I have seen this a lot when talking to others exposed to layoffs, and I agree that it has more to do with short-term share-values. The savings are reported and after a while the hiring starts again. Sometimes there is something to use an excuse, in the past decades it has been off-shoring and now it seems to be AI that is the cause.
A simple take on the breaking of the social contract was outlined recently by Eric Ries. It seems that most companies have become corrupt. He is evangelizing Incorruptibility in his latest book incorruptible. Haven't read it but heard him explain it quite elegantly to Guy Kawasaki. The Shizenkan Leadership Institute in Japan offers a wonderful course every year with IESE and multiple business schools around the world (ours too) on how capitalism can evolve to establish a new social contract that does not give into the profit maximization trap. They/we plead for a stakeholder approach and showcase people making that a reality not just a pipe dream. Thank you for this thoughtful piece and very sorry for those at Ericsson, Oracle and others who gave their professional lives to companies that did not deserve their loyalty.
"Company" originally means "to share bread," if I recall correctly. I once wrote about that idea and what it means to belong to a company.
Today, people who have dedicated 30 years or more to an organization can be laid off almost overnight. Not so long ago, that would have been almost unthinkable. It is remarkable how dramatically things have changed, and yet we hardly seem to react to it.
Many of the current "AI will take all jobs" reports are heavily promoted by people who are worried about AI and the growing power of AI giants. The paradox is that, in doing so, they often end up reinforcing exactly the narratives that the AI giants themselves benefit from: that AI is unstoppable, all-powerful, and destined to replace human work on a massive scale.
This is what makes your analysis so important. Rather than focusing on the technology itself, you look at the incentives that drive these narratives and the systems that amplify them. That is where the real conversation should be. Understanding those incentives is also how we can begin to change them.
I love the Ulrich Beck quote. If we managed to get companies to look more long term, this would be such a tool in unlocking the knot that is the metacrisis. And I think the point about resilience is important - it would make for stronger companies too. Win win - though so hard to break the short term cycle based on its obvious rewards for certain people
I have seen this a lot when talking to others exposed to layoffs, and I agree that it has more to do with short-term share-values. The savings are reported and after a while the hiring starts again. Sometimes there is something to use an excuse, in the past decades it has been off-shoring and now it seems to be AI that is the cause.
A simple take on the breaking of the social contract was outlined recently by Eric Ries. It seems that most companies have become corrupt. He is evangelizing Incorruptibility in his latest book incorruptible. Haven't read it but heard him explain it quite elegantly to Guy Kawasaki. The Shizenkan Leadership Institute in Japan offers a wonderful course every year with IESE and multiple business schools around the world (ours too) on how capitalism can evolve to establish a new social contract that does not give into the profit maximization trap. They/we plead for a stakeholder approach and showcase people making that a reality not just a pipe dream. Thank you for this thoughtful piece and very sorry for those at Ericsson, Oracle and others who gave their professional lives to companies that did not deserve their loyalty.
"Company" originally means "to share bread," if I recall correctly. I once wrote about that idea and what it means to belong to a company.
Today, people who have dedicated 30 years or more to an organization can be laid off almost overnight. Not so long ago, that would have been almost unthinkable. It is remarkable how dramatically things have changed, and yet we hardly seem to react to it.
Many of the current "AI will take all jobs" reports are heavily promoted by people who are worried about AI and the growing power of AI giants. The paradox is that, in doing so, they often end up reinforcing exactly the narratives that the AI giants themselves benefit from: that AI is unstoppable, all-powerful, and destined to replace human work on a massive scale.
This is what makes your analysis so important. Rather than focusing on the technology itself, you look at the incentives that drive these narratives and the systems that amplify them. That is where the real conversation should be. Understanding those incentives is also how we can begin to change them.
I love the Ulrich Beck quote. If we managed to get companies to look more long term, this would be such a tool in unlocking the knot that is the metacrisis. And I think the point about resilience is important - it would make for stronger companies too. Win win - though so hard to break the short term cycle based on its obvious rewards for certain people