AI has a WIIFM problem
The headlines are everywhere. Companies are going all-in on AI, as a silver bullet for their business problems. Inefficiencies costing us money? Throw AI at it. Hours of manpower and time going toward repeatable tasks? Automate it away.
But as we crest the peak of the hype cycle for AI new questions are emerging. Is AI actually monetizable? Is AI a bubble? Are we overstating AI’s ability to fix our business problems and revolutionize work? Upwork’s October monthly report points to a second order effect of AI: more human oversight needed to monitor and address AI workslop.
Here’s what we’ve under-explored: the trust deficit that hampers AI adoption.
People don’t trust AI. A recent finding from Pew: Americans remain far more concerned (50%) than excited (10%) about the increased use of AI in daily life. That concern is rising — up from 37% in 2021.
And for good reason: CEOs have lauded AI’s ability to “save money” which is of course, barely concealed code for “reduce headcount”. Individual workers know this. People has been struggling for a while now, with recent research describing a workforce that’s at its highest levels of disengagement in a decade. To believe that your company will use AI in a way that is ultimately good for you — for your paycheck, your career trajectory, your well-being — requires an enormous amount of trust in institutions that just isn’t there.
A core principle of change management is getting buy-in from those that will be affected by the change, and creating incentives to help them achieve your goals. In AI adoption discussions, I’ve seen little of that. It’s all stick, no carrot. Who is making the argument to individuals that AI will benefit them? Has anyone even done the thought exercise? Or is the outcome of that thought exercise too big, too scary, too disruptive to executives tied to short term financial gain?
Here’s a radical idea: What if you got something amazing in return for integrating AI into our working lives? Say you work with AI to replace some part of your job that is repetitive, error prone or otherwise ripe for disruption. You’re sharing your human expertise, quality assurance and oversight to make that transition successful. This ostensibly makes your work more enjoyable and gives you time back in your work week. Now here’s where we go wrong. What we’ve historically done is said: ok, with your “saved” time, we say “now here’s another task to do”. What if we just…gave that time back?
The four day work week, without a reduction in pay, is one idea that’s been gaining traction since the pandemic upended the way we think about work.
It’s something workers want: A recent Work in America study found 80% of respondents in favor, and asserting that they’d be happier and just as effective with 4 days at work.
It’s also effective: A number of trials going on around the world through 4 Day Week Global have shown strong impact around increased work capacity. Juliet Schor recently testified to the Senate HELP committee on AI’s role to potentially supercharge this: “If we do get significant productivity gains from AI and we are unable to reduce the workweek that will turbocharge layoffs and unemployment…Instead, we could gradually transition to 32 hours, with large benefits for workers, employers, families, and society.”
The four day work week may or may not be the right answer. But we need this discussion. AI has been framed as a boon for corporations without real substantive discussion about how it could benefit workers too. Now’s the time.
