Crafting and Harmonizing Workforce Skills for the New World of Work

Bob Dylan’s 1964 song “My Back Pages” contains the line “I was so much older then; I’m younger than that now.” It suggests a necessity to change from pure idealism common in one’s early years to a less certain perspective that does not automatically accept dogma. Cognitive agility is necessary when the environment changes. What works is what fits the current context, and this applies to both thought processes and how well things work.

The last decade has been as turbulent as whitewater rapids, and the impact of dramatic changes has made some strategies less successful than they had been in the past. Perhaps another verse to the song might be: “Then I had to do the work in a specified way, at a specified time and in a specified location. I can be more agile now.” Unfortunately, that phrasing does not make for much of a song. Yet for organizations and their HR and total rewards (TR) professionals, it is most likely the one that should be sung.

Rethinking, Reassessing and Realigning

Technology’s evolution has made it more difficult to hold on to past practices for some occupations. Incumbents may have to alter the way they do things or face obsolescence. Routine work can be automated, unless it must be performed by those physically present at the work site. Yet the necessity of physical presence is being re-examined for some work due to technology that makes remote performance possible.

How work should be done is often determined by how it fits into processes. This determines whether it must be performed adhering to standard work schedules. So, if the “how,” “when” and “where” of work can vary while maintaining productivity, how that work should be managed also is brought into question. People trained to manage effectively in the past might need a reassessment of what is likely to be effective.

If both workers and managers must rethink what works today, those in these roles should be committed to continuous learning. Research by Malcolm Gladwell and others suggests 10,000 hours of focused experience is required to become an expert at something. Someone having made that investment is unlikely to easily accept the need to completely reprogram thought processes and methods. However, the alternative may be experiencing obsolescence or a reduction in the value.

Consider:

• Typesetters found their expertise no longer required when newspapers converted to computerized front-end data-entry systems.
• People doing algorithmic tasks must recognize that at least some of their work is replaceable by automation.
• Paralegals whose primary responsibilities involve researching legal precedents have found artificial intelligence (AI) agents can perform a wider search much less expensively in an error-free manner.
• Technicians interpreting several types of medical scans are experiencing similar displacement.

Those in occupations requiring human judgment and the completion of algorithmic work may not experience job loss but rather role redefinition and a refinement of their methods. Before determining the impact on one’s employability, there should be an assessment of how their knowledge and skills fit into the current and future contexts. The critical question for an employee is, “What exactly is the misalignment between my capabilities and mindset and today’s realities, and what is reusable?” This can act as a guide for realignment.

Human-Technology Integration

The study of “socio-technical systems” establishes there must be an integration of humans and technology to produce what is required. Does AI’s evolution change everything? The simple answer is no. It will, though, change a lot.

For example, HR’s staffing professionals have traditionally sought candidates for roles that must be filled. Much of their time has been spent analyzing employment applications, screening out those not qualified and rank-ordering the rest based on their apparent suitability. When done manually, these pros had to identify relevant selection criteria, assign importance weights and develop scoring systems. They scheduled top candidates for interviews and handled the details of employing those selected. This process required subjective judgment even when quantitative selection models were used. It also consumed much time and effort.

Today, many HR pros use AI and other tools to do initial screening aimed at disqualifying those not meeting the minimum requirements. Some trained in quantitatively oriented disciplines may believe the tools can make decisions. They cannot. AI tools make predictions (e.g., identifying candidates who possess the required education and experience and concluding they are the most likely to succeed). However, AI is less capable of evaluating whether candidates possess the required “soft” skills.

Consider the following sports analogy for context. Prior to the 1998 National Football League draft, there was talk that Washington State University quarterback Ryan Leaf should be picked ahead of University of Tennessee quarterback Peyton Manning, based on Leaf’s scouting combine results that measured athletic ability. In hindsight, Leaf failed as an NFL quarterback and Manning had a Hall of Fame career. What was absent in the selection model was personality (along with work ethic and exhibited behavior). Evaluating personality is challenging and can’t be done without employing subjective judgment to process input from those familiar with desirable traits. If a right-handed quarterback’s left tackle doesn’t accept him, excessive time in the medical tent is likely.

Integrating a new hire into an organization will be facilitated by an alignment of the individual and the organization’s beliefs and values. Since corporate culture is difficult to define, that alignment should rely on subjective judgment. Technology has not been shown to be effective at that type of evaluation — at least not yet, and perhaps never.

The Bottom Line

Individuals’ cognitive abilities create mindsets that act as guides for perceptions and actions. When those mindsets are aligned with realities, one can function effectively. When environmental realities change and mindsets don’t, a discontinuity is created and individuals must realign how they think or, if possible, alter the environmental realities.

Employees trained in occupations that become more tech-enabled and/or less valued may be able to retrain so they can acquire skills that employers currently value. For example, a coding specialist in the IT department may find much of their work can now be performed by technological tools. Since the person understands IT principles, retraining in cyber security or AI applications may be feasible.

Coping with the inevitable displacement of people no longer capable of doing what is needed will be one of the biggest challenges faced by society.

In preparation and as a solution, organizations and their HR/TR professionals should focus on realigning employee mindsets with the current realities. They also must examine their culture and decide if it is a good fit for future success.

To sum it up in another Bob Dylan song (from 1964’s “The Times They Are a-Changin’), “[Y]ou better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin’.”

Editor’s Note: Additional Content

For more information and resources related to this article, see the pages below, which offer quick access to all WorldatWork content on these topics:

• Organizational Performance
• Total Rewards