 |
|
|
|||||
The biggest concern for most people when it comes to AI and work is: Are robots going to take our jobs?Honestly, were right to be concerned. According to McKinsey & Company, 45 million jobs, or a quarter of the workforce, could be lost to automation by 2030. Of course, the promise is that AI will create jobs, too, and weve already started to see emerging roles like prompt engineers and AI ethicists crop up. But many of us also have concerns about how AI is being incorporated into our fields. Should a bot host a podcast, write an article, or replace an actor? Can AI be a therapist, a tutor, or build a car? According to a Workday global survey, three out of four employees say their organization is not collaborating on AI regulation and the same share says their company has yet to provide guidelines on responsible AI use.On the final episode in The New Way We Works mini-series on how AI is changing our jobs, I spoke to Lorena Gonzalez. Shes the president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, a former assemblywoman, and has written AI transparency legislation, including a law designed to prevent algorithms from denying workers break time. While there are many industry-specific concerns about AI in workplaces, she says that some of the most effective and impactful AI regulations address common issues that touch on many different types of workplaces. Robot bosses and algorithmic management Gonzalezs first bill on algorithmic management applied specifically to warehouses. We wanted to give workers the power to question the algorithm that was speeding up their quota, she said. Gonzalez explained that there was no human interaction and it was leading to an increase in warehouse injuries. What we started with in the warehouse bill, we’re really seeing expand throughout different types of work. When you’re dealing with an algorithm, even the basic experience of having to leave your desk or leave your station . . . to use the restroom, becomes problematic, she says. Taking away the human element obviously has a structural problem for workers, but it has a humanity problem, as well.” Privacy Gonzalez is also working on bills regarding worker privacy. She says some companies are going beyond the basics of watching or listening to employees, like using AI tools for things like heat mapping. Gonzalez also says she’s seen companies require employees to wear devices that track who they are talking with (in previously protected places like break rooms or bathrooms), and monitoring how fast workers drive when not on the clock. Data collection and storage A third area of focus for Gonzalez is data that’s being taken from workers without their knowledge, including through facial recognition tools. As an employee, you have a right to understand what is being taken by a computer or by AI as you’re doing the work, sometimes to replace you, sometimes to evaluate you, she says. These are issues that came up in the SAG-AFTRA strike last year, but she says these issues come up in different forms in different industries. We’ve heard it from Longshoremen who say the computer works side-by-side to try to mimic the responses that the worker is giving, she says. The workers should have the right to know that they’re being monitored, that their data is being taken, and there should be some liability involved. Beyond these broader cases of AI regulation, Gonzalez says that business leaders should talk to their employees about how new technology will impact their jobs, before its implemented, not after. Those at the very top get sold on new technology as being cool and being innovative and being able to do things faster and quicker and not really going through the entirety of what these jobs are and not really imagining what on a day-to-day basis that [a] worker has to deal with, she says. Listen to the full episode for more on how workers are fighting for AI regulation in industries like healthcare and retail and the crucial missing step in AI development Gonzalez sees coming out of Silicon Valley.You can listen and subscribe to The New Way We Work on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, RadioPublic, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Category:
E-Commerce
At the moment, confidence in leadership is at an all time low, according to the 2024 Leadership Confidence Index. Its natural to assume the cause is born of an individual failurethe leader lacks competence, their boss didnt prepare or train them well, they dont care about how others experience them. And many of these reasons certainly hold true. But in my experience working with senior executives as an executive coach and organization design consultant, bad leadership is often manufactured by an organization designed, albeit unintentionally, to produce bad leaders. In the intricate dance of organizations, design and leadership are the two central partners. The design of an organization directly shapes the effectiveness, decision-making, and moral authority of its leaders. When the choreography of design falters, leadership stumbles. Organizations are not mere collections of departments, roles, technologies and processes. They are ecosystems where clarity, alignment, and purpose must harmonize to drive value. When these elements are absent, leaders are often set up to fail, sometimes even before they realize it. Bad organization design is not just a structural flaw; it is a leadership hazard. Heres why. The Trap of Misaligned Structures When an organizations structure does not align with its strategy, leaders are forced to work against the grain. Imagine a company whose strategic focus is innovation but whose design over-prioritizes cost control. Leaders in such environments are left juggling contradictory priorities, often at the expense of the very innovation they are supposed to champion. For example, a global tech company I worked with set out to become a leader in AI innovation but maintained a rigid, hierarchical structure optimized for minimizing operational expenses. Mid-level leaders found themselves without the budgetary flexibility or cross-departmental collaboration needed to pursue innovative initiatives. As a result, the company fell behind competitors who had better-aligned structures. Misalignment also breeds fragmentation. When leaders work at cross-purposes with other leaders, it signals to those they lead to put their own agendas first. Such self-involvement frays the organization, disabling it from working coherently. Leaders in silos may excel at optimizing their narrow domains but fail to see the bigger picture. This creates turf wars, miscommunication, and a lack of cohesion, leaving leaders to expend precious energy managing conflict instead of driving impact. A 2021 study published in the Journal of Economics Finance and Management Studies showed a direct correlation between misaligned organization design and poor decision making. Ambiguity as the Enemy of Accountability Ambiguity in roles, decision-making authority, or performance expectations is another byproduct of poor design. Leaders operating in such environments face an uphill battle in creating accountability. Without clear boundaries or metrics, decision-making slows, trust erodes, and blame becomes a substitute for ownership. Consider a retail chain that failed to clearly define the responsibilities of its regional managers versus its store managers. When sales declined in multiple locations, no one was certain who was responsible for addressing the issue. This lack of clarity not only delayed corrective actions but also created friction and mistrust among the leadership team. Leaders thrive when their roles are defined with precision and their scope of influence is clear. In contrast, bad design fosters shadow systemsunofficial ways of getting things done that undermine formal processes. Leaders operating in these shadows may gain temporary wins but at the cost of sustainable performance and credibility. Culture as a Reflection of Design Organizational culture is not an abstraction; it is the byproduct of what an organization rewards, tolerates, and ignores. Bad design amplifies toxic behaviors, making it harder for leaders to model the values they preach. For instance, if the incentive system rewards short-term gains at the expense of collaboration, leaders will struggle to inspire teamwork. A financial services firm, for example, implemented a bonus system heavily weighted toward individual performance metrics. While some employees thrived, cross-department collaboration plummeted. Leaders trying to foster teamwork found themselves at odds with a system that rewarded competition over cooperation. Culture is experienced at the organization’s seamsthe places where different parts of the organization connect. When these seams are poorly stitched, leaders are left grappling with inconsistent norms, conflicting metrics, and territorial self-interest, making it nearly impossible to lead cohesively. Research suggests that aligning business strategy with organizational culture can significantly impact performance. According to a 2019 Workplace Accountability study with over 40,000 participants, 93% of those surveyed were unable to align their work or take accountability for desired results. Fully one-third felt that their priorities change frequently, creating confusion. Further, 84% of those surveyed cited the way leaders behave as the single most important factor influencing accountability in their organizations. And yet just 15% of leaders have successfully clearly defined and broadly communicated their key results. The Weight of Overcompensation When leaders inherit the consequences of bad design, they often try to compensate with sheer willpower, which can manifest as micromanagement. While this may yield short-term results, it is unsustainable and typically accelerates burnoutnot just for the leaders but for their teams as well. Overcompensation also distracts leaders from their primary role: to shape vision, align resources, and empower others. For instance, in a manufacturing company struggling with outdated processes, a plant manager took on the role of personally reviewing every operational detail to ensure quality. While this approach temporarily improved output, it left the manager exhausted and demoralized the team, who felt micromanaged and disempowered. Designing for Leadership Success If bad design leads to bad leadership, the reverse is also true: good design enables great leadership. An organization that prioritizes clarity, alignment, and purpose creates an environment where leaders can thrive. Heres how: Align Structure with Strategy: Start by clearly defining the organizations strategic objectives. Map out how each division, team, and role contributes to achieving these goals. Distribute decision rights clearly across an organization, and clarify who gets to make which decisions, with what authority and resources. Engage leaders in cross-functional strategy discussions to ensure their buy-in on how their teams contribute. Clarify Roles and Metrics: Define every roles responsibilities in granular detail, makingsure it has clear performance metrics that align with broader team and organizational objectives. Encourage leaders to co-create these performance metrics with their teams so accountability feels collaborative rather than imposed. Periodically revisit role descriptions to address overlaps or gaps, especially as the organization evolves. Research indicates that ambiguity in accountability is a leading cause of delays in organizational efficiency. Integrate Culture with Design: Ensure that processes and systems reflect the organizations core values. For instance, if collaboration is a priority, design team processes that reward joint problem-solving. Build performance reviews and reward systems that recognize behaviors aligned with cultural goals. Leaders should receive training on how to model these values in their daily interactions. Create feedback loops through surveys or focus groups to monitor cultural health and course-correct as needed. A well-integrated culture enhances employee engagement, driving measurable improvements in productivity. Cultivate Leadership: Provide leaders with development programs that address the unique challenges of their roles. Invest in coaching and mentoring initiatives to help leaders build emotional intelligence, resilience, and strategic thinking. Implement peer-learning groups where leaders can share insights and learn from each others experiences. Equip them with advanced tools for data-driven decision-making, and regularly assess their development progress through structured feedback mechanisms. A Symbiotic Relationship Leadership does not exist in a vacuum. It thrives or falters in direct proportion to the environment that is shaping it. Bad organizational design is not just a technical or financial issue; it is a moral and strategic one. Leaders who find themselves trapped in poorly designed systems must not merely cope but advocate for systemic change. After all, an organizations design is its ultimate act of self-expression. It is the pure embodiment of the organizations mission and strategyand it shapes the kind of leaders it will produce. When design and leadership are in harmony, the result is not only organizational success but leaders and employees who flourish.
Category:
E-Commerce
In the past five years, more satellites have been launched into Earths atmosphere than the preceding 60 years combined. And now, scientists believe that climate change is set to increase the number of old satellites that will turn into floating obstacles. Thats according to a study published last week in the Nature Sustainability journal by a team of aerospace engineers at MIT. The researchers examined how greenhouse gases are impacting Earths upper atmosphere and, in turn, the objects orbiting within it. They found that, as emissions increase, theyre actually altering the natural process that allows satellites to fall out of orbit and disintegrate, resulting in a kind of space junk pile-up. If this trend continues, it could have ripple effects for everything from weather tracking and broadband internet access to national defense. Captured by astronaut Don Pettit aboard the International Space Station, this long-exposure photograph showcases Earth’s city lights, the upper atmosphere’s airglow, and streaked stars. The bright flashes at the center are reflections of sunlight from SpaceX’s Starlink satellites in low-Earth orbit. [Photo: NASA] How the atmosphere naturally removes space junk Most satellites are located within low Earth orbit, or around 400 to 1,000 kilometers above the planets surface. Under normal conditions, after these satellites reach the end of their lifespans (when their engines can no longer maintain enough velocity for orbit), natural atmospheric drag pulls them down to lower altitudes, where air molecules cause them to disintegrate before ever reaching the Earths surface. Its essentially the atmospheres natural space junk cleaning protocolbut climate change might be slowing it down. William Parker is a graduate student at MITs AeroAstro program, and he served as the lead author on the new study. Parker explains that greenhouse gases have a warming effect within the troposphere (the atmospheric layer closest to Earth), but in further layers, they actually have the opposite effect. Because greenhouse gases keep heat trapped close to the Earth, more distant layerslike the thermosphere, where the majority of satellites orbitare actually cooling down over time. That cooling leads to contraction, Parker says. The whole atmosphere is sort of shrinking. As the atmosphere shrinks, he adds, so, too, does the natural drag force thats supposed to pull satellites downward. That means that there’s less atmospheric density for the satellites to experience, which means that we don’t have this cleaning force in low Earth orbit that we’ve always had to rely on. Preventing a satellite debris pile-up As the atmospheres natural cleaning force diminishes, satellite operators may soon encounter a significant build-up of debris in low Earth orbit. Experts theorize that, beyond a certain critical mass, such a build-up could lead to something called The Kessler Effect: a series of space collisions that snowball as debris increases. Just this past year, Parker notes, Space Xs satellite service Starlinkwhich operates around 60% of all active satelliteshad to perform 100,000 collision avoidance maneuvers to prevent space collisions. If we don’t take action to be more responsible for operating our satellites, the impact is that there are going to be entire regions of low Earth orbit that could become uninhabitable for a satellite, Parker says. If nothing is done to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, the MIT teams simulations show that the maximum satellite capacity in low Earth orbit could decrease by 50% to 66% by 2100. In a more likely scenario where some effective climate action is taken, Parker says the capacity is still predicted to drop by 24% to 33% in that same time frame. Currently, satellites play a central role in global weather tracking, access to internet service, online banking, national defense protocols, and more. If satellite operators have to spend more and more energy avoiding obstacles, providing those essential services will become increasingly difficultand expensive. It’s going to mean that all of the products that we get from space are going to be degraded, because satellites now have a secondary objective, Parker says. The primary objective has always been to collect data or to provide some service, like connection to the internet. Now, the secondary objective is just to make sure that you don’t get destroyed in a collision with a debris object. It’s something that operators have only had to start worrying about in the last five to 10 years. The long-term solution is taking more action to eliminate greenhouse gas pollution. In the meantime, Parker says, satellite operators should try to operate at lower altitudes to ensure that theres enough drag to remove debris from the atmosphere, as well as taking proactive steps to return spacecraft from orbit before they can even become debris. He also believes that a real set of international space traffic management rules could help prevent overcrowding. There used to be this mantra in the space industry that space is big, and that’s an excuse to not treat it with the respect that it should be treated with, Parker says. Thats outdated, and we need to do a better job at managing this resource that we have and sharing it in an equitable way.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||