regarded as a "seconding" of the issues communicators should be concerned about in planning and developing effective communication programs in the near future.

Cliff McGoon is a senior communication consultant with offices in Palm Springs and San Francisco.