Future of Work

Typically, my writings address the challenges that business leaders face, offering insights on how to improve work from an operational perspective. I’m going to share a topic that my partner and I have been discussing frequently: the future of Work. 

We are not the only couple navigating a stagnant job market. But this feels different. We’ve been through the Great Recession and COVID-19, like many. Each had its unique challenges, uncertainties, and anxieties. But at the end of the day, we understood the composition of work and the skills required to drive value. Today’s demand for talent feels frozen. On the one hand, we have economic whiplash caused by government policy, and on the other, we have a significant disruptor in the form of AI. This is a nasty combination, which can paralyze a business. I want to focus on the AI component, as it will have a longer-lasting impact with much greater consequences, requiring deeper engagement and more in-depth discussion. 

Weekly, we see headlines quoting CEOs proclaiming the end of white-collar work or a significant reduction caused by AI technologies. Last month, it was Amazon; the month before, it was Ford; and next? Oh yeah, Microsoft. Yes, the headlines grab clicks, and it's true that AI is having a significant impact. However, my concern extends beyond headlines. It’s twofold: What does humanity want Work to look like, and are we preparing for it? AI has the potential to significantly exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots. It also has the potential to substantially reduce the demand for skilled jobs. Yet, this conversation seems to be sidelined in the all-out pursuit by tech leaders to automate business operations with AI, in order to recoup their significant investments and create their perceived utopia. There is a lack of commentary on the broader picture of the future of Work and what humanity wants from work. The implications on society as a whole are significant. What will work look like? Or should I say, what do we want work to look like? 

Let’s start with scenario number one: business leaders driving overhead down, resulting in significant headcount reductions. Businesses become much more profitable, but fewer reap the rewards. The concentration of money resides with upper management and shareholders. My primary assumption here is that AI replaces resources without significantly generating new industries or markets for the previously employed to flow into. Alternatively, the industry and markets created may not demand the same skill levels or value as previous job roles, which puts downward pressure on wages and decreases the number of desirable jobs. We have an influx of skilled labor with idle hands. Hence, the question: what do we want the future of Work to be? Much of America’s greatness resides in its ambition and upward mobility. Removing the type of work that promotes upward mobility should not be taken lightly. What is the role of government? What is the role of business? What happens when purchasing power declines, as the American economy is built on consumerism? I’ll circle back to my thoughts after outlining the second scenario. 

In scenario number two, AI serves as a productivity amplifier, creating new opportunities and markets. Individuals retool and enhance their skills to address these new opportunities. These new positions and skills are valued by businesses, which compensate them in line with the pre-AI economy. There is no government or corporate intervention required to support this transition, and we experience a similar transition to when the internet became an economic driver, rewarding those with ambition. The mechanisms of capitalism run their course, and the economy evolves into a new era. 

I am not a clairvoyant. I’ve seen the inner workings of businesses and the motivations that drive business leaders. We place a great deal of faith in capitalism, and for the most part, it has delivered with all of its warts for a large portion of Americans. However, we must remember that capitalism serves business, not necessarily those who built it. When the primary metric we use to measure success is profitability, we run the risk of unintended consequences, which brings me back to my concerns with AI. I believe we need to expand the definition of success for businesses, workers, and society so that AI can truly be a transformative tool, rather than further dividing society, which we risk doing if we don’t plan and provide a support structure.

In closing, I was reading an article in Prof. G's (Scott Galloway) newsletter last week, which states that individuals will need to retool their skills in areas where humans excel: curation, curiosity, and connection. I understand where he’s coming from, but it doesn’t address the elephant in the room. A potentially massive shift is occurring in the job market, which impacts where wealth migrates and how individuals enter the workforce. Adding in the potential reduction in purchasing power by a large swath of white-collar workers, the picture becomes murky without some type of systemic intervention to support the future state of Work. Several countries in the EU have already begun mapping out what the future state of Work looks like, and we need to initiate this conversation in the USA. It needs to be thoughtful and purposeful, not stumbled into. This requires a multidisciplinary approach to bring together business, academia, labor, and government. Working in silos will not solve the challenge before us. Silos lead to one interest group dominating the conversation. I can’t remember a time when so much promise and so much uncertainty have shared the same stage. Let’s not leave it to the hands of fate.