“Adopted well, new technology can drive improved productivity.”

This month, Dr Abby Gilbert, Co-Director at the Institute for the Future of Work, speaks to The Loop about how organizations can ready themselves for technological innovations in the workplace, and considers how these organizations can avoid the negative repercussions that can accompany change if not prepared for.

First, could you tell us about the Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing – what it approaches, how it does so, and why its implications are important for understanding the future of technology in the workplace? 

The Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing – funded by the Nuffield Foundation – seeks to understand the implications of this technological transformation at the system, firm and individual levels. We have combined a range of methods, creating entirely new datasets, using novel data sources and combining sources in novel ways to identify new levers and capabilities needed to promote a fairer future through better work. It’s implications demonstrate that we need a new economic paradigm of good work.

Why is there value in embracing technological innovations? What can doing so mean for organisational productivity, employee wellbeing, and the actual dynamics and processes of work? 

Adopted well, new technology can drive improved productivity and wellbeing. But these outcomes are not inevitable. Careful consideration of different intended routes to new productivity, and the way choices in design, development and deployment shape outcomes for work is needed to promote these outcomes. We believe that the best current process for this is our Good Work Algorithmic Impact Assessment – a tool focused on worker-involvement that aims to minimise risks and maximise benefits of new technologies. We are piloting this through our new Sandbox architecture.  

Are there any negative impacts that can accompany the implementation of new technologies? What are they?  

For a long time, displacement of work – being replaced by technology was the main concern. In practice, with new ‘cognitive’ technologies this is less often the case. This means we need to pay more attention to the various kinds of automation that may play out in practice, and how this changes work terms conditions and quality. 
 
In Reframing Automation we present a series of automation archetypes. This can include the creation of new jobs, and ‘high discretion augmentation’ of work, whereby workers are given the chance to use more of their own creativity and skill. 

But other archetypes include the intensification of work, where adoption leads to workers conducting more tasks in a day to the point of harm to their wellbeing. These can include ‘Low-discretion augmentation’, where rather than a worker gaining new skills or having the ability to use their own talents more at work, their choice environment about how, when, where to do work is minimised, and ‘Matching’, where workers are matched to tasks, allowing for a change in contract to ‘gig’ working styles and the removal of standardised employment protections, fuelling dynamic pricing of work, and more. These various types of automation are associated with different changes to job quality and need careful attention when planning an automation process. 
 
For firms, our case studies from the Pissarides Review demonstrate that often, a failure to consult workers can mean that productivity gains are not secured and can even be reduced. Processes which promote consultation and engagement are key to ensuring effective outcomes.

What can organisations do to ready themselves for the workplace of the future, ensuring they are in a position to adjust to and/or capitalise on large-scale changes?

We know that Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIAs) are becoming more common nationally and internationally as frameworks for helping organisations govern responsible roll-out and use of AI and algorithmic systems. Getting ahead of the curve by creating ongoing processes of impact monitoring and action – centred on a high-involvement HR culture where workers feel invested in – is what our research would suggest firms should be doing to be future-ready.

Are there external factors outside of individual organisations’ control that might hinder or enhance the uptake and success of technological innovation in the workplace? If so, how should these be addressed?

We cross-referenced answers to our survey of UK firms with one of the pillars of our Disruption Index. This revealed that in labour markets with lower ‘innovation readiness’ – a measure than includes indicators of local educational attainment outcomes – firms tended to adopt in ways which reduced the demand for jobs, demand for skills, and job quality. This could create a vicious circle of decline in some regions of the UK. 
 
In contrast, proper investment in skills and more intelligent approaches to investment could see virtuous cycles of increased adoption, better work, and productivity gains from new technologies.