You may be, but probably won't be, aware that, outside of writing science and speculative fiction, I'm a fully paid-up card-carrying (quite literally) human resources professional. There's an old maxim: write what you know. Well, other than the occasional character who works in HR ('The Lodeon Situation') or a scene around a conference table ('Farndale's Revelation'), I've tended not to write about the world of office life generally or personnel management specifically. Possibly because editors don't have to read beyond the first page or two of anything duller than dark matter.
Well, I thought that I'd combine these two interests in this posting, the glue that binds being the prospect of a dystopian future, in degree of awfulness somewhere between The Handmaid's Tale and Man City winning the title each season without challenge for the next thirty years. And I'll be taking as my starting point, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's People Management's July/August 2018 edition, focusing on technology and what it's going to do for us all within the profession. Or with us, all depending.
Now, don't get me wrong: technology is not just useful - I couldn't run either my working or writing life without it, and I suspect you couldn't either (if you're a Unabomber-style off-grid hermit but also reading this, let me know how, I'm curious). I've just pinged off a slide pack for a colleague's presentation, having picked up a draft from another colleague to polish. We're all at our various homes, none at the client's offices. We couldn't do this without the internet, the ubiquity of Microsoft Office, Google and the rest. That's the prosaic everyday stuff.
But there's some developments going on at the edges that genuinely scare me. Like ThriveMap, which uses people analytics to ensure employers select candidates that have the best cultural fit. That's a phrase which sounds innocent, attractive even. Why on earth would you not want cultural fit? But I bet eugenics sounded like a similar no-brainer to many between the wars. And I think they are not without parallels.
Yes, I know the arguments, that cultural fit doesn't mean everybody being the same sex, race, or religion. It means looking at attitudes and propensities rather than skin colour and church of choice. (Which begs the question, how much diversity is here? How many companies don't want intelligent, initiative-taking team-workers, able to communicate, problem solve, and face customers?) But that hides the fact that there are cultural nuances to communication, hierarchy and the rest. Issues like deference: one culture's talking around the issue having been issued with instructions is another's insubordination. Lack of eye contact doesn't always mean a lack of engagement. I'm struggling to see how this encourages diversity rather than embeds a, say, a white, Anglo, first-world, perspective.
And what about Olivia, your recruitment chatbot? She'll screen, sift and longlist candidates so you don't have to. Sounds great, but we all remember how Tay went off the rails on her first day, don't we. Just saying...
And as for 'Put an end to harassment with the power of blockchain' (Vault), that just felt like a headline hanging off the side of a skyship in a Phil Dick novel.
Just when I thought it couldn't get any darker I came across this nugget from Nicola Strong, MD of a 'virtual learning, leadership and communication skills consultancy': "I believe that when AI is able to do the more mundane parts of our jobs for us, we'll have more work than ever." What the fuck? More work than ever? What's the point of technology if it's simply going to replace nine-to-five drudgery with the need to be on-message and ready to rumble eight-to-seven?
If you've ever looked into deathbed regrets, even cursorily, you'll find that consistently in the top three is the regret of prioritising work over family, of missing the kids growing up, of not maintaining familial relationships. Well, luckily, Ms Strong seems to be suggesting that after the march of the machines none of us will have the time to have a family.
I knew there had to be an upside.
Well, I thought that I'd combine these two interests in this posting, the glue that binds being the prospect of a dystopian future, in degree of awfulness somewhere between The Handmaid's Tale and Man City winning the title each season without challenge for the next thirty years. And I'll be taking as my starting point, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's People Management's July/August 2018 edition, focusing on technology and what it's going to do for us all within the profession. Or with us, all depending.
Now, don't get me wrong: technology is not just useful - I couldn't run either my working or writing life without it, and I suspect you couldn't either (if you're a Unabomber-style off-grid hermit but also reading this, let me know how, I'm curious). I've just pinged off a slide pack for a colleague's presentation, having picked up a draft from another colleague to polish. We're all at our various homes, none at the client's offices. We couldn't do this without the internet, the ubiquity of Microsoft Office, Google and the rest. That's the prosaic everyday stuff.
But there's some developments going on at the edges that genuinely scare me. Like ThriveMap, which uses people analytics to ensure employers select candidates that have the best cultural fit. That's a phrase which sounds innocent, attractive even. Why on earth would you not want cultural fit? But I bet eugenics sounded like a similar no-brainer to many between the wars. And I think they are not without parallels.
Yes, I know the arguments, that cultural fit doesn't mean everybody being the same sex, race, or religion. It means looking at attitudes and propensities rather than skin colour and church of choice. (Which begs the question, how much diversity is here? How many companies don't want intelligent, initiative-taking team-workers, able to communicate, problem solve, and face customers?) But that hides the fact that there are cultural nuances to communication, hierarchy and the rest. Issues like deference: one culture's talking around the issue having been issued with instructions is another's insubordination. Lack of eye contact doesn't always mean a lack of engagement. I'm struggling to see how this encourages diversity rather than embeds a, say, a white, Anglo, first-world, perspective.
And what about Olivia, your recruitment chatbot? She'll screen, sift and longlist candidates so you don't have to. Sounds great, but we all remember how Tay went off the rails on her first day, don't we. Just saying...
And as for 'Put an end to harassment with the power of blockchain' (Vault), that just felt like a headline hanging off the side of a skyship in a Phil Dick novel.
Just when I thought it couldn't get any darker I came across this nugget from Nicola Strong, MD of a 'virtual learning, leadership and communication skills consultancy': "I believe that when AI is able to do the more mundane parts of our jobs for us, we'll have more work than ever." What the fuck? More work than ever? What's the point of technology if it's simply going to replace nine-to-five drudgery with the need to be on-message and ready to rumble eight-to-seven?
If you've ever looked into deathbed regrets, even cursorily, you'll find that consistently in the top three is the regret of prioritising work over family, of missing the kids growing up, of not maintaining familial relationships. Well, luckily, Ms Strong seems to be suggesting that after the march of the machines none of us will have the time to have a family.
I knew there had to be an upside.
No comments:
Post a Comment