Job Protectionism, Fatalism, and Pragmatism
Are you on the side of protecting jobs, or should we make way for our robot overlords?
These represent the two dominant job philosophies in the media regarding jobs in the era of artificial intelligence.
The first is Job Protectionism, the belief that certain jobs or industries should be shielded from competition or other factors that may threaten their existence, even if this means sacrificing other economic or social goals.
The second is Job Fatalism, the belief that there is little or nothing that can be done to protect jobs or industries in the face of economic changes or competition.
Both of these are short-sighted and ill-suited for the era of artificial intelligence.
Job protectionism reduces competitiveness, as shielding jobs or industries from competition protects them in the short run, but makes them less competitive in the long run, ultimately resulting in broader-sweeping job loss and harming economic growth.
Job fatalism can lead to a sense of resignation or hopelessness among leaders, workers, or policymakers, who may feel that there are no viable solutions to the challenges facing their communities or industries.
In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, jobs have become equated with people, and it has become a value and symbol of integrity to be a proponent and/or agent of “Job Protectionism,” but there is a better way to protect people in the face of AI and automation:
Job Pragmatism balances the need to support existing jobs with the need to promote innovation, growth, and efficiency in the economy as a whole.
Autonomous Transformation will result in the shakeup of current human jobs, the same way that whalers lost jobs when oil lamps were invented and horse carriage drivers lost jobs when the automobile was invented, but forward-thinking leaders within those organizations and industries have agency over whether the shakeup results in job loss or job transition, by planning ahead to ensure the people impacted by those changes are able to transition to other jobs within the organization and maintain steady employment.
In other words, within the amount of time and investment it takes to get a technology or group of technologies developed and integrated to the degree that they could reasonably handle all of the tasks currently handled by a human (typically a several year endeavor), there is ample time for the humans occupying those jobs to be informed of the coming changes, offered opportunities to train for other positions, and to plan for a smooth transition to the next position within the organization.
Sure, organizations can and will cut costs by automation and headcount reduction. Their short-term numbers will look great.
But the biggest economic opportunity in the era of AI is increasing top line revenue and the expansion and growth presented by these technologies rather than doubling down on the bottom line, and the leaders who lead with this focus will retain or expand their market positions over those who do not.
This quarter, as you examine the possible impacts of AI and other advanced technologies—which job philosophy is guiding your ideas and decisions?
Thanks for reading,
Brian
Whenever you're ready, here are 3 ways I can help you:
Keynote Speaking: I've briefed dozens of Fortune 500 C-suite executive teams, spoken to live, in-person audiences of more than 10,000 attendees, am a guest lecturer at Kellogg School of Management, and led panels of distinguished guests ranging from academia to public sector leaders to Fortune 500 C-suite executives.
Future Solving Advising: Join hundreds FORTUNE 500 C-level executives and startup founders who have leveraged my advisement on AI, the future of technology, and how to position yourself for the future in the era of AI.
Future Solving Workshops: Join 25+ of the FORTUNE 500 and NASA, who have positioned themselves for the future in the era of AI by leveraging new frameworks from the Future Solving Method I introduced in my book, Autonomous Transformation, to set a vision and strategy and spark action