Whozall in on it?

You can be "in the know", "on the ball", "in the zone" or "on your way". Regardless of which is your cup of tea, two of the most frequently used prepositions in the English language completely define the business world.

We've been told for years that there are two kinds of people in corporate America - those who work IN the business and those who work ON the business.

Before there were ON's, there were IN's. Somebody had to come up with an idea, toil with it for years in their garage or workshop...fail, cuss, injure themselves, etc. Eventually the idea was either scrapped or it proved itself and grew legs, which is usually about the same time when the cussing stopped. The landmark moment came when the first sale was made to the first customer. Hopefully there was a dollar bill in there somewhere that could be framed and hung up behind the counter.

Customers! Remember them...those silly misguided people who paid for our goods and services? Once upon a time they used to be king. I was reminded of that by a series of posters that were hung from the walls in all the "employees only" sections of the bowling alley where I toiled as a high school senior, all through college and in a moonlighting role for years afterward. The number one job was to make sure the customer had an enjoyable experience in a clean, friendly environment, no matter how many gutter balls they threw.

The best and the worst part about being IN the business is interacting with customers, because you get the best and the worst from them, too. You celebrated with them when they rolled their highest game and cleaned up after them when they had too much to drink...and came up a few inches short in the rest room. But customers make paydays possible. The poster hanging in the pinsetter room (and the stockroom, and the kitchen) says so. The front lines are where business truly happens, and most importantly, where customer satisfaction happens. Which makes being IN the business far more important.

So for the longest time, IN was in. And as an impressionable, nerdy 16 year old when I was first hired, I was happy to be part of the IN crowd and remained there for years.

Then I graduated from college...and my first real job took me to the dark side...with the ON's...working at the business office of a mechanical contracting firm. ON's weren't highly regarded at the time...more of a necessary evil, but still an evil. Their job was to continuously scrutinize and call into question everything that the IN's were doing. That usually involved annoying and hounding the IN's on a 24/7/365 basis for reports, time sheets, receipts and forecasts.

It didn't come without push back, I should point out. IN's possessed a great deal of passion and resolve. On more than one occasion, I was put in my place by career IN's, who pointed out how insignificant my role was in the grand scheme of things. They reminded me that they were the ones who made the money for the company and ultimately paid my salary. Ownership agreed. I felt small at first. Over time, however, and having been an IN once myself, I developed an appreciation for the job the IN's did. They did the dirty work out in the field, managed suppliers, subcontractors and union workers. But if they didn't turn in their job cost reports, it was my duty to get on their @ss about it. Eventually, we found some middle ground and the rapport that comes with it.

All in all, I spent about ten years working ON the business at two different employers, and it became clear that wasn't going to get me beyond the ground floor. So I took advantage of an opportunity to move into the consulting profession. Suddenly, I was IN the business again...architecting marketable solutions and generating billable hours to help pay the salaries of the ONs (who weren't). IN was still in.

That seemed to change, though. The viral growth of electronic news media, social media, financial media...they all appeared to focus more on the ONs of business instead of the INs. Pundits lauded the efforts of CEO's, whom never forged a ball bearing in their lives, but turned a quarterly profit for the ball bearing giant listed on the NASDAQ. We started hearing about appointments to boards of directors...usually someone who never worked a day in the industry. Colleges promoted their MBA programs like no tomorrow...and how there would be no tomorrow if you didn't earn one. Consequently we outsourced much of what the INs did, to other countries, because the IN workload was suddenly beneath us.

Before long, we were cranking out far more aspiring ONs than INs. In fact, the rank and file started turning their nose up at the INs. They weren't sexy anymore. Even though they generated the revenue. Because the ONs decided what to do with that revenue...making sure the costs didn't exceed it...and in turn producing profit that was paid back out to investors. And once investing became as easy as visiting a website, everyone suddenly had skin in the game and became a big fan of the ONs.

The viral growth of the ON population is seeming the 21st century's politically correct version of "too many chiefs, not enough Indians". Analogous to how once upon a time, there were ten people paying into Social Security for every one recipient, but now it's down to three. There are so many ONs now that they get in the way of the INs and make their job less satisfying, which makes career INdom less attractive and the vicious cycle of attrition continues.

It's lonely being an IN, even though nationally we still outnumber the ONs, at least for now. INs don't get the credit they used to. Grade schoolers rarely dream of becoming an IN anymore. Sometimes life's realities forces them in that direction, but most millennials and Gen-Z types would consider that a disappointment. In fact, being an IN never got me beyond the ground floor either, so maybe the Gen-Z's have a point.

Mind you, INs are often compensated well, they just aren't going anywhere.  Dedicated INs are so vital to the smooth day-to-day operation of a business that taking them out of that role and elevating them to bigger and better things is often more disruptive to the business than it is beneficial.

Consider this, though. No ON ever made a customer's day, or read their body language and complemented them when they seemed to be having a bad day. No ON ever tweaked a gadget that revolutionized an industry. No ON ever had to deliver bad news to a customer that their prize possession was beyond saving and couldn't be repaired. Nor did any ON ever save the day with anything besides smoke and mirrors.

The ONs' job is to make sure the INs produce enough revenue to pay the salaries and benefits for the ONs and INs alike, while having enough left to divvy out to shareholders. If the INs don't produce enough, then the ONs have to take resources away from the INs to reduce the costs. That'll learn 'em. If the INs still don't get the message, then the ONs have to reduce the number of INs, which means less revenue, but the ONs will mandate that the remaining INs make up the difference, or they'll be next. That'll learn 'em. And the vicious cycle of attrition continues.

It's really just a battle of two masters. The INs serve the customers, while the ONs serve the shareholders. Ask 100 people which is more important and you'll get 100 different explanations. But that's another long winded conversation for another windy day.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year...and hope you can cash IN ON it in 2017.