Order order The industrial era organisational approach, ie Taylorism, is an approach that many if not all organisational leaders are looking to emulate. The modern business classic,   E-Myth Enterprise book   by Michael E. Gerber encourages readers to work on their business and not in it. Build a sausage machine and simply work out how to turn the handle faster and with less effort. The underlying assumption is that you can ‘process-ise’ people such that they operate like a well-behaved machine component. The indoctrination process for becoming a wage cog starts early, your first day at school. It’s complex ‘Unfortunately’ people are realising that having a disconnect between who they are and how they are expected to behave at work causes cognitive dissonance. Such stress results in the cogs behaving ‘badly’. So even in a factory, whether it be generating products or services, humanity eventually contaminates the machine. So even in a factory, whether it be generating products or services, humanity eventually contaminates the machine. The approved culture morphs towards something that no leader or manager can control. Consequently unplanned behaviours and outcomes emerge. In a complex world, traditional governance mechanisms no longer work. Leaders feel insecure. Books such as the E-Myth Enterprise book have joined the emerging genre of business erotica. Delightful to read but ultimately of little use. Chaos rules The result of macroenvironmental forces increasingly bearing down on organisations create chaos and thus modern-day organisations that desperately try to apply process-centric principles become what might be called ‘dis-organisations’. The days of forecasting profit etc are over. So are the days of reliance on one organisational model. Regardless, the business schools continue to churn out bureaucrats when we need firefighters. Disorderly leadership So to take stock from a leadership perspective, there are three scenarios or levels: Order Complexity Chaos. BTW David Snowden’s   Cynevin framework   is a source of insight in this respect. Order We are rapidly moving away from this model. Though it might appear that we are moving towards it in respect of intelligent AI agents replacing high maintenance humans. But even a whirring peopleless factory will be ill-equipped for a chaotic world, where context is everything. Such organisations are led by administrators and efficiency is their god. Complexity We have had this for a long time. In fact complexity arrived with the very first workplace humans. It’s just that the humanity element has taken a while to express itself. Effective leaders in this domain are akin to therapists. They treat people as individuals and look for a happy medium in respect of the needs of the organisation and the individual. They influence (massage) rather than control the organisation. Chaos My go-to analogy here is the barroom brawl (I was raised in an inner London pub).  There is no time to work up a plan and get it signed off. There is no point trying to reason with a frenzied crowd who are all feeding off each other in respect of destruction. So leaders need to be more akin to riot police. Job number one is to regain order. Worrying about dirty shoes on the carpet or damaging a sofa is not their primary focus. If they can get the public bar under control, then normal operations can resume there whilst they set about regaining order in the saloon bar. Extreme leadership I appreciate that the idea of leaders as riot police is unlikely to gain traction. So hopefully you will not notice my metaphor shift to leader as firefighter. Firefighters are innovative, act quickly, get to the root of the problem whilst managing significant risk. Whilst I am an advocate of   ubiquitous leadership   to make this transition, we need leaders who are comfortable in chaos. Firefighters, A&E professionals, space mission specialists and special forces come to mind. In the absence of suitable conventional talent, then reformed organised/disorganised crime leaders are likely a good call. My main point is that we need a new and perhaps more extreme type of leadership to guide both business and society through what is becoming an increasingly chaotic world.

AiRMs race Here’s a quick acid-test to establish whether your AI investment to date is likely to yield value for your ecosystem: Do you have a Chief Information Officer in your leadership team? Does your CIO focus mainly on eliciting value from data or just on technology management? The answer to both needs to be ‘yes.’ Many organisations do not have a CIO in the top team, and even where they do, the CIO is often focused on tech matters. This is a problem. Firstly technology management is important, but thanks to the cloud, less so than when the role of CIO was first created. So even in the most forward thinking of organisations, AI is seen as a technology purchase. A focus on AI might even paper over a failed digital transformation programme. So we are witnessing an arms race where the buyers have no idea when and how to use the armaments. The arms dealers are the marketing functions of the big tech players. Consequently on the face of it, we are seeing organisation building their AI capability, but not their AI competence. Amsterdamned Unlike the tulips in the Tulip mania period, AI has transformational potential. However speculation about its potential is surpassing its intrinsic value to leaders, investors and other interested parties in the organisation’s ecosystem. Prefixing everything with AI, from the name of your new startup to the title of your LinkedIn newsletter article, has the power to elevate its perceived value. Social contagion, particularly amongst leaders, is driving irrational behaviour. Buckle up, if it’s your first bubble. But it is unlikely to be your first, here are some recent ones: Solar / green tech Robotics and drones Edtech The Metaverse Meme stock Housing. Should I be worried? Given that approximately one third of the S&P 500 index is index-linked to AI’s fortunes, this is a cause for concern, particularly if you are a: Big tech player. A heavy investor in big tech players Or you have a ‘diversified’ pension. An over-inflated startup / scaleup. You are a leader who has not made provision for an AI reset. But to put this in perspective, it is unlikely to be as seismic as a housing bubble pop. But seismic enough. Agentic delusion As a leader, you need to understand what value AI brings to your organisation and how you unleash that value. Much AI usage today is around cost management, rather than strategic differentiation and adaptiveness engineering. As I am fond of mentioning, sprinkling your old school model with tech pixie dust is not going to save it. The changes that need to be made are much more profound. AI has the potential to be a game changer. Generative AI is only one element of the role it can play. Out of the car crash we will likely see steady, undramatic growth in AI’s capability. But again capability is not competence. The fundamental question to ask is - why do we need AI beyond automating the ‘sausage machine?’. Here’s the science We need to zoom out to remind ourselves that the world is becoming increasingly chaotic. And so: Chaos gives rise to novel situations. Novel situations require an innovative response. Innovation is fuelled by cognition. Cognition comes in two forms – natural (people) and artificial (AI). QED AI-augmented workers are the way in which to thrive in an increasingly disruptive world. Chief T AI lent Officer? So organisational leaders need to revise their operating model to reflect that increasing disruption has put them squarely in the business of cognition management. So perhaps a further test is to ask: Do you have HR representation in the leadership team? Do they care about people and not just people-processes? You can guess what the correct answers are. This article first appeared in the LinkedIn Intelligent Organisation newsletter .

Introduction Today is a cause for celebration. As a result of the exponential advancements in technology, today we are witnessing the swiftest rate of growth ever recorded. But on the other hand, it is the slowest day we will witness again. Businesses and governments cannot keep up with how technology, and topically AI, will likely transform the nature of work and society. Keep in mind that technology is only one of several macroenvironmental forces that are both compounding and conflating to essentially make our world unknowable. Some of these forces are natural, eg. pandemics and weather. Some are manmade, eg. geopolitical tensions and social media. Our societies have never been more complex and unpredictable. This report highlights the implications of this rapid change. It also explores how our organisations need to evolve in order to ‘stay in play’. Leaders, aspirational leaders, organisational designers and those concerned about the future of work will find this report of value. An intelligent organisation, why? Efficiency idolatry Organisations today generally operate as process factories, underpinned by Taylor’s scientific management approach, where the system comes first and people second. At a more fundamental level, efficiency is deified. A focus on efficiency leads to greater profits and in the public sector delivering better services at less cost. Whilst nature values efficiency, it values survival even more. This focus on efficiency leads to a short-termism, gaining benefits today with no provision for what might lie ahead. This was okay during the industrial age, an era when the powers that be managed to cultivate a degree of predictability in society. Putting nothing aside for a rainy day is now a problem, given the storm shows no sign of abating. Worker shock We are all in uncharted territory. Leaders rarely have time to step back and reflect on the major changes that are taking place, or on the implications for their organisations. Thus post-Covid, rather than regarding this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to reinvent the organisation, leaders have typically returned to pre-Covid practices. This comfort blanket reaction is now causing organisations to spiral downwards. Even more concerning is that these leaders believe that by intensifying their focus on efficiency, they can weather the storm, oblivious to the fact that the storm is likely to grow even more fierce. The consequence of this approach is that it puts inordinate pressure on the workers. They are expected to do more with less resources, including time, and thus we are seeing an increase in mental ill-health. This is compounded by the fact that many workers used Covid to reassess their relationship with work, in particular what their time was worth. Handsome remuneration no longer offsets the daily grind of the long commute, the lack of autonomy or the loss of freedom in respect of work-life integration. Regardless, a significant portion of what we label as work today is dehumanising, monotonous, procedural labour that fails to utilize our cognitive abilities effectively. However whilst some workers are reassessing their work-life priorities, there is the spectre of AI and its capacity to do what we do, only better and at less cost. Thus a sense of empowerment, ‘work on my terms’, is tempered with anxiety about the future. Anxious workers unfortunately are often ineffective workers. Thus we have employer-employee tensions coupled with the anxiety of an unknowable future from a personal economic value perspective. Reduced gym membership and a wellness app won’t address this. Playing the wrong game Increasing disruption gives rise to an increasing array of novel situations. Such situations feel threatening, particularly if you have enjoyed a predictable, steady state existence up until now. The industrial era might be classified as a finite game in that the rules were very clear, as was the scoring mechanism. There was typically only one ball, and the pitch boundaries were clearly marked. Disruption has nudged us into what might be called the Infinite Game. A game where there are no rules and no obvious scoring mechanism. There is an indeterminate number of different shaped balls at any given time and there is no pitch boundary. This is invariably going to be unsettling. The good news is that this is a game our pre-industrial ancestors played well. We know they played well because we are here. You might say that the objective of the Infinite Game is to simply stay in the game. We are in fact wired to play the Infinite Game, it is just that the associated capabilities became dormant as a result of industrial society. The question becomes how we reignite this capability and scale it up to ensure our organisations can similarly play the game well. Transformation fatigue There is much talk about transformation. Clearly, we need to transform our organisations, so why are so many transformations failing? Transformation is both big business and ‘big ticket’ business. The tech vendors want to sell you digital transformation as if sprinkling an old school business model with tech pixie dust will somehow transform it into an organisation fit for an unknowable future. The HR vendors want to sell you culture transformation, which will magically lead to your people being delighted that they are having to run faster on a meaningless hamster wheel. These transformations are sold along the lines of – your organisation is at point A (bad) and you need to get to point B (good). The problem is that in a rapidly changing world point B won’t sit still. The vendor may well get you to point B, as commercially agreed, but it no longer represents ‘good’. Neither of these ‘linear’ approaches address how your organisation deals with a rapidly changing world. Understand what is important The principles on which the industrial era process model is based are no longer fit for purpose. We must embrace a new way of thinking. Focus on assets We have established that a focus on efficiency provides little buffer against an increasingly turbulent world. It would be wiser to focus on growing assets. The beauty of assets is that they are creating value just by their very existence. So assets in effect create perpetual profits. Balance sheets today split assets into financial and the rest. The former comprising cash or assets that could be easily converted to cash if needed. Everything else is bundled into just one bucket. Thus recognised assets such as brand capital (eg. why people will pay us more than other organisations for offerings with similar functional benefits) and physical capital (eg. property and land) are bundled together. Products, services and subsidiary companies are also assets, unless they are draining the organisation’s resources. Human capital, the extent to which our people create value, and data capital, the extent to which we can turn our data into value, are more often than not ignored. Even though these are what will give your organisation the greatest chances of survival. Let’s explore these: Data capital Living organisms survive (ie play the Infinite Game) by sensing what is happening in their environment, deciding what to do based on what they sense and then acting in line with their decision. This is happening continuously. Living organisms operate in real-time. Most organisations typically have a clock cycle of one year or more, which is clearly unsuitable in a chaotic world. Data is critical to sensing, deciding and acting. The quality of the data will determine how your organisation perceives its environment and thus on the quality of the associated decisions and actions. Similarly, the effectiveness of your AI investment will be determined by the quality of your data. The purported benefits of AI imply the ownership of a pristine data lake, when in reality most organisations have something more akin to a data cesspit. Cognitive capital I prefer to think of human capital as cognitive capital. As technology advances, the need for humans to do meaningless process work is diminishing. Our value proposition sits between our ears. The focus today is on artificial intelligence with little regard for the natural intelligence of our people. An intelligence that involved millions of years of programming to ensure we survived in the harshest of environments. An intelligence that was subsequently squandered by the industrial era factory model. Harnessing this natural intelligence will benefit both the organisation and the individual. Your workers are no longer cogs in the machine. They are cognitive athletes and your workplace needs to become a cognitive gymnasium. Organisations that wake up to this will: Be more likely to survive Release a tremendous amount of trapped value Attract and retain the best people. It is tempting to ignore this and just drift along with the AI hype because the latter, mistakenly, feels like a ‘bolt on’ to the existing model and thus is not too intellectually demanding from a strategic perspective. I would encourage you to come to terms with the fact that if you intend to play the Infinite Game well, you need to realise that you are in the cognition management business. It’s people and tech. Natural and artificial intelligence. Embrace innovation You might be thinking that this all sounds good but are wondering how in practice you apply this cognitive horsepower to the Infinite Game. Again, we are moving into a more complex world. In the industrial era the link between cause and effect was quite clear. Not so in complex systems. Such systems are unpredictable and, like it or not, unpredictability leads to increasingly novel situations. Most organisations are rigidly structured around a perceived understanding of the link between cause and effect. If you spend X on marketing, you will receive Y in sales. Conversely if you know there will be a sustained demand for a certain product, then it is worth investing in a factory to make that product. Fine tuning the associated processes is big business for service providers. Who doesn’t want to maximise profit or do more with less? Unfortunately novel situations require a novel response. Organisations that comprise a collection of hard-baked processes will be unable to deal with such novelty. Eventually the offerings that made the organisation so successful will no longer be required. This decoupling from reality, ie a lack of responsiveness to the environment, will eventually bring about the demise of the organisation. The solution is innovation. It is how we address novel situations. It requires experimentation, a comfort with failure and a healthy supply of cognition. Whilst technology has a role to play in the running of your existing processes, and people to an increasingly lesser extent, they come into their own when it comes to innovation. You might feel you have this covered as you already have a research and development function. But we are not just talking about new products and services. There needs to be innovation at the business model level, ie. a diverse array of new products and services in non-adjacent markets, with new financial models and go-to-market approaches. Imagine you are running a large pharmaceutical company, spending a fortune on innovation. But through perhaps government policy, people are now managing their health more effectively. So they become less concerned about illness and more focused on wellness. Drug dollars are now migrating to healthy lifestyle offerings. As novel situations outpace business as usual operations, your organisation needs to become more akin to a living organism that continuously adapts to its environment. This is why we have an innate sense, of curiosity, creativity and courage. It is these traits that kept us alive on the savanna and will continue to do so in this post-industrial world. This will prove challenging from a governance perspective as innovation requires a revised attitude to risk management. Rethink leadership The industrial era leadership model is very centralised. Imagine a living organism where a mere handful of cells wielded authority over the trillions of other cells that constitute its being. There is a good reason why this doesn’t work- thankfully my hand does not need permission from my brain should I accidently pick up a hot poker. We need a more decentralised approach to leadership. The player closest to the ball (or even balls) is the captain at that point in time. Think organisational nervous system rather than heroic leader. This requires a high degree of trust and a willingness for your people to carry the associated responsibility. Avoid transformation You might now be thinking that this makes good sense, so how do we effect this transformation. Stop right there. The last thing you need is a transformation. Transformations typically result in: Creating anxiety amongst the work force. It triggers your best people to pursue other avenues, leaving you with the people who are less economically attractive. Quite naturally your organisation will have its share of ‘antibodies’. People who are threatened by the change and will do all in their power to thwart it. This serves to further ramp up the anxiety and boost cultural toxicity. Threatening your existing cashflow. Whilst there is a possibility that your organisation is on its last legs, it is at least generating cash. Focusing on the shiny future and ignoring today’s operational necessities will accelerate the organisation’s journey to intensive care / demise. As implied earlier, transformations are sold as programmes. Some organisations, perhaps to show their commitment to the journey, appoint a Chief Transformation Officer. By appointing a CTO, the CEO has effectively abdicated this problem by departmentalising it. This puts it into competition with the other business functions in respect of funding. So such appointees will have to soak up naïve statements such as, “It was a bad quarter, so we now have less money for transformation”. I am advocating a model that is less about ‘pulling up the floorboards’, and more about salvaging what continues to work and extending it to improve adaptiveness. That stated, it is no trivial exercise. It needs to be led from the top of the organisation. What does good look like? Firstly your existing business will run as it has always done. It may continue to do this for many more years, or it may come to an abrupt halt next week. That encapsulates the plight of most organisations today. However, on the belief that your current business still has some mileage, you press on with your efficiency drive. Thus you continue to digitalise the processes to squeeze out more profit. Whilst people will naturally be concerned about being swapped out for a robot or algorithm, they will feel some degree of familiarity-fuelled comfort. Dying at home is favourable to dying in an unfamiliar location. Because you now recognise that there is an inherent risk in having only one source of cash or at least in having multiple sources of cash underpinned by one market assumption, you start to experiment with new business models. These models extend the organisation’s reach beyond your current market and into adjacent and non-adjacent markets. Think Taco Bell selling chess sets or Harvard Business School offering spread betting services. These new models may be acquired organisations – startups, scaleups and / or mature businesses. Or they may be home grown, starting off as an employee idea that evolves via a concept paper and a prototype to a fully-fledged source of cash. Most ideas will never make it to market. That is a natural consequence of experimentation and the innovation process. Over time these fledging businesses will mature to a point where they are developing their own new businesses. Your organisation is akin to the roots, or even branches, of a tree seeking nourishment. Your organisation is continually seeking ways to create value and that is taking it in directions that could never have been anticipated. This is an intelligent organisation. You now have a portfolio of businesses generating cash from a diverse array of markets. You no longer have a cashflow single point of failure. Again this requires your organisation to be continuously on the alert for opportunities and acting quickly on the best ones. Sense, decide and act. You can operate these new businesses in keeping with a more people-centric and agile approach. Some of your existing employees will be baffled by this startup vibe, but some will relish the opportunity to move from process drudgery to a role that make them feel more human. So rather than pushing a transformation onto your people, you have created a pull dynamic. Let’s get going Caution The challenge that most organisations face is that whilst everyone has a sense that things are no longer working, nobody knows how to move forward. This results in one of the following: Choosing to ignore reality and just pressing on in the hope that ‘normality’ will return. Going all in on AI, digital transformation or any other theme du jour because they see others doing it and hope that this herd approach will protect them. Making superficial changes such as introducing hybrid working, 4-day weeks and employee wellness apps. These will not end well. Their difference being on the extent to which they accelerate the organisation’s demise. Step by step Awareness Initially we need to ensure that our leaders understand the extent to which increasing disruption will impact their organisations and how it is possible to embrace this disruption. Exploration With raised awareness, perhaps via one or more workshops, the leadership needs to consider: The implications of this disruption on how the organisation moves forward. How resources will be allocated. How this will be communicated to the workforce and beyond. Education Ensure everyone in the organisation understands what lies ahead and how that will impact their role. This could be a mixture of briefing and ideation workshops. Communication Work with your external communications people to ensure all stakeholders are aware of the organisation’s course of action. It is likely that they will be nervously optimistic and so will need regular reassurance that the approach is working. You need to ensure that your board of directors are not only onboard but are driving this. Implementation Build an innovation engine that effectively captures new business ideas and turns them into value either through acquisition or homegrown initiatives. Put processes in place to: Acquire talent better suited to a more cognitive working model, ie. they have a startup mindset. Share central services with the acquisitions and home-grown initiatives. Select ideas for experimentation. Evaluate progress and eventually value realisation. Public sector Please note that whilst public sector organisations benefit from having a locked-in customer base, they cannot waltz into non-adjacent markets to reduce risk unless it can be shown to be a better use of funds than providing the requisite services. Nonetheless, this approach can be used to develop a more innovative approach to improving existing services, in particular making them better integrated so that the citizen experience and journey have less friction. Conclusion The exercise here is to create a new operating model that can better adapt to a rapidly changing world. Moving from the industrial model to a more living, sensing organism type approach does require a transformation of thinking, but in essence is a relatively simple modification to the existing operating model. Tinkering / transforming what currently works is a recipe for disaster. Keep in mind that innovation is key to adaptiveness. Natural and artificial cognition are the fuel. This will require organisations to take a radically different approach to talent management. This report captures some of the thinking that gave rise to the Intelligent Organisation think tank.

Out of office? Imagine a world where your ‘digital self’ clocks on for work. At that exact moment you head out to hike a trail, master a martial art, develop your improv comedy or simply enjoy an unhurried breakfast. In this world, your AI-trained avatar will: Lead your team (of avatars?) Attend meetings Produce your deliverables Pin blame, as required. If you're willing to pay for the premium plug-in, your avatar could be a more politically astute version of you. Not only reinforcing your reputation as a tireless worker, but fast-tracking your ascent up the greasy pole. No chance! The technology to make this happen is well underway.  Voice cloning Visual avatars (Cartoonish to semi-realistic) Textual personas (think ChatGPT) Digital doubles (lifelike visual avatars). A contextually aware and emotionally intelligent avatar is not available just yet. But for some people that might well reinforce the likeness. For employers who are looking for value, rather than activity, or an opportunity to show who is boss, this could work well. Not so fast There are issues that need to be considered, for example: What if someone creates a better version of you and sells your capability? Can your avatar have a thousand jobs running in parallel? What are the tax implications? Who owns your avatar’s output? Will the most successful avatars be less about the value they provide and more about how much their owners can afford to spend in making their avatar more visible in the marketplace? What if your avatar is hacked? How will inheritance law handle your avatar’s posthumous use? Will you be obliged to provide a realistic likeness or will you be able to have some ‘digital work’ done, or even go all in and use the avatar shell of your favourite celebrity (ASAAS - Avatar shell as a service)? I’m in So now that the prospect of you living a double life is both possible and attractive, what do you need to do? Train your avatar If you have a body of content, then make it part of the training dataset. Share your perspectives verbally. Feed your aspirations into the avatar so that the recruitment consultant agent can find work that meets your professional needs. Define what is unique about you This is both professionally in terms of the value you deliver and also what makes you who you are as a person. You may even share traumatic experiences so that the AI can factor that into your avatar. Depending on the nature of work, these may be perceived as a unique asset or a liability. Your avatar can decide when to share. Pay attention to your avatar Think of it as a high stakes Tamagotchi pet that needs continual nurturing. This includes the acquisition of new skills. Develop your physical intelligence Now that you will be living a digital professional life, you will have more time to take your body for a spin. So you might spend more time developing your health and your physical powers. The human body has some fascinating features that are largely unused. Shoulders, for example, are not just for slumping. What about Bob the Builder? Clearly I have focused on knowledge worker avatars. This equally applies to tradespeople such as: Carpenters Welders Electricians Plumbers Hairdressers. These people would simply require their avatars to reside in a robot. Clearly the tradesperson would need to bring something to the table that one couldn’t find in, say, a generic carpenter-bot. Patriot gains It is not guaranteed that this avatar-based model will come to pass. In some respects it is agentic AI applied to humans, so it seems like a natural progression. A general global decline in people may require knowledge workers to ‘parallel process’ in order to keep society’s economic wheels turning. So avatarU is aligned with current trends. Nextgen AI There is a question around young people entering the workplace who comprise one hundred percent potential and zero percent experience. Will employers take a chance on their associated avatars or will governments insist that employers play an active role in their development. To conclude, one possible future of work is that our primary job may simply involve the maintenance of our avatar, a kind of meta-work. Time will tell.

If you have read this far, congratulations! To explore a piece with such an abstract title suggests that you score high on curiosity, an essential survival trait. Let me explain what I mean by first defining the terms: Taylorism  – This is also known as the Scientific Management. It was developed in the late nineteenth century as an approach to making organisations more efficient. In this model the system trumps the workers. Workers are merely cogs in the machine. Tailorism  – This is a term I just made up to define a person who regards themselves as a tailor in terms of how they approach their work. Tailors have strong technical skills, pay attention to detail, are excellent communicators, are conscious of trends and have a commitment to quality. Dead or working? So the career choice I am referring to is this: Would you rather be a soulless cog, who after a while could still do their job whilst having a stroke; a technology placeholder simply waiting for the tap on the shoulder from your robot replacement? Or would you prefer to be a craftsman whose work is a timeless expression of their skill and humanity? Industrial society has a preference. If you are a standard cog, you are likely to have employment options. You will likely remain employed, as long as you have a frictionless work ethic. At least until your role is automated or a younger, hungrier cog is willing to do your work for less. This is perhaps not a concern if you can move up the career ladder and become a cog administrator, ie a manager. This is the ideal position for those who enjoy making others behave in a manner that goes against their human nature. Too much like hard work Becoming a tailor is not something you can master through a quick Udemy course. It follows a path more akin to the medieval guild model: apprentice, journeyman, then master. It demands time, dedication, and cognitive effort. No two days are the same. There is no pressure to move into management. Unlike ‘industrial model’ work with its focus on efficiency, the workers enjoy their work and so are not focused on doing as little as possible for a pre-agreed salary. Consequently they do not need management. Standard versus standards For clarification, I should point out that your options are not to a) work for a big organisation or b) become a tailor. Tailorism is a mindset. It is the standards that you hold yourself to regardless of the standards imposed on you. Like a tailor, you are great with people, conscious of trends, have an attention to detail and take pride in your work, as your work is an expression of who you really are. My way Thus you can be a tailor in a large organisation, where for the most part you are locked in to adhering to the standard operating manual. Look for opportunities to add value above the minimum acceptable standards regardless of how badly you are paid. You can add personal flourishes by the way you engage with co-workers, by spellchecking your emails or by arriving early and energised for your online meetings. Some traditional roles will give you even more latitude to show the world who you really are. The reality is that the game is up if you are a cog worker. Some of us will get over the line before we are swapped out by new technology, or before our organisation goes the way of the dinosaurs. In any case, I would encourage you to take ownership of the quality of your work and explore career options that enable you to spend more time in tailor-mode rather than Taylor mode.

Careers are a social construct. They were created for the convenience of the organisation. Over time they became useful to both sectors and societies. The prevalent narrative is that we start at the bottom of the ladder and work our way to the top. Each step representing a jump in economic and social status. Moving from technical /’hands on’ to managerial was a clear indicator that you were gaining career altitude. The unfortunate consequence of this approach is that technical people, for example scientists, engineers and creatives are considered a lower caste. Thus there is a pressure to become ‘hands off’ just as your hands were getting the hang of it. The struggle For many of us, our career is the framework in which our life unfolds. Consequently our CV is entwined with our life story. Thus there is tendency to architect a socially impressive career path depicting heroism and nobility. Examples include: Post room to CEO – “Know that with no qualifications, I was smart enough to play the game well!”. Rags to riches – “Know that despite the odds I can now buy and sell the people who once looked down on me.” Adaptive hero - “I have smartly transitioned from lunar astronaut / Olympian / extreme adventurer to media pundit / public speaker / successful CEO”. Careers are traditionally linear in nature. A journey from A to B where B is remarkably different rom A. Careers can seem even more dramatic if there is some adversity along the way. Eventual triumph against the odds turns a career into a dramatic odyssey and even a poignant expression of the human condition. Lucky for some? But there are those who take a more gilded path, for example: Silver spooner – “Know that despite the salary my impressive qualifications could command I choose to work at a not-for-profit organisation because I am socially conscious and from ‘old money’. Invariably, I will one day be the CEO of an international NGO.” Top drawer – “Know that my Ivy League education followed by a career at a top tier management consultancy highlights that I am simply better than most people and most likely a very attractive potential mate”. I have some sympathy for those born wealthy as they will find it difficult to add drama to a narrative that is essentially. “On reflection, I lived my life wearing ‘training wheels’. There was never really anything at stake”. Who moved my ladder? The challenge we have today is that careers are no longer linear; they are about to enter retirement. In a world where AI, in particular is gaining ground, how likely is it that today’s young doctors, architects or lawyers will be economically relevant to their sector in, say, twenty years? So perhaps it is time to change the narrative. With increasing macroenvironmental disruption, for at least the next five to ten years, it might be better to think of our professional lives as a video game that evolves randomly in real-time. It is thus not clear: How success is measured What are the rules of the game When the game ends Where does the game end (the boundary). Towards an infinite career This is sometimes referred to as the infinite game, a game we had no choice but to play prior to the agricultural revolution. This is the game we are genetically wired to play. In essence, the only reason for playing the game is to stay in the game, ie the game’s theme is survival. This means being predictive, opportunistic, adaptive and thus intelligent. So whether you are a junior doctor, management consultant or tattooist, you need to monitor the environment looking for signals that suggest it is time to pivot. Traditional careers are no longer a given. Follow the energy One way to play the infinite game is to create your own personal rules (aka values). These might include, I will do whatever it takes to: Become financially rich Have power over as many people as possible Make a positive impact on society Be famous – social media makes fame a recognised career path Be a world authority / the expert Maximise my free time Grab what I can with the least amount of energy expenditure. Fundamentally, professions are energy exchange mechanisms. Employers consume your energy for their strategic purposes in exchange for cash, which you can spend to recharge and maintain a charge in your dependents. That’s it. Who cares? Perhaps it is time to reassess what your professional life means to you beyond staying in the game. Because each calorie of energy you spend has a temporal cost. And time is something you cannot buy back no matter how much money you have acquired. The next best thing is legacy - to have a library or a business school named after you. But that isn’t quite as good as being alive and appreciating life. Either way, the path you take is unlikely to be the path you planned.

When you spend your time focusing on your career there is a risk that you are not picking up on the signals that indicate that the very nature of careers is changing. So in this article we explore and debunk five widespread misconceptions. Career chapters are sequential Over the last few hundred years, the understanding is that you progress from a junior to a senior position within a profession or sector. You may start off as an account executive and end as the Chief Revenue Officer of a Fortune 500 company. The reality is that having a career with only one income stream puts you at risk. Thus the growth in side-hustles. You may be an IT consultant during the day, but in the morning you run a drop ship running shoes retail business and in the evening you are a dub step - dinner jazz deejay. Over time, it becomes unclear as to which is your primary ‘career’. Follow your passion You are a highly paid lawyer / banker who hates what you do, but you are shackled by golden handcuffs. You believe life would be much more fun if you started your own YouTube channel that focused on your, recently acquired, interest in wellness. If you follow your passion, you may discover that you are either late to the game or there is no market for the insights you have acquired from attending a few Pilates classes and watching maybe five Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson fitness videos. If you can align your passion with market demand, a focused offering and competence, then following your passion makes perfect sense. A degree guarantees a job In many countries a degree can only guarantee debt. There is of course more to tertiary education than education, but it is an increasingly expensive way to fund your right of passage into adulthood or to plaster over your insecurities. Some professions require a relevant degree. Be very careful about getting into debt on the off chance the market might pick up. If your heart is set on acquiring a qualification, then find an employer who will pay for it. Loyalty is rewarded My generation was told to demonstrate reliability by not job hopping. There was a danger that interviewers would spot that you were a flight risk and so you would fall at the first hurdle. Whilst a high employee churn rate is costly for the employer, increasing disruption makes this less of an issue. Employers increasingly value candidates with a broad portfolio of experience. Also job hopping is the easiest way to boost your salary. Though viewing your career purely through a financial lens will make for a soulless existence. Your career title defines your worth For some people, their choice of career path was not their choice. Their parents, regarding their kids as social assets, pushed them into medicine, law and forensic anthropology. When the parents talked about financial security and career prospects, they were really talking about their own self-worth. Such messages, eventually seep into the children’s psyche and so only the most self-aware dare veer off their chosen path. Your career is only one aspect of who you are. There was a time when the 24-7 lawyer or the sales professional who tries to negotiate with the superstore checkout operator would be seen as consummate professionals who live and breathe their work. Today they look increasingly sad. Not least because of the price they have paid in respect of their loved ones, personal health and for their role in upholding dysfunctional practices. These are just a few examples of how the world of work is changing. More broadly, question everything in respect of your career assumptions.

The rise of AI and automation is reshaping the world of work at a pace few of us expected. For many, this brings excitement and opportunity. But for others, it triggers anxiety—about job security, relevance, and what the future holds. This is entirely understandable. When machines appear to be getting smarter by the day, it is natural to wonder where we fit in. The good news? There is a place for us, but we need to step up. Here are five practical ways to ease AI-related anxiety and build a more resilient, future-ready mindset. 1. Shift from task to capability thinking Jobs are collections of tasks. And it is true—many routine or repetitive tasks are being automated. But rather than focusing on what you do each day, think in terms of capabilities. What are you good at? What can you bring to different contexts? Are you a strong problem solver, communicator, or relationship builder? By identifying your core capabilities—those transferable strengths that machines struggle to mimic—you can start to reposition yourself. You are no longer just a “role” that can be replaced; you are a capability-rich contributor who can flex, adapt, and thrive across situations. Taken to te next level, a shift to outcomes will help you reposition your proposition in the context of what organisations truly value. 2. Stay curious and keep learning One of the best antidotes to anxiety is action. AI and automation are advancing, yes—but so are the opportunities to learn about AI. Short courses, YouTube tutorials, workplace communities, even AI tools themselves can help you stay informed and ahead of the curve. Learning does not have to mean becoming a data scientist. It might mean understanding the basics of how AI works or becoming more fluent in using collaborative tools. Every time you add to your skillset, you build confidence—and that helps reduce fear. 3. Get comfortable with tech Fear often comes from unfamiliarity. If AI feels like a black box or distant threat, try bringing it closer. Play with AI writing tools like ChatGPT, experiment with automation apps like Zapier, or explore how your organisation is already using smart systems. Perhaps even befriend a techie! Rather than seeing AI as something done to you, treat it as a co-pilot. How can it help you save time, make better decisions, or improve your work? When you use the tools yourself, you start to see their limits—and their potential. That perspective shift is powerful as it will attenuate your anxiety. 4. Focus on what makes you human AI may be good at logic and prediction, but it struggles with empathy, trust-building, and creative leaps. That is your zone. Strengthen the qualities that make you uniquely human—emotional intelligence, storytelling, ethical judgment, contextual awareness. The future of work will increasingly centre around collaboration between humans and machines. Your ability to bring emotional depth, navigate ambiguity, and care about others will be a competitive advantage, not a quaint leftover. Whilst AI systems have had millions of hours of training, we have had millions of years of training largely in very harsh environments. We have become highly adaptive. AI is not there yet. 5. Engage in shaping the future Do not sit on the sidelines. Get involved in how your organisation is adopting technology. Ask questions. Offer ideas. Join pilot programmes. Contribute to ethical discussions. When you are part of shaping change, you feel less like a victim of it. This does not just help your own mindset—it also signals to your employer that you are proactive and adaptable, qualities every organisation needs in uncertain times. Final thoughts AI and automation are not just about job losses. They are about the reconfiguration of work—and in many cases, the elevation of human contribution. By focusing on capability, continuous learning, human strengths, and active participation, we can all approach the future with more clarity and less fear. Rather than asking “Will AI take my job?”—ask, “Am I perceived as someone who is comfortable working with AI?”. And looking a little further ahead, “How can I become someone AI wants to work with?!”.

Leaders are often judged by the extent to which they usher their organisation closer to its vision. The vision might reference share price, GDP per capita or dominance in a particular domain. Increasingly there is an expectation that leaders also display a moral compass in respect of the path they take. Observers increasingly judge leaders on whether they have a sense of right or wrong. The Machiavellian adage ‘The end(s) justifies the means’ is not held in high esteem. The problem is that right and wrong are social constructs, as is cheating. What is considered right varies in time and context. Different cultures value different things. It would be unwise to talk in terms of absolutes when it comes to morality. As such it is not useful in respect of assessing a leader’s performance. Consider a scenario where you are being goaded into a fight, as is a tradition in many inner city, town and village pubs in the UK around closing time. You raise your fists, implying Queensbury rules. UK pugilists well understand this, so it is likely that your provocateur will do the same. As you come closer, you side stomp his knee, thus rendering him unable to stand or fight. This is not in the rules. However you were not signing up for a boxing match, you simply wanted to get home unscathed. It might be better to think of effectiveness, including leadership effectiveness, in terms of intelligence. This is not to be conflated with knowledge or education. Street smartness trumps certificates. But surely deceiving others / being greedy are neither good nor intelligent? Imagine we have rewound the clock back to when our ancestors descended from the trees and realised that if they were to avoid lunch eating them, they would need to collaborate with other humans. Back then, your ancestors, and mine, focused minute by minute on survival. They likely didn’t reflect on this (what’s my purpose? what’s my legacy? Pilates or Zumba? etc). They just had this feeling that staying alive was important. Thankfully, our ancestors were intelligent. We are the proof of that - they survived long enough to reproduce and raise the next generation, as did all their descendants. Being intelligent means having the ability to: ·       Sense what is happening around you (emotional intelligence) ·       Decide what to do based on what you sense (cognitive intelligence) ·       Act based on what you decide (physical intelligence). Once we realised that we were more effective operating as a tribe we then had to think not only of our survival but that of the tribe. Thus we might sacrifice ourselves to save the tribe because if we didn’t, and the tribe survived, we would have the stigma associated with not being a team player, which in turn would lead to expulsion from the tribe. This would in effect be a death sentence. Deception or greed that leads to the tribe losing resources would lead to a similar outcome. Though deception or greed that increased resources for the tribe might be seen as a virtue, particularly if they didn’t lead to intertribal strife. So to some modern observers, ‘taking one for the team’ would be considered morally good. Though others would not see it that way as they consider life as sacred. Again morality is relative. The question arises as to what happens when your tribe and my tribe are pursuing the same resource. The berry bush capacity for only one tribe. Back then intelligence meant weighing up the risks and perhaps recognising you were likely to lose out in a fight, and potentially lose some of your most able people. So you went looking elsewhere. Today we might mask this with, ‘we took the moral high ground as fighting is uncouth’. In fact morals can be a sign of cowardice or weakness. It is easier to say that it is uncouth than to admit that you can’t fight. Today we regard kindness as a virtue. We are in fact wired to be kind because, as organic prediction engines, we know that not so long ago we could quite easily be that person in need. Thus an act of kindness is a hedge bet on the future. And so we behave in a manner that increases the chances of others being kind to us. Thus kindness is an act of intelligence. It feels good, not because it is a moral act, but because our body is rewarding us for being intelligent. Morality is, in many senses, intelligence codified. Religious and philosophical moral frameworks have their basis on what is good for their adherents. Cult leaders sometimes skew the framework so that they are the primary beneficiary. But as mentioned intelligence in practice is context-sensitive. What was codified in a bygone era in a far-off land may no longer serve those who embrace it. Even if the cult, religious or political leader refreshed their morality framework, the chances are that a one size fits all (people, time and environment) model will always lag reality. Intelligence is absolute. Ultimately intelligence is how we adapt to the environment we find ourselves in. We use our senses, often stimulated by external forces, to adapt (or not). If your survival or that of the tribe is the goal, you do not need to view this through a moral framework. We are back on the savanna. We are playing the infinite game in a fast moving and uncertain world. Moral frameworks, for all their value in maintaining social order, cannot keep up. Staying in the game is the priority not slavish adherence to an outdated moral code. But we need to do that in the context of us being social animals (and needing social order). Thus I would advocate that we focus on intelligence rather than morality. You could say that intelligence is morality for a hyper-uncertain world. We need intelligent leaders. In fact we need everyone to be an intelligent leader.

The calculators are coming The dominant narrative around AI in the workplace often boils down to a gladiatorial match: humans on one side, machines on the other. Will we beat the machines? Will they take our jobs? But this framing is not just tired — it’s dangerous. The real opportunity isn’t humans vs. machines, but humans with machines. Think augmented humans. Just as calculators didn’t replace mathematicians, AI won’t necessarily replace humans — but it will force us to rethink what it means to be human at work. In fact, we might be entering an era where bringing your humanity to work, quirks and all, is a key element of your value proposition. But we must acknowledge that AI is better at pattern recognition, computation, and task repetition. Humans excel at ambiguity, empathy, storytelling, intuition, and sensemaking in messy, uncertain environments. We need to shift the conversation from "how can I do what I’ve always done, but faster or better?" to "what is my new role in an AI-augmented organisation?" The human edge In a machine-enhanced world, our value doesn’t lie in doing what AI can do — it lies in what it can’t do (yet). That includes: Judgement in uncertain or morally grey situations Empathy in leadership, healthcare, education, and beyond Meaning-making — we interpret, frame, and storytell Physical intelligence — movement, performance, presence Relationship-building — trust, influence, collaboration Insight generation – particularly where the dataset is very small. Adaptiveness – Today AI can be trained to do something but will struggle to learn something new. And even if it does learn something new, it loses the ability to do what it did. Whereas humans evolve and have the capability to synthesise their skills. Rather than clinging to routine work that machines now do better, we should be leaning into these more human dimensions. Employers need cognition to fuel innovation, though many haven’t woken up to that yet. Artificial cognition is the talk of the town, but those that can bring their natural cognition to bear will be very much in demand. From competitor to collaborator So the future of work isn’t about defeating AI — it’s about designing careers and organisations where humans and machines co-evolve. The best workers will be those who: Use AI to amplify their impact Know when to trust data, and when to override it Bring ethical, emotional, and ecological intelligence to tech-infused systems Help build cultures where AI is a tool, not a tyrant Final Thought If you’re asking “Will AI replace me?” you’re already framing your career as a set of tasks. Flip the script: What am I uniquely capable of sensing, deciding, and doing — in partnership with AI? For the last few centuries the majority of workers ‘turned handles’. Today, we need creative problem solvers. Increasing disruption, gives rise to new problems. The future belongs not to the most efficient worker, but to the most adaptive one.

Balancing act - The traditional concept of work-life balance, where work and personal life exist in separate domains, is increasingly outdated. In the industrial era, most work was either dull, dangerous or dirty. Work was the price we paid for funding our lifestyle. It was fair to say that many of us did not enjoy work, so we were keen to ringfence it. Thus the notion of work-life balance emerged. The nature of work back then was typically location dependent. It was impractical to attach doors to partially completed cars unless the assembly line passed through your living room. Shift based working also made it easier to separate work and life. Work's a beach But today, we can work from anywhere - a coffee shop, our living room, our bathroom and even our bed. With good internet connectivity and some specialised equipment, it is possible to carry out surgical procedures from home whilst bickering with the family. Post Covid there is a whole generation of people who perceive work as being simply one aspect of their lives. They do not want to be identified solely by their profession and they do not want to be hemmed in, “Tell me what to do and when it is needed and I’ll get it done”. As far as they are concerned, the fact that the work is done after an all-nighter in another hemisphere to their primary workplace or interwoven with a cycling holiday in a not so near mountain range is not an issue the employer should concern themselves with. Thus the notion of leave now enjoys a degree of fluidity. There is nothing wrong with this. The trick is being so good at what you do that you can call the employment shots. Why? We also need to consider our rationale for working. Is it just to pay the bills, or is the plan to become world class or the path to self-discovery? Therefore, in some cases, unless you perceive work and life as one and the same, you are a dabbler. However, most of us are not on a warrior monk path and so we do need to manage our work-life integration with care. In any case, work-life integration has the potential to make life more interesting, be more productive (in theory at least) and dramatically improve job satisfaction. Worker beware Failing to exercise care in respect of work-life integration can lead to: Burnout – Some managers assume you are 24x7 available. This is like walking around with a cortisol drip attached. Random interruptions coupled with the anticipation of random interruptions result in never being able to relax and recharge. Strained relationships – Taking a call as your partner to be glides up the aisle may well impress your boss but is unlikely to impress anyone else. A fragmented life – Too much swapping between work and life commitments can result in most of your energy being spent on task switching rather than achieving outcomes, eg. completing that report or finishing that bedtime story. Eliminate boundary disputes To reap the benefits of work-life integration whilst avoiding its risks, both individuals and organisations must adopt intentional strategies: Set clear boundaries – Define specific work hours and communicate them to colleagues. Use time-blocking techniques to allocate time for personal and professional responsibilities. Leverage technology wisely – Use tools that enhance efficiency (e.g., automation, asynchronous communication) rather than increase the workload. Silence non-essential notifications outside of work hours. Prioritise outcomes over hours – Shift the focus from working long hours to achieving meaningful results. Organisations should measure productivity based on impact, not time spent online. Promote well-being – Schedule breaks, engage in physical activity, and create rituals that separate work from personal life. Leaders should model healthy integration practices. Create organisational support systems – Companies should implement policies such as flexible working arrangements, mental health support, and clear expectations around after-hours communication. Decentralise leadership – Allow the workers to decide how the work gets done. Buurtzorg, a Dutch healthcare organisation, lets its nurses determine how patient-centric care is delivered. The future of work – Pay it backward Work-life integration has cultural implications. Organisational culture done well will ease your path to becoming an effective part of the team. The understanding is that the new joiner will someday help other new joiners. As social animals, we need human contact and we have a need to be helpful at a personal level. Ultimately work is more than a mechanism for engineering the perfect lifestyle. It is about creating value by bringing our humanity to bear. With intentionality and good boundary management, work-life integration can lead to a healthier existence.

Learn then earn Reality and the notion of a career are at war. It appears that reality is winning. The learn – work – retire model is fraying and has been for some time. The 20th century idea that a predefined level of educational frontloading would enable you to jump on an ascending career conveyor belt that gracefully took your gene pool to new socioeconomic heights is now a genre of nostalgia. Unlike some of my university friends, who saw graduation as the jettisoning of their career rocket booster, I had no idea what I wanted to do. As an unexceptional astrophysics graduate, science wasn’t an option, so I drifted into software engineering. Bureaucratically in the eighties getting into the startup world was not dissimilar to seeking permission to build a casino in your rented accommodation. Failure is not an option The option to instantly create a pre-IPO startup with one Chat-GPT prompt wasn’t an option. Bureaucratically in the eighties getting into the startup world was not dissimilar to seeking permission to build a casino in your rented accommodation. So graduates generally headed off in the direction of the professions – law, architecture, medicine and so on, whilst some decided to take their chances in ‘big industry’. There was a sense that you had to get this right first time otherwise you had better enlist a speechwriter to help you craft an explanation for your failed mission at the next reunion. This of course was a problem for many people who had been pushed into the professions by parents seeking dinner party validation. It took a great deal of courage to jump off the socioeconomic conveyor belt, given the associated social shame. Look back in anger? At the other end of the spectrum, we read the heartfelt stories of people embarking on retirement. Some of these stories are of course underpinned by a non-disclosure agreement, whilst others are an attempt to make sense of what just happened and how the professional path they took was in some way elegantly designed. These stories usually come from people who have entwined their identity and their career to such an extent that what they now feel is a sense of partial paralysis. Standardisation of the employment framework within sectors enabled people to have one career spanning several organisations. Au revoir certainty My rambling point is that careers are largely over. Careers require societal stability and predictability. This enables organisations to chart their courses accurately and thus implement an employment framework that from an employee’s perspective looks like a career. At one point, one could have a complete career with one employer. Standardisation of the employment framework within sectors enabled people to have one career spanning several organisations. Today society and the market are no longer stable and predictable. This has been the case for some time. But such is the nature of exponential change, that the changes are largely imperceptible until the tsunami is upon us. So those of us who acknowledge this reality will be better able to adapt to the chaos that lies ahead. This will be the thrust of subsequent editions of this blog. One could say that we are now in a world where we have multiple careers with multiple employers. But I believe we are even past this and so it would be better to think multiple gigs, multiple clients. Given the precarity of employment the difference between permanent and temporary employment is now blurred. Today’s barrister is tomorrow’s intelligent legal agent. Why bother? So what are we to think? Is it pointless to think in terms of careers? Yes and no. In my view traditional careers are dead or dying. Today’s barrister is tomorrow’s intelligent legal agent. A piece of software that will interact with other judicial software agents. Today’s heart surgeon will be tomorrow’s car tyre fitter. The tech tsunami is upon us. We can make sense of our existence, at least professionally, by choosing a path that on reflection will look like a good return on our labour. Following your passion is a mistake. Pick a path So at best, we can choose a north star even if we don’t know what the associated path will be. So what are our north star options? Common aspirations include: Pay the bills Become rich Be famous Help others Acquire mastery Make a difference Maximise free time. These are not mutually exclusive. But know that if you optimise for one you might de-optimise for others. Ultra-distance runners accept optimising for endurance is de-optimising for speed. But of course rich and famous is possible. And such people can even make a difference. But they probably had to prioritise one initially and the others become fortuitous by-products. Mastery is an interesting one. My initial goal was to become a database expert. This made economic sense at the time. However the commoditisation of database technology forced a rethink. Following your passion is a mistake. Identifying market supply-demand imbalances is the way forward. We will get into this in subsequent editions.