AI Friend or Foe ? A brave new world for Resourcing

Artifical Intelligence top of the agenda. The creators are crying out for better regulation. The doomsters say to save us from our own destruction, the optimists want to spread the opportunity more equally, and the normal snake oil consultants, trying to sell us nirvana when they know about as much as anyone else...

This week I attended a great presentation and discussion hosted by Matt Burney of Indeed to explore this issue. As always, with Matt this was balanced, nuanced and asked more questions than could be answered. The topic predominantly focussed on what it means for the recruitment industry and will it take our jobs?

For those of us old enough to remember, we have been here before. Job boards were predicted to do away with agencies, LinkedIn would also see the same result, and the automation offered by other technology would unleash the pwoer of the human. According to Indeed's research about 37% of Recruiters' work today is admin related. I think most of us working either in house or even agency side probably recognise this. It seems that despite the advantages of technology over the last 20 years, generally, there is still an issue with low level, repetitive work still being a burden. I am sure this isn't purely a problem for Resourcing alone. So what has happened and will AI make a difference?

Obviously, I am going to say it depends and I don't know yet but perhaps we can learn lessons from the past and our previous implementations and uses of technology. The economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would mean by the 21st Century we would be working a 15-20 hour week - eg productivity gains would mean the benefits would be distributed across the working population as a whole... A lot of his thinking is relevant today but this idea was way of the mark - why?

There are a few things, I believe - some are macro and some are organisational and then we have the individual.

The Macro is really important. In the US and UK we have Laissez - Faire approach to this type of tech. We think the market will just come in a solve the problems. This thinking is flawed and dangerous and could lead to the dystopian outcomes that the doomsters fear. The economist Marianna Matzucatto talks about how we need a purposeful mission led economic thinking to embrace these tools into solving particular societal or industrial problems. For example, how these tools might help solve climate issues or improve education and skills rather than just think about tactical approaches to cost saving. The government really needs to play its part in helping envision what the possibilities are and how this includes the whole of society.

The Organisational - often the burning platform for implementing technology is driven by the need to save cost. Efficiency and effectiveness are important, of course. However, in my experience, the business case for technology implementation, in support functions, is often based on saving heads or keeping headcount stable rather than being able to measure or show radical productivity improvements. I think this is often because we aren't often able to measure these opportunities or being able to articulate the advantages. My view is that this is often because we are asked to justify the benefits in relatively short time horizons. This means that implementations are rushed and often roles are ill defined in the new structure. Sadly, we think we can implement the tech without thinking about the process, structure and ultimately the roles and skills needed in the new world. Change management and role definition are often done but with short cuts.

The Individual - Related to the above. Because not enough attention is paid to the individual and team. Firstly, the definition of the change needed and how do we help individuals embrace the technology and process to effect the change. Also, do we ever ask the question about what different skills will be needed to help embed the technology and gains. New technology with the same skill set will only led to mixed outcomes.

The AI opportunity will, undoubtedly, lead to change a disruption across all sectors and recruitment can be at the forefront. However, our industry does have a mixed track record on tech. There does seem to be more technology than there are problems to solve. As an industry, despite a plethora of technology candidate experience is shocking, our ability to capture and really utilise data consistently is patchy to say the least.

There are opportunities for sure but only if we have an understanding of what problems we want to solve and within a wider ecosystem than just our own silos. Reaching out across the divide to collaborate will be essential for us all to benefit.

I hope this sparks conversation and debate...