|
A great deal has been written in recent years about the perils of automation. In a study that has already racked up several hundred citations, scholars at Oxford University have estimated that no less than 47% of all American jobs and 54% of those in Europe are at a high risk of being usurped by machines. And not in a hundred years or so, but in the next 20. In response, the real question we should be asking ourselves is: what actually constitutes “work” in this day and age?
In a 2013 survey of 12,000 professionals by the Harvard Business Review, half said they felt their job had no “meaning and significance,” and an equal number were unable to relate to their company’s mission, while another poll among 230,000 employees in 142 countries showed that only 13% of workers actually like their job.
They have, what anthropologist David Graeber refers to as, “bullshit jobs”. On paper, these jobs sound fantastic. And yet there are scores of successful professionals with imposing LinkedIn profiles and impressive salaries who nevertheless go home every evening grumbling that their work serves no purpose. So, will there still be enough jobs for everyone a few decades from now? Anybody who fears mass unemployment underestimates capitalism’s extraordinary ability to generate new bullshit jobs. If we want to really reap the rewards of the huge technological advances made in recent decades (and of the advancing robots), then we need to radically rethink our definition of “work.”
It starts with an age-old question: what is the meaning of life? Most people would say the meaning of life is to make the world a little more beautiful, or nicer, or more interesting. But how? These days, our main answer to that is: through work. Our definition of work, however, is incredibly narrow. Only the work that generates money is allowed to count toward GDP. Our whole system of finding meaning could dissolve like a puff of smoke.
The time has come to stop sidestepping the debate and home in on the real issue: what would our economy look like if we were to radically redefine the meaning of “work”? I firmly believe that a universal basic income is the most effective answer to the dilemma of advancing robotization. Because a basic income would give everybody the chance to do work that is meaningful.
I believe in a future where the value of your work is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread and the amount of meaning you give. I believe in a future where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job, but for a life well lived. I believe in a future where “jobs are for robots and life is for people.”
And if basic income sounds Utopian to you, then I’d like to remind you that every milestone of civilization – from the end of slavery to democracy to equal rights for men and women – was once a Utopian fantasy too. Or, as Oscar Wilde wrote long ago: “Progress is the realization of Utopias.”
(This article has been translated from Dutch by Elizabeth Manton.)
|
Strong leadership is a hallmark of strong companies. But it is often a resource in very short supply. This means that cultivating leaders internally, while challenging, has a lot of advantages.
Bernard Banks, a clinical professor of management and associate dean for leadership development at the Kellogg School, would know, having spent more than 25 years in the U.S. Army before retiring in 2016 as a Brigadier General. In his role leading the Department of Behavioral Sciences & Leadership at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Banks found value in maximizing the leadership potential in every cadet, as well as in members of the Academy’s staff and faculty.
But in the business world, Banks has noticed a disconnect in how companies treat leadership development. “All effective leaders are effective leader developers,” Banks says. “The challenge becomes, are companies growing the leaders they need for today or the leaders they need for tomorrow?”
Banks tells Kellogg Insight how companies can engage and develop their next generation of leaders. “All effective leaders are effective leader developers,” Banks says. “The challenge becomes, are companies growing the leaders they need for today or the leaders they need for tomorrow?” Banks tells Kellogg Insight how companies can engage and develop their next generation of leaders.
- Begin grooming future managers when they are still in non-management roles, so that they can develop prior to moving up the ladder.
- Bet on everyone. A firm might still pinpoint particular individuals to participate in a costly leadership course or formal training program. But others should not be left behind to stagnate or find their own way. Instead, the firm can make it a point to expose them to new on-the-job experiences, offer informal training sessions, and help foster new relationships that will encourage their development.
- Create immersive experiences designed to make people better at thinking and responding.
- Keep employees in the driver’s seat. Companies stand to benefit from investing in talent development—but they also have to know when to back off. “We know that good development is self-directed,” says Banks. “Because, ultimately, you’re the one responsible for doing the work.”
|
This was originally posted on LinkedIn for the Milken Institute Global Conference. It is based on the soon-to-be-released findings of Shift: The Commission on Work, Workers, and Technology, a joint project of New America and Bloomberg to understand the future of work.
We asked our Shift commissioners — a lively mix of leaders from multiple sectors, bringing together labor, civic, religious, academic, entrepreneurial, and more traditional business perspectives — two basic questions. (1) Will there be more or less work in the future? (2) Will work continue to be in its traditional form, full-time jobs, or separate into more “task” work (like short-term contracts, part-time gigs, or other alternative arrangements)?
Their answers to these questions generated 44 colorful and concrete work futures, some positive and some negative. We distilled the common themes from these visions into four basic scenarios, which we are releasing today at the Milken Institute Global Conference.
In two of these scenarios, we will continue to work mostly in jobs, one where there’s less work available in total (what we called the King of the Castle Economy, a winner-take-all game) and one where there’s more work available (the Go Economy, where you can keep building as long as you want).
You can find our detailed write-up of the scenarios here.
Elements of each of these scenarios are happening today. Almost all of them spell considerable uncertainty for almost all workers in comparison with the stability of widely available Industrial Age 9-to-5 jobs.
The goal of the Shift Commission is to move the public conversation about the future of work forward. We encourage participants in that conversation to grapple with more realistic and varied visions of multiple possible futures. We also urge leaders and citizens to start thinking and acting now to create the public and private responses we need to ensure that the Digital Economy will work for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment