The relationship between the workplace and people driven by AI
Amazon's restructuring, layoffs in Canada and the UK, and interpersonal skills training at Goldman Sachs. At the same time, a review of people and organizations against the backdrop of AI is emerging in multiple places. Countries and companies are spending huge sums on GPUs and partnerships, and their use is expanding to suit specific decisions in diagnostics and agriculture. Meanwhile, opposition to data centers, responses to isolation, and conflicts over the delineation of safety regulations have surfaced just as quickly as the investments. What this article focuses on is not how quickly AI can be introduced, but rather how the design is prepared to support people once it is introduced. We will examine the examples in each section to see whether the success or failure of implementation depends on the design.
Amazon is restructuring its business amid a combination of job cuts, regulatory compliance and investments in AI growth (HR Katha). Canadian food tech companies are also cutting jobs, raising questions about what AI and automation will bring to Canada (Digital Journal). The UK financial industry is also focused on how AI will affect employment (Bloomberg.com). Although these three cases are in different regions and industries, they have one thing in common: personnel and organizational forms are being reconsidered in the context of AI. When deciding whether to downsize or reorganize your company, you need to separate the jobs that will be replaced by AI from other factors such as regulations and the business environment. As the Amazon case shows, AI is not the only reason for restructuring.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs is training more advisors than ever before and thoroughly teaching them "how to build relationships" in the age of AI (Business Insider Japan). At the same time, Amazon, Canadian food tech, and the British financial industry are reducing their workforce, while Goldman Sachs is expanding its workforce through training. The question for readers here is where to draw the line between tasks that should be entrusted to AI and tasks that should be handled by humans. Drawing the line will not only affect the number of people hired, but also what will be included in the training.
Another point of contention is operations after AI is incorporated into operations. An article in the HRTech Series argues that when AI enters the organizational chart, autonomous AI operations will require new operational structures. Even if AI is introduced, if it is not decided who will supervise and who will be responsible, it cannot be said that AI will be able to fill the gap in personnel lost due to reductions. It would be appropriate to consider reduction decisions and operational structure design at the same time, rather than proceeding separately.
