Help Wanted: Humans?

Help Wanted: Humans?

NOTE: While this transcript has been reviewed, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript.

Jill Wiltfong

Hi, I’m Jill Wiltfong, Chief Marketing Officer for Korn Ferry, and this is Briefings, our deep dive into topics that corporate leaders need to care about. When ChatGPT first exploded onto the scene, a dreaded countdown began to a day when AI would replace swaths of workers. At first, that prophecy seemed to hold true. But fast-forward to today, and we find a shocking reversal is happening. A third of managers say they’ve rehired human workers whom AI was going to replace. And it raises some important questions. Between the hundreds of billions invested in AI and rounds of layoffs, how did leaders get the balance of humans and technology so wrong? Did they overestimate AI and get swept up in the hype? And, of course, is the return to humans just a phase? That’s what we’ll dig into today as we ask: Will more and more companies be saying, “Help wanted: humans”?

Before we start, a quick note that you can also read about this subject today in a feature in our Briefings magazine, available at airports and online. I’m joined now by Bryan Ackermann, Korn Ferry’s head of AI strategy and transformation. He’s the go-to guy when it comes to all things at the intersection of AI and companies. Bryan, it’s really great to have you on again.

Bryan Ackermann

Great to be back. Good to see you.

Jill Wiltfong

Good to see you, Bryan. We talked about some things at the beginning there. Here’s another stat to hammer home the point of what I like to call this pro-human trend: 39% of business leaders said they made employees redundant as a result of deploying AI, but more than half of those leaders later said some of those decisions turned out to be wrong. So, what happened here with AI, and why are we seeing this reversal back to humans at many companies right now?

Bryan Ackermann

We’re seeing the reality hit of what AI can truly do. A person’s job-role contribution is not the sum total of the individual tasks that can be automated with technology, but it took organizations a little while to realize that and see it in practice. And I think it’s also elevating the human moments. Our own experience says that when you use AI to supplement human work, the output is not just more efficient; it’s better. So that’s great, but it is truly an “and.”

Jill Wiltfong

There may be another factor that always affects businesses: the bottom line. As I understand it, a lot of AI companies recently raised the cost to use AI somewhat dramatically. So, does that mean us humble humans are a better deal now for getting tasks done? Is it cheaper to hire a human?

Bryan Ackermann

There are certainly situations where organizations have replaced humans with AI and the cost structure got blown out in this age of increasingly variable consumption of AI. True statement. But I don’t think that takes away from the realization that human roles are very, very, very rarely just the sum of the individual tasks.

Jill Wiltfong

There’s a temptation to look at these rehirings and say, “See, AI was overhyped.” But then again, one study found that AI’s task capacity is doubling every seven months. So, what is the right conclusion here? Was AI overhyped, or are some of these companies just rehiring people they may have to lay off again, say, two years from now?

Bryan Ackermann

This is the fastest-evolving technology we’ve ever seen, and there is a lot of hype around it. So the answer has been changing and will continue to change. Does it hit a point where organizations are going to go, “Yep, okay, now it’s time to fire all the humans again”? I don’t think so.

Jill Wiltfong

That’s a scene from the movie Terminator 2, where Arnold Schwarzenegger, as a machine, has trouble understanding human emotion. Bryan, what are the biggest limits of AI in the workplace right now? What are the things companies thought AI could reliably do that it turns out humans are still much better at? I hope it’s a really long list.

Bryan Ackermann

It really comes down to judgment, right? AI doesn’t have judgment. AI does not have perspective and experience and emotion and empathy. If all the humans were gone, AI could, in fact, rule the world. But the fact is that there are still humans to interact with, and that’s how work gets done and society progresses. Human judgment, human emotion, and human empathy are all still very much the drivers of decision-making, value, and achievement. AI can’t do any of that.

Jill Wiltfong

That’s a perfect segue to a little rapid-fire game I’d like to play with you today, Bryan, called “AI versus human: Who does it better?” I’ve got three business categories for you, and within each category, I’m going to give you two task options and ask you which one AI does better and which one benefits more from a human touch. Are you ready?

Bryan Ackermann

Yep, I’m ready. Let’s go. No pressure.

Jill Wiltfong

Okay, all right, very good. The first business category is marketing, my personal favorite. Task A is drafting presentations and analyzing and interpreting market research. Task B is understanding client sentiment and building client relationships. Which does which better?

Bryan Ackermann

That one’s easy. Task A is AI. Task B is human. You’re going to have to make it harder than that.

Jill Wiltfong

We’ll keep trying. Very well done. Business category two is legal. Task A is parsing documents and speeding up brief writing. Task B is arguing in court and creating novel legal arguments.

Bryan Ackermann

Task A is AI. Task B would be fun in a movie if it were AI, but is, in actuality, human.

Jill Wiltfong

All right, I like that. You’re on a roll. The final category is sales. Task A is closing tough sales and reading the emotional responses of customers. Task B is building account plans and maintaining communication with clients. Which does which better?

Bryan Ackermann

Task B is AI here, and Task A is human, although AI tools are getting pretty good at giving signals to the human around customer sentiment and things for the humans to pick up on.

Jill Wiltfong

Yeah, I like that. I guess that’s true, right? A lot of the analysis can be done by AI. It’s the interpretation, and what you do with that, that often needs the human touch. Is that fair to say?

Bryan Ackermann

Interpretation and, importantly, judgment. In most cases, still action, although action is becoming somewhat automated depending on the task. But that interpretation, context-setting, and judgment are still, and should always be, human.

Jill Wiltfong

Well, that was a lot of fun, Bryan. Thank you for playing, and thanks for coming on. It’s always great to have your thoughts on this area. I’m sure we’ll see you again soon.

Bryan Ackermann

These are always a lot of fun. Thank you, Jill.

Jill Wiltfong

Yeah, very good, Bryan.

We’ve looked at what’s driving the current reversal toward human hiring. When we return, we’ll take a deeper look at how leaders sometimes end up making wrong calls on a big scale, like some of them did here with AI. So, stay tuned.

BREAK

Jill Wiltfong

We’re back. In the first half of this episode, we discussed how many companies are now rehiring humans for roles they thought AI would handle. Now we’ll talk about how company leaders sometimes make these kinds of major decisions that later need to be reversed.

Joining me for that conversation is Amit Kothari, founder and CEO of Kothari Leadership Enterprises. He’s coached numerous CEOs over the years and has some unique behind-the-scenes insights into how their decision-making process works. Amit, thanks for joining me.

Amit Kothari

Thank you for having me, Jill. Appreciate it.

Jill Wiltfong

So, leaders didn’t just misread AI. There’s also the pre-2008 housing credit bubble and the dot-com bubble before that, just a couple of examples of other times they’ve frankly missed the mark. So why do smart, experienced CEOs sometimes make these bets that later have to be unwound? How do we get here?

Amit Kothari

The formation of the question is part of the answer. During those times, we had a lot of information coming at us, and we had a lot of change. We can say information is one thing, or business intelligence is one thing. What about emotional intelligence? The decision is inherently human. And so, how we think about that is that the decision was made in the context of pressure: COVID, supply-chain disruption, war around the world, geopolitical instability. A CEO has so many things to consider. And as our mind gets full, we then have a challenge to make the right decision.

Jill Wiltfong

A lot of this also, I would guess, seems to come down to a leader’s appetite not only for emotional intelligence, but for risk. And there is this sense that without taking some risk, there’s less chance for a company to experience major growth. So, when you’re working with CEOs, how do you help them work through making a major company-wide decision like this? When is the right time to go?

Amit Kothari

From a strategy perspective, are we ready as an organization to take on that change?

It sounds simple, but in the context of a fast-moving environment and the pressure that we just talked about, that step to slow down and evaluate is so critical, Jill. And then we think about the individual. How do we separate thought from feeling? Because we often can confuse the two when we’re convincing ourselves. And then finally, at a team level, we deploy the idea to the team, not only to do what traditionally is, “Hey, let’s get aligned with the team,” but we also pressure-test a little bit: What does our team have in terms of competencies and mindset? Are they ready to adopt this idea in a way that’s sustainable?

Jill Wiltfong

That’s Harvard professor of psychology Dan Gilbert sharing thoughts on why people often make the wrong choice. Amit, you’ve said one strategy that can often help leaders increase their odds of success is piloting new ideas in one department or with a small group of people before scaling company-wide. Why are pilots so important, and what should a CEO be looking to learn before deciding whether to expand them?

Amit Kothari

We’re all familiar with the concept of pilots, but really ask yourself: In your organization, how many are you running? I find that a really interesting question for the CEOs we help. Because we often want to think we’re right and we want to move, pilots offer us the chance to reflect one more time with something being deployed in the actual environment. Pilots help convert opinion into evidence.

Jill Wiltfong

So, we talked about the role and responsibility of a CEO, but I imagine company boards bear some responsibility when things go wrong, since they select the CEO. So, what are the questions boards should be asking to determine whether a CEO has the judgment and self-awareness, that EQ you’re talking about, to avoid these kinds of costly strategic mistakes?

Amit Kothari

We can think about asking, “What outcomes have you delivered in your past? What actions came before those outcomes? And before that, the key: What were you thinking and feeling before you decided on those actions?” When we can get down to and dissect the mind of how someone approaches a problem and can deliver through the difficulty, then we all have a better chance to know our teammate.

Jill Wiltfong

Let’s end by bringing this back to AI. What do you think will separate the leaders who use AI well over the next five years from the ones who possibly make another mistake with it?

Amit Kothari

Whenever we’re deploying change, what did it matter to the customer at the end? So I always ask CEOs to think very clearly: How did it matter to the customer? Because AI right now, at this moment, is a tool that yields beautiful results. I can see it in all of us, and in myself too. I can get really excited about it and lose sight of why I’m doing something.

Jill Wiltfong

Amit, it’s been an enlightening conversation. Thanks for coming on and sharing your thoughts with us today. Appreciate it.

Amit Kothari

Thank you.

Jill Wiltfong

The executive producer of Briefings is Jonathan Dahl. Today’s episode was produced by Rupak Bhattacharyya and Zachary Dore, and it was edited by Jaren Henry McRae.

It contains reporting by Russell Pearlman, Ariane Cohen, Peter Lauria, and Meghan Walsh. Our video segment contains original artwork by Fraser Milton, Haley Kennel, Jonathan Pink, and Sasha Kotzek. Our web operations are managed by Ed McLaurin.

Don’t forget to read our magazine—available at newsstands and at kornferry.com/briefings.

That’s it for Korn Ferry Briefings. I’m Jill Wiltfong. See you next time.