#25 Ravin Jesuthasan – How to navigate in the world of work without jobs

Hello! Welcome to the CC Transformation Podcast. My name is John Guziak and together with my guests we will talk about what is the new dimension of leadership, how to activate digital organizations and lead us and our organizations toward the future of work successfully. How can we truly future-proof our organizations today? Let's start our joint adventure. Let's reimagine the future together. Witam z powrotem na C-Suite at Transformation. Nazywam się John Guziak i mam przyjemność, aby dzisiaj z nami był world futurist i osoba, która otrzymuje tak dużo napisów na temat fantastycznego książki, którą bardzo polecam. To jest Ravin Jesuthasan, który jest z nami dzisiaj. Ravin, dziękuję bardzo, że przyjechałeś do nas.

Cześć John, miło Cię poznać. Ravin, jesteś futurystą, autorem kilku bestsellerów. Jesteś także członkiem World Economic Forum. Chciałbym znać trochę o Twoim backgroundu, zwłaszcza dla naszych młodych słuchaczy. Co w tym świecie doprowadziło Cię do tego świata pracy i futuryzacji? Thanks John. I think I would characterize my journey like we talk about in work without jobs as one of perpetual reinvention. I'm a retreaded finance guy who started in finance, moved into strategy consulting. Przeszedłem do konsultacji humanitarno-kapitalistycznej.

The short answer is no, I could not have imagined being here. The long answer is I think the key to being here has been this relentless sort of curiosity and the pursuit of wanting to learn more, do more, wanting to sort of look around corners, wanting to See how I could connect things that I've learned in one domain to another, to expand my own horizons and then, you know, innovating from that. And the reason, John, I really like that question is because I get this question a lot and I'm sure you've heard it a lot, which is We don't know what skills, we don't know what's going to come next and so we don't know what skills to develop people for.

And that's been true forever, right? That things will change and some things will be discontinuous, right? The easy things are the things where we see continuous change and lots of continuity. Dyskontynuacja zawsze będzie tam. I myślę, że kluczem do nawigacji tych dyskontynuacji jest to odczucie odczucia, ta perpetualna re-inwencja i pytanie, dlaczego i jak. Wydaje mi się, że to jest naprawdę w sercu tego, jak zostajemy perpetually relevantni. I to takie zauważenie, że może czasami jest tak ważne, by praktycznie nie nauczyć się rzeczy, zamiast tylko myśleć, że musimy tylko dodawać rzeczy do naszej doświadczalności.

We've seen that with the agile movement. And so that was one marker. The other was, you know, growing, proliferating automation and that has certainly increased with the infrastructure now that enables AI, as we both know. The other was the fact that work was increasingly being democratized Names mentioned in English Names mentioned in English Names mentioned, John Guziak, World Economic Forum, John Boudreau.

To są tylko dwie dimensiony tego szerokiego mosaiku przyszłości pracy, który również wskazuje na to, jak pracujemy, co to za praca, kto robi tę pracę, a także maszyny i roboty i jak te różne entytety się zwiążą i współpracują, tak jak i dlaczego ludzie pracują. To indeksowanie do misji i celów. One of things I thought was really interesting especially at the beginning of the book is because I think there are probably many listeners who really are not familiar with what you call the new working operating model, operating system was about just taking a very simple job like a nurse and actually really uncoupling basically that person's job to really reflect what exactly is

I więc artykułowaliśmy cztery praktyki, które podpisują nowy system operacyjny pracy, który jest o wiele bardziej agilny. Pierwsza jest, że zaczynając od pracy, jakie są obecne i przyszłe zadania, a nie jak organizujemy te zadania do pracy. The second is then asking the question of what's the optimal combinations of humans and automation for those tasks? Where can automation substitute the highly repetitive rules-based work? Where can it augment human ingenuity, creativity, empathy, critical thinking to make that person super productive? And where can automation actually create the demand for new human work and new human skills? Kiedy wchodzimy do tej kombinacji, zapytamy się, jak najlepiej włączyć talent do pracy człowieka.

Czy to powinien być pracownik w pracy, czy to powinien być talent agilny, czy to powinien być pracownik w firmie, freelancer, itd. Kolejna sprawa to, jak kontynuować redukcję kosztów pracy, by pozwolić talentowi przepływać do pracy. How to navigate in the world of work without jobs Actually taking these ideas and asking the question of how do we allow our nurses to flow to the top of the license, to do the things that brought them into this profession, to do the things that we value the most as opposed to

All of the additional responsibilities we've now loaded up into the job description of a nurse. I'll give you some specific examples. Yes, we need a nurse with her certification and her expertise and experience to intubate a patient. We need a nurse when it comes to connecting with a patient, to communicate with empathy and care and concern, because we know how that enhances the well-being and recovery of those patients. We don't need someone with a nursing degree to turn a COVID patient over. We don't need someone with a nursing degree to take someone's temperature. And that's where, you know, this notion of deconstruction that John and I talk about and what Providence Health did of deconstructing that job, figuring out where those nursing skills are at a premium.

Names mentioned in the world of work. Names mentioned in the world of work. One of things that's interesting you just mentioned with that is I'm curious to be able to kind of unbundle that job as a nurse. Did you find, or working with Providence, did you find that it was easier for people who were outside of the job, who were able to see the actual job and what was it that could be, for example, as you said, that could be automated or that could be transferred or, you know, could go to something else other than what the nurse was doing?

Or was it really necessary to still have The actual job holder involved in that discussion. Oh, the job holder is absolutely pivotal to this conversation, John. Because the job holder sees and knows the work at a level of detail and with a level of insight that nobody else has. And that's where actually engaging the nursing talent here or engaging talent in white collar roles, engaging talent in distribution centers Oni są bardzo szybko w stanie pokazać, jakie rzeczy są przeszkodami dla ich produktywności, gdzie mogą spędzić czas na rzeczy, które są dodatkowo małe. Ale myślę też, że jest to wartość z perspektywy zewnętrznej, ponieważ talent wewnętrzny nie może zrozumieć wszystkich innych opcji, które są dostępne.

Ale co z teksturą tego? Czy musimy mieć... Names mentioned in the world of work without jobs. Yeah, it's a really good point. And what we've seen, John, is tremendous progress the last few years with some of the talent marketplace providers like Eightfold and Gloat, as well as talent intelligence providers like SkyHive, helping develop these taxonomies.

But I think the most important thing is something that my good friend Gary Bowles from Singularity University and the author of a really compelling book Piosenka o przyszłości pracy nazywa się Rosetta Stone for Skills, gdzie mamy architekturę. John, kiedy mówisz X i Ravin mówi Y, to tak to jest. Myślę, że to jest bardzo ważne. Organizacje muszą być dużo bardziej rozmiarowane, jeśli chodzi o architekturę ich umiejętności. Tak, potrzebujemy rzeczy jak certyfikacja i absolutną precyzję, kiedy rozmawiamy o niektórych tych technicznych umiejętnościach. Wiesz, jeśli ktoś jest implementatorem pracy, to absolutnie potrzebujemy dowody tego, ale wiesz, to nie jest tak, jak gdybyśmy spojrzeli na inne rodzaje umiejętności.

Wiesz, na przykład, gdybym powiedział, że mogę mówić po polsku, Within about two seconds of you and me talking, you would know that I couldn't. We don't need me to go do a specific test of my Polish language fluency to be able to do that. That's an unnecessary burden. And I think this is where organizations need to be very nuanced in thinking differentially about skills in terms of where is the burden of proof so significant that we need these sort of assessments etc. versus where are there other things that we can infer those skills. There are so many algorithms that can do that now, but we can infer those skills from the previous experiences John has had, the previous projects he's been on.

Has he worked with diverse teams that would suggest that he's able to communicate with empathy and care and concern, etc. I think there is a This is a highly nuanced approach that doesn't lend itself to what many organizations traditionally do, which is a one-size-fits-all risk mitigation approach that creates such an onerous burden on the organization to validate every single skill to the same level of detail and precision. Nie, absolutnie. Jakieś razy widzieliśmy 80 umiejętności, a lider, który jest odpowiedzialny za wybieranie tych umiejętności, jest po prostu zaskoczony tym. Myślę, że, jak powiedziałeś, jest dla nas bardzo ważne, aby to było proste.

Names mentioned in English Names mentioned in English You know, I always say this to my client, this has to be C-suite led and HR enabled. There are many organizations that fall into the trap of, you know, oh, this is an HR initiative. HR can run off and go do this. No, you absolutely need the C-suite to lead on this. And, you know, Unilever is a company I've worked with for many years. There are case study in the book. And the thing that they've done really well as they've Names mentioned in the world of work without jobs.

I the third is recognizing that this is a whole system change. Because it's not just about building this great skills architecture. You absolutely need the technology infrastructure. You absolutely need to change the rules of work. And that's something that many organizations don't really understand. They don't understand that you've got to reframe Many of the things that we've said to managers for decades around how they're valued, how they're compensated, what their role is. Because if you are going to be moving to an architecture where skills are the currency for work and talent is flowing to work, many of the legacy artifacts of things like budgets, performance management need to be retooled. And then the last thing I will say is

The second is leaders who understand how to automate in a humanistic way. You know, John, you well know we've seen such advances in RPA and machine and AI and machine learning, deep learning, etc. The technical feasibility of automation has increased a lot, but the leaders who are really good at this understand the long game. They understand how can I humanistically automate, because what I need to do is not just automate for the opportunity that is here, but ensure that my automation decision doesn't compromise my future ability to innovate, etc., because I've now sort of shifted my human talent away. So I think that's a second area.

The third area is, and I think this is a really big one I touched on a second ago, is leaders who understand that the shift here is from process execution to increasingly project guidance. I I talked about the new work operating system. I think less and less are we going to see work being bound up in processes, in tightly defined, highly scripted, orchestrated processes that are often inflexible and not suited for a volatile world where agility is at a premium, to increasingly work being organized in projects and work becoming much more human centric. Jak wiesz, John, widzimy to nawet w środowiskach fabrycznych i dystrybucyjnych, gdzie starych czasów produktów, które ciągle przerabiają się na linii złożonych, dają sposób produktowi i talentowi, którzy są w środowisku, roboty, które płyną do tego produktu i zmniejszają zarówno wpływ realistyczny, jak i zwiększający wpływ.

Więc w zasadzie, myślę, że to o czym rozmawialiśmy, kiedy wspomnieliśmy o tym, że automacja w taki humanistyczny sposób, jest to, że, wiesz, kiedy idziemy do recepcji, na przykład teraz, recepcjonista, to było, wiesz, cześć, witaj, z kim chcesz porozmawiać, z kim jesteś. It was an interaction, it was a dialogue with a human being. Now we have a situation where there's a receptionist sitting behind a desk and ultimately that person is just pointing and saying, you know, please fill out this document on this iPad and your person will come to meet you. It's this idea that the work was deconstructed, you know, the receptionist no longer needs to do all that other work, it's actually the guest that's doing all the work, but if that person's not there to greet that person, we're going to lose something.

John, to jest absolutnie prawda. I to jest naprawdę to, w którym, w naszej metodologii na temat dekonstrukcji, patrzymy na charakterystyki prac. I też pytamy się pytania, What is the objective function of those various tasks? You know, are we looking to eliminate errors? Are we looking to minimize variance? Are we looking to incrementally improve productivity? Are we looking to sort of, you know, truly delight and make a breakthrough? And I think that's where organizations, to your point about humanistic, right? How do we use that receptionist's core skills around empathy, care and concern, the ability to Names mentioned in the world of work without jobs.

Names mentioned in the world of work without jobs. We saw that the organizations who lead with the work, who deconstruct the work, understand the work and understand the nuances that you just talked about got to much, much higher order outcomes in terms of profitability, productivity, throughput, etc. than the ones who led with technology. Współpraca w Wielkiej Brytanii

Where do you see government being involved and responsible in supporting this new ecosystem? John, to jest naprawdę dobry pytanek. Myślę, że, i widzieliśmy to przez wieki, że z każdym zmianą ma potencjał zaakceptować nieprawidłowość. Ludzie, którzy są najlepsi, najlepsi w sposobie nawigacji tych zmian, wielu z was, słuchaczy, ludzi takich jak ty i ja, zdążają się w tych środowiskach, ale jest wiele innych ludzi, Names mentioned, John Guziak, World Economic Forum, John Boudreau.

You know, in the United States, where I'm based, and John, you're familiar with this, the degree was always viewed as this thing that democratized access to opportunity, that allowed talent that was from impoverished neighborhoods to get access to work, that allowed them to, you know, that drove social mobility. And in fact, what's happened the last 30 years is the cost of that degree has gone up. It has actually acted as a roadblock to that social mobility. And so we're seeing in many parts of the world, particularly in the US, companies and governments move away from the degree. IBM, I think more than 50% of their jobs do not have a degree requirement. The state of Maryland in the US did away with all degree requirements for all its jobs.

And that is being copied by other states as well as other private sector companies. And I think the academic sector is really starting to get the message. We're seeing education get democratized. We're seeing institutions like the Harvard Business School actually say to their graduates, Once you've graduated from here, you now have unlimited access to all of our learning resources at no cost because I think academic institutions are recognizing that the old days where I could say I gave you a four-year degree, you graduated and now you have a job for the rest of your life no longer exists because the technical skills I might have trained you with have shrunk in terms of their shelf life.