Following 9/11, the airline industry endured a massive crisis as flights were grounded and passengers became neurotic about travel. Most airlines adopted the common approach. Faced with a decline in demand, they reduced capacity, canceled flights, and sacked as many workers as they could as fast as they could.

The only difference between the airlines of 2001 and the newspaper industry of 2007? The time frame. What airline executives and newspaper publishers share, alas, is a lack of vision about the future.

I was reminded of this as I sat on a KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines) jet, flying back to France after last month’s excellent World Newspaper Conference in Cape Town, South Africa.

When KLM was faced with the crisis, it took a different view. Yes, managers agreed the airline needed to reduce capacity but they also knew they had to secure the company’s future.

To that end, they invited workers to voluntarily cut their hours, arguing it was better for everyone to retain a job, albeit at a reduced income. Those who wanted to leave, could, and were offered reasonable terms.

The voluntary measures worked. KLM was able to cut its costs, and as the airline industry recovered, the airline was able to draw upon its workforce to seize the opportunity to grow.

It also saved a fortune in redundancy.

By contrast, look at any newspaper company’s financial statement these days. They are littered with “exceptional” severance payments, which are no longer so exceptional.

Complex conditions

As the newspaper industry enters its most complex period of change, it’s time to remember the basic premise of who we employ and how is more relevant to us than any other business.

Historically, all the content we published was our own. Over time, we began to adopt agency materials, republish press releases, and respond to public relations practitioners.

As a result, an ever-increasing amount of our content is derived from our readers and other contributors.

We have a spectrum of needs and a spectrum of supply. Yet, from my experience, publishers are repulsed by the notion of flexible working.

What would happen if our employment model was based around flexible employment and flexible contributors?

The first result is that more people would be keeping their jobs. We have to decide if this is an emotional, moral, accounting or strategic issue.

Second, my observation is that in a 40-hour week, most of us deliver 10 sensational hours, 10 good hours, 10 mediocre hours and 10 hours talking to our colleagues.

Part-time employees deliver more value per hour worked.

Third, saved severance costs can be redirected into intensive training, with the capacity to train people who are not strapped to the grindstone.

It is also the case that with every redundancy, prior investment in training goes out the door. Often whole skill sets are lost.

Other issues relate to future structure. And here I suspect my meanderings (I dare not call them cohesive thinking) may be unpopular.

Here’s the future?

Perhaps we should see our future news resources as a spectrum of employment.

On the one hand, we have a full-time production journalist, coordinating page designs and digital output.

 On the other, we have an increasing array of budding contributors who can provide wonderful content, both personal and professional.

So could it be that in five years’ time, it’s the stay-at-home parent who provides the weekly column (blog) on family values, while the local doctor responds to medial questions? All are paid contributor fees, but at a level below a full-time reporter’s regular salary and benefits.

Design work and page design could be undertaken by people working from home.

Content indexing and tagging might be undertaken by students working in the evening.

Meanwhile, full-time staffers are being retrained to become multimedia broadcasters and mobile journalists, with a training budget funded by savings in redundancy costs.

Most employees, relaxed in the knowledge that they have flexibility and better lifestyle options, become infinitely more open to change.

Of course, it is easy for me to mull over this scenario, content in my seat on the plane. And I don’t have to do it.

But the quality of service I’m receiving from the KLM crew is a demonstration that alternative thinking about employee management leads to better relations, better working conditions and greater long-term security for both workers and employers.

If you have experience with flexible working, please let me hear from you.