Are Humans Irrelevant?

Soon after the financial meltdown of 2008, and the
collapse of hundreds of companies, I suggested that a recession might be the best time to invest in people – impart new skills, new ways of
approaching problems, and new algorithms for value creation.
A recent article by Gary
Burnison of global HR firm Korn
Ferry forces me to revisit the topic.
A significant number of CEOs seem to believe that humans are increasingly becoming irrelevant.
Burnison notes:
“More than two-thirds
(67%) of 800 CEOs of large corporations believe that technology will create more value in the future than people.
Nearly half think
that robotics, AI, and automation will make people “largely irrelevant”
in the future of work.
In a rank
order of an organization’s top five
assets, humans didn’t make the list at all: technology,
innovation, product/service, brand, and real estate were the top five assets
listed.”
At the turn of the century, mobile phones
were not as ubiquitous as they are today.
A decade before that, the World Wide Web
was still in its infancy.
We are thus made to believe that tectonic
changes in just over two decades have rendered humans irrelevant.
Surprisingly, the most brilliant minds seem to suggest the same.
And of course, those trying to disrupt the status-quo:

I beg to disagree.
It is easy to see the hype. Indeed the
fear, that technology induces in people. Sure, robots can perform repetitive
tasks much faster than humans. AI tools and expert systems enable large
databases to locate critical information faster than humans.
It is pertinent to ask: who
creates the technology? What drives innovation – humans or robots? How will new
products and services be developed? Will someone please give an example of AI
creating a blockbuster brand?.
You may think it is just a coincidence.
IBM has announced that remote working
is a thing of the past. Marketing people are the latest target. They can no
longer work from home or a location of their choice. All marketing people are
required to be physically present in one of six locations across the US.
Of course one can argue that the decision
is irrational. It is particularly ironic, coming as it does from the company
that created Watson. The company has
overlooked the human costs of re-locating thousands of employees and families.
It may yet be one more example of big blue’s erroneous decisions.
Let’s face it.
Organizations make all kinds of decisions
in a turbulent environment - mostly based on intuition, gut feeling – not hard
data, or analysis.
Michelle Paluso, IBM’s Chief Marketing Officer, writes:
“There is only one recipe I know for
success, particularly when we are in as much of a battle with Microsoft and the
West Coast companies as we are, and that is by bringing great people with the
right skills, give them the right tools, give them a mission, make sure they
can analyze their results, put them in really creative inspiring locations and
set them free. “
It is amazing that someone in a leadership position
in 2017 is talking about “the only one
recipe for success.”
However, the move shows that humans do matter – even for companies that focus on automation.
It is fair to say that practically every company today is a tech company –
the degree may vary. In fact, it is easy to argue that any company that fails to embrace technology is irrelevant.
Burnison does
provide valuable insights into the future of work:
Significant
proportions of the workforce will be self-sourced
– not outsourced or insourced. It is possible to think of talented individuals working
for a dozen companies or more.
More and
more people will work into their 70s.
Knowledge
will determine one’s lifetime value.
I will add a couple of thoughts:
Organizations will be forced to be more humane in their interactions – this may be the
only differentiator going into the future.
Individuals, organizations, and societies that look beyond themselves with compassion and empathy will succeed much more than those that look at the bottom
line alone.
Evolutionary, self-correcting mechanisms will lead
humanity to an egalitarian future.
What do you
think?
Comments
Post a Comment