Have we mistaken efficiency for progress?
This is the central question raised in Heart in the Age of the Mechanical by Gethin Nadin.
Efficiency is often taken as shorthand for progress but faster is not the same as better.
When I started doing Kung Fu some years ago I would repeatedly ask my sifu: “When is the next grading?”. He would repeatedly tell me he would let me know when I was ready so I did not need to ask.
My focus was on getting to be a Black belt. My sifu explained to me the black belt was not important. He said it was not about the destination but rather the journey.
It was about failing, falling down and getting back up and this was as important, if not more so, than any grading.
It’s the journey that matters
Within the work context we often want to go from point A: where we are now, to point B: where we would like to be.
In practice, getting from point A to point B is rarely a straight line. The stops, starts and diversions typically lead us somewhere totally different: point C. That’s ok because it is all part of our learning.
Heart in the Age of the Mechanical references Robert Bjork, a cognitive psychologist who coined the idea of ‘desirable difficulties’ in 1994. The term suggests that learning conditions that feel harder often produce better long-term outcomes, such as memory retention and knowledge transfer.
The journey results in our brains firing up. We make connections, see patterns and find solutions. All of this is critical in helping us to deal with uncertainty and effectively solve problems.
When we bring machine learning into the equation, it begs an important question. Are we, as humans, still learning or are we lagging?
Efficiency is often taken as shorthand for progress but faster is not the same as better.
Keeping it human
In Heart in the Age of the Mechanical, Gethin questions which human capabilities we risk losing in our rush to use AI.
At home with my kids I was their go to person on most things but then got replaced by Google and throughout the day the phrase ‘Hey Google’ became the norm. Then, with the advent of ChatGPT, at times my wife will defer to the AI rather than asking my view.
My self esteem has taken a bit of a bruising. On the plus side it keeps me humble. But it has also removed that human connection and conversation that would have happened.
I recently did a review for a client which involved 121s, focus groups, observations, policies, staff survey results and HR metrics. I was upfront with the client that I would use AI to analyse the findings and help me draft a report, saving me time and the client money.
The client then used AI to critique my report. The temptation was to use AI to respond to the client but where is my added value if it is just machines talking to machines?
Use it or lose it
I was reminded of a ‘Dr Who’ storyline in which the Daleks are at war against the Movellans, who are robots, both locked in stalemate because both are using computers to strategise so neither side has the advantage.
To break the stalemate the Daleks seek the help of their human creator, Davros, to help them think differently.
The process of reflecting on the client’s feedback, critical thinking, responding and problem solving meant that when I then met with the client I felt connected to the report rather than it being something done for me. I was able to speak with authenticity and build trust and rapport.
Ultimately the brain is like any other muscle, if we don’t use it we risk losing it.
Why settle for average?
When I worked in an international relief organisation, an employee contracted an illness whilst working overseas, which resulted in blindness.
He was in the UK for treatment during which time we had a rota for a colleague to visit him every evening and bring him a home cooked meal. My then Head of HR drafted a letter to advise him that his sick pay entitlement had now been used up and he was now going to be paid only SSP.
Thankfully a HRBP brought the letter to my attention before it was sent out. The Head of HR argued she was following policy. I argued it was against our values. The policy allowed manager discretion, so I met with the manager and we agreed to continue full pay for the duration of his treatment and recovery.
This classic case of ‘computer says no’ is where I worry AI will fall down again and again on what makes us beautifully human.
Are we, as humans, still learning or are we lagging?
The true advantage
If every organisation uses AI, do organisations then lose competitive advantage? The true advantage comes from humans who dare to think differently. People who take risks and are willing to fail and learn.
Decision making in an imperfect world with lots of moving parts is not easy. At best, AI could consider different scenarios and give options. But that final decision still needs to be made by a human.
Growth comes from being outside your comfort zone and having a genuinely critical friend, whereas AI is wont to tell you what it thinks you want to hear just to reassure you.
We know AI gets things wrong and when you point it out it affirms you are correct and gives a revised answer. AI can easily miss nuance and context.
The other thing to remember is AI will give you the best average response after scouring the internet. Why settle for average when brilliance awaits you?
The path forward is proactive and intentional
Some suggest that AI has the potential to be the great leveller, creating an equal playing field. The reality is that we are seeing an AI race being run unequally. Everyone is at different stages of understanding, comfort and adoption.
Some employers want their employees to use AI to supplement what they are currently doing or to replicate what they are already doing. Others are using AI to have a complete rethink and redesign, focused on what they could be doing differently.
AI familiarity and learning is either being left to individuals to learn in their own time and at their own pace or seen as an investment and happening during work, although in some cases this is being restricted to Microsoft Copilot.
Others don’t know where to start and are carrying on as normal.
Generational divides may also be a factor marginalising some groups of people further.
To address this, employers need to be proactive and intentional rather than reactive and accidental. This will give everyone a chance to be ready to take on the future world of work.
If you enjoyed this article, read: What AI is making scarce and why HR should care
