(light music) - Unemployment is near historical lows, and the stock market had a banner year in 2024.

So why does there seem to be so much worry about jobs in the future?

Author and employment culture expert, Dr. Jessica Kriegel joins us today to explore what's really going on with work and the trends that we all need to watch.

Welcome, Dr. Kriegel.

- Thanks for having me, Scott.

- What is driving the increased focus on job uncertainty in the news and on social media?

What's going on?

- Well, everything's changing so quickly right now.

It's not just AI, that's the big headline, that's what everyone's talking about.

But there are so many more technological changes and advancements that are gonna not only change the way we think about work, but change the way we think about reality.

I mean, nanotechnology, brain computer interfacing, quantum computing, and all of these things are gonna wildly transform the landscape of how we interact and operate, and certainly how we work and how capitalism thrives and continues, how business evolves.

So CEOs are looking at where do we need to invest?

How can we adjust our strategy to keep up with the pace of change?

How do we get people on board with that?

And it looks like, I mean, logically, people will be less and less necessary as computers become more and more invested in- - Well, that's where I want to go.

Because it seems like, you know, all of us are asking, "Well, what happens to me?"

What are you hearing out there in the marketplace?

- Well, it depends on who you're listening to.

If you're listening to an executive at a technology company, they're saying, "No, no, no, don't worry.

You certainly won't be losing your jobs.

AI is not going to replace people," because that allays people's fears.

It's the right talk track.

A lot of those talk tracks are totally insincere and inauthentic.

I had a conversation with the CEO of a major technology company who said, "There's one message that I need to say in my PR, and there's another message that I have in conversations in boardrooms with people behind closed doors about what's really happening."

And so I've heard people admit, "We are lying to the public about what is going to happen."

What's going to happen, and everyone knows it is we are going to lay off more and more people from organizations.

It's already begun, and it will continue to go in that direction.

- I heard you use a term recently called the great post-COVID profit extraction related to it seems that the relationships have been inverted.

You talk about the CEOs and what they say to the public and what they say in their boardroom.

I've heard those same things, but the way that you framed it, it really seemed to speak to one, Wall Street is doing well because of record profits, but at the same time, it seems that the basic relationship between employers and employees has completely flipped around because, during COVID, employees seemed to be calling the shots.

And now today, the employers almost seem like the Bad Boys Club and Bad Girls Club.

- Yeah, and I don't think it was, well, the employees were calling the shots shortly after COVID.

During COVID, I mean, I remember talking to many leaders of large organizations who said, "We are not gonna lay off anyone."

I mean, I was working at Oracle and we had a series of layoffs planned that were just kind of normal course of business layoffs, nothing major.

And the CEO of Oracle said, "We're not doing any of those."

It was completely unrelated to the business need.

They decided, because we are in a global pandemic, we need to have some compassion, we need to slow down, let's protect people, see what happens.

Then shortly thereafter, the great resignation, right?

So people, now they were working from home, they had more flexibility, they had way more jobs available to them because they were not geographically limited in where they could apply.

And so now it felt like, "Well, let me go get another job."

And salaries went way up and people were taking advantage of that opportunity.

Not necessarily bad, but they were taking advantage of the opportunity that presented itself.

That then was the pendulum swinging super far in one direction.

And there's been a reaction that I think has been led by some high profile decisions by business leaders like Elon Musk, when he took over Twitter, laid everyone off, forced people back into the office, that was a headline that then created some pondering in the leaders' minds around the globe saying, "Oh, interesting."

And some of that is confirmation bias, right?

The CEOs see that headline.

They think, "Yeah, I think maybe I could try that.

That's what I think, maybe we should force people back into the office."

They're looking for evidence that they can do what they think they should have done in order to be seen as a more successful leader, more successful leaders has shareholder value.

So we do layoffs, we create operational efficiencies, we invest in technology to eventually be able to reduce our labor costs.

And that's what a CEO's job is, I mean, they're just trying to drive results.

And right now it's socially acceptable to drive results.

The layoff headline isn't as much of a scarlet letter as it once was.

- Well, in fact, isn't it true that historically that when you announced layoffs, your stock price went down?

Now, it seems that your stock price actually bounces upwards because you're looked at as being sharp in leading the market.

What has happened in the consciousness of employers, and, frankly, investors- - Yeah, investors.

- To say, yeah, to say, "Hey, layoffs are things that increase value rather than decrease value"?

- Well, it's because the employee-employer social contract has shifted over the last 50 years, so it used to be that I will do great work for you and you will give me employment and security so that I can raise a family.

And then what would happen is, as recessions hit, corporations would react a little bit more severely every time to those recessions.

So in the beginning it was, maybe we're gonna do a furlough on Fridays, and maybe we're gonna move some employees to part-time, and now maybe we're gonna do layoffs, and now maybe we're going to actually not replace those layoffs, but just lean into contract work so that we can always ebb and flow with, you see Amazon now, the people that are delivering the packages for Amazon, they don't work for Amazon, right?

They are people that are contracted.

So Amazon doesn't have, they can higher up and higher down without all of the labor.

- They also don't receive benefits or any of the other parts that come with that.

- Right, exactly.

So the shift has happened where we're trying to be more and more efficient, and now you see the market reacting to efficiency is key, we need to drive results.

And so people who are staying ahead of that are winning.

It's just a different environment.

And so, employees, their experiences, they don't have job security anymore, but they also don't need to be loyal anymore.

And so they're trying to find ways in which they can get ahead in a market that's really not for them necessarily.

- So, as you look out over the horizon into the future, what do you think are the consequences of this new almost kind of, you know, everyone for themselves environment, what does that do to culture, which you focus on, and essentially that basic social contract that you spoke about a few moments ago?

- It's the million dollar question.

I think it can go in one of two ways.

I think it could be really positive, oddly, right?

Shockingly.

- Really?

Okay.

- Yeah.

So here's the positive spin on it.

And this is where at Culture Partners, when I'm hiring people or looking at my team, I know that I don't want loyal employees.

I have figured this out in my evolution of leadership- - Hold it, hold it, full stop.

"I don't want loyal employees."

- I don't want loyal employees.

- Okay, you gotta unpack that one.

- Okay, let me unpack it.

So loyalty is some kind of honor or fidelity to me or an organization that I earn because you and I have some kind of shared emotional connection, that's like loyalty, right?

What I want is employees who feel like they're getting paid fairly, they're doing interesting work, and they're excited about working here.

Now, if something were to not be true for them, so for example, they're excited about work and they're doing interesting, challenging work and they're growing, but they're not getting paid fairly, well, a loyal employee will say, "Well, I'm loyal to the company, so even though I'm not getting everything that I want, I'm gonna stick around because I don't wanna upset Jessica or I don't wanna betray the company," right?

And then what I end up having is someone who inside is not really super engaged, not as excited as they once were, feeling like they're not really getting what their fair share is, maybe building up a resentment.

They start to check out, right, now, instead of having 100% of an employee, I'm getting 80% of an employee, 60% of an employee.

I know this because I've been this employee who felt like I can't possibly leave this company because I feel loyal to them or my boss, and yet I don't really feel like I'm getting what I deserve here and I gave less energy.

That's a lose-lose because the employee is frustrated and the employer doesn't actually realize they're not getting a full employee's worth, right?

Because their employee is resentful and they're staying because of some false loyalty to an imaginary system that is called a corporation, or me, which we are not family, I'm your employer, so you should be getting your maximum needs met in order for me to get the maximum amount of you.

So that's what I want.

I want that if my employee feels like, "I'm not getting paid enough," that they say, "I don't feel loyal to this company enough to give you something for nothing."

And then if they say that, I can help them find another job, I can replace them with someone who's way more invested and it becomes a win-win.

So I don't wanna be loyal to anyone.

I wanna get my fair share, and I don't want employees to feel loyal to me because it's really selfish mentality.

So to answer your question and go back, how can this be good?

If we can be transparent with each other, corporations and employees, they can be transparent around this is a business, you know, at our company Culture Partners, we got 50 employees and we say there are 50 seats on this bus.

It's a small bus, really, you know, I mean, if you are one of the 50 people, you need to be in, you have to be all in with us.

And if you're not all in, you don't have a seat on the bus, right?

And so, that transparency will allow more freedom of movement for people and to make decisions with that understanding.

It's a lot less oppressive.

Where it's dangerous is when corporations are feeding a bunch of corporate speak to employees, be like, "Everything's great, everything's wonderful," and employees are not actually getting the full truth and they don't get to make decisions that are fully informed.

Does that make sense?

- Okay, well, that actually opens the door to what I wanted to ask you about in that, right now, an emerging conversation that seems to be the new buzzword is purpose.

Okay, we have to have purpose-driven companies and that we need to have alignment of purpose in terms of all of the quote, unquote "stakeholders" of employees, employers, you know, society, and all the rest.

How do you square the concept of purpose if you think that that's valid with what you just expressed as the concept of no longer having loyalty to a company and that this transparency actually serves everyone's interests better?

- Everyone is doing some form of purpose, it's also known as the mission statement, which is what most people have.

The question is, are you doing it authentically and transparently?

So when we help an organization create a purpose, there's usually something already there and it's usually a jargon-filled, three-sentence long, all-encompassing run-on sentence about stakeholders and customer experience.

And you know, we exist to serve at the highest levels our stakeholders, investors, clients, employees, happiness, and fulfillment of our key goals.

Yeah, I mean, it just doesn't mean anything and it doesn't inspire anyone.

So your purpose statement should be the motivator for key decision-making- - What I'm trying to get to though, is purpose and this whole purpose movement, is this kind of like just a buzzword of the moment that runs kind of counter to where you see the trends going with regards to people essentially having agency to take care of their own interests?

- I think it can be a fad type movement if it's not done well.

And it can be a driving force for transparency and understanding if it's done well.

So, you know, some people should say, "Our purpose is to get rich."

You know, I mean, some people should say, "Our purpose is to create as much value as possible."

- Just that upfront.

- Just that upfront.

I actually know a consulting firm, there is actually a consulting firm I've worked with before, a client of mine whose purpose is to like, "Create and protect shareholder value."

That is their purpose.

And everyone who works there understands what that company's about and the people who are about that love working there and the people who think that that's a little bit empty don't thrive there, right?

What's wrong with that?

I mean, at least we're being transparent.

- Well, we were talking about fads earlier and one thing that does not appear to be a fad is the presence and the growing pervasiveness of artificial intelligence.

Share with us how artificial intelligence is reshaping the job market and which sectors are going to be the most vulnerable immediately to automation.

What should we be looking out for?

- In the immediate term, I think the salaried workforce, we're talking professional services, office workers are gonna be most at risk; in the long term, I think everyone is at risk.

And what you're seeing right now is, I mean, marketing, for example, has already gotten hit.

You've got content writing being done by ChatGPT, I've read articles on professional journalism sites that are clearly written by ChatGPT or whatever their version of AI is, right?

And so content writer is gone, no more need for them.

I mean, you already see that, translator is gone, and you're gonna start to see more and more happening in professional services with agentic AI.

I mean, Salesforce announced their agentic AI.

- For the rest of us, what does agentic AI mean exactly?

- Think of it as an employee that is AI, an agent that is an AI person.

So right now, AI, the way most people are using it is reactive.

It's, let me put in a prompt, and you give me something I've asked for.

Whereas agentic AI is proactive, it's offense rather than defense.

It's doing tasks and maybe it'll prompt you, "Hey, we need X or Y."

And so it's agents, Salesforce has, for example, a project management agent AI bot, right?

There was a lot of controversy this last year with Lattice, which is an HCM HR tech company.

They announced that they were going to create employee profiles for agentic AI agents that are AI bots that could be viewed as employees because they're doing tasks that employees used to do.

And that created an uproar.

People got afraid.

They said, "Wait a minute, robots aren't people, you can't do that."

And they pulled out very quickly because it was just a PR crisis for them.

So they're revisiting, how do we go about doing this in a way where we don't get so much pushback?

- And, these agentic AIs are gonna do everything from, if I need to take a trip to say Dallas, it's going to find out the flights, book the hotels, book the car reservation, all that sort of stuff with just asking me a few questions, and like a human could do that, right?

- Yeah, absolutely.

But it'll also do things like, you know, lead generation for your company and sales.

I mean, there are actual avatars that can do Zoom calls with your clients to qualify leads and try and find potential sales opportunities for your pipeline that look like people on a Zoom, like, one of us could be fake right now having a sales call, right?

That's agentic AI.

You can replace your sales force with that.

The accuracy and quality of that agentic AI today is still not very high, which is what's preventing it from taking over.

But it will get better.

- So let's talk about this and connect this up to the region.

This region right here.

This region right here is known for having an economy that is dominated by government.

The other largest government geography in the United States is Washington DC, and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are running DOGE which is this volunteer effort to essentially remake the federal workforce.

Two questions for you.

One is, what do you think are the outcomes that are potentially going to happen because of that effort, and closer to home, within the Sacramento region, how do you think it impacts the conversations about how government and the government workforce that has powered this region continues into the future?

- Well, I think their op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal" was like the email announcement equivalent of a CEO saying, "Changes are coming," right?

These changes that were being announced- - That's never a good thing for the workers.

- Yeah, no, and what they're saying is, "We're gonna force people back in the office five days a week because we hope that they will quit because they're unhappy with those circumstances because we're trying to create more efficiency."

It's the Department of Government Efficiency by making recommendations on what can be cut, how we can get around loopholes that will allow us to radically transform the federal government.

And so changes are coming.

Interestingly, that got a lot of play at the time.

Since then, they've kind of quieted down.

I haven't heard much about DOGE ever since then.

I think maybe Trump said, "Hey, can you guys be quiet until after I am in office?

You're taking away all of my attention."

Who knows?

But we will have to see if they've adjusted their approach, 'cause Biden has responded, Biden actually implemented some kind of rule, I don't know how it works, that they allow people who are in the federal government to continue their remote work policies that currently exist.

Whether Elon, and Vivek, and Trump are able to overcome that is to be seen.

The impact on the federal government will be profound, but I think a even larger ripple effect will be the impact, the emboldening of CEOs making similar decisions in their businesses.

They'll look at what's happening and say, "Exactly, I can do that too."

And it makes it okay, which is what happens, these trends happen because a high profile case is presented, the world reacts, everyone sees what the reaction is and then they say, "Well, let me jump in on this because it seems like it's safe to do so now that the first mover has gone."

- Yeah, Musk decimated Twitter, it didn't collapse.

And so people say, "Hey, you know, maybe that's a decent strategy."

I want to, you actually touched on something that I wanted to speak to.

There is a lot of conversation going on about return to work.

And every single day it seems like we see a new employer saying, "Hey, everybody's coming back in the office five days a week, four days a week," whatever it is.

And you know, remote work seemed like a benefit that really was meaningful to a lot of people.

What is it that you're hearing about the future of remote work and hybrid work and, frankly, the impact that the full return is having on workers across the country?

- So think of the language that's used to talk about returning to office, return to office, back to work, right?

It's all regressive, it's about going backwards.

And that's because the people who are forcing their employees back to work are uncomfortable with managing activity when people are at home.

Because managing to activity is the lazy way of leading that most people are used to leading with, they just look, "Are you in the office?

Are you doing your tasks?"

It's a lot harder to manage remote workers because you can't manage their activity.

You have to manage to outcomes, which is an elevated way of leading that is, you know, great leaders can do it and some leaders can't.

And so it's more complicated.

And because people who are not skilled at real leadership don't know how to do that, they're saying, "The problem is employees don't have integrity, they're doing laundry.

So I need to get them back into the office," without looking at themselves and saying, "How am I accountable for what's going on right now and how can I do better?"

So I think it's unfortunate that so many leaders are trying to force people back into the office because the people who are suffering the most are, as usual, the people at the bottom of the barrel, the people who don't have as much privilege, who are challenged with increasing costs of childcare, and elder care, and all of the- - Transportation, all of that.

- Transportation, exactly.

So that's unfortunate.

What I'm hearing is that there will be, it's just like the swing of the pendulum when employers have more power versus when employees have more power.

The remote work world will swing in the same way.

Right now employers have the power and they will for the next year at least, and when the employees get the power again sometime in the future as they inevitably will, then remote work will increase.

And so that will go back and forth.

With AI, though, I think remote work is an eventual inevitability.

I mean, we're all gonna be working from home.

- I'm glad you returned to AI because what all of us are asking, whether we want to admit it or not, is what happens to us?

What happens to our ability to feed our families, to keep a roof over our head, to build a good life for ourselves?

What's your advice as we move forward into this era of automation and AI and technology change in terms of how we can individually, future-proof ourself and our kids and our grandkids and our loved ones to be able to survive and thrive in this new emerging environment?

- Well, what I've done is there's change embracers and there's change resistors.

I believe it is beneficial to you to be a change embracer at this time.

And so what that looks like is I have looked at everything that I do, all of the tasks in my role as it exists right now as a starting point and identified where can those tasks be replaced by AI or aided by AI, more efficient with AI?

Then I look zoom out at the larger organization that I'm operating in in my department, and how can processes or systems be more efficient with AI?

I'm learning about it as much as possible, I'm making recommendations on how we can implement AI, and what's the immediate impact is when the leaders and the board look at how the team is doing and as they're making decisions, I'm a change embracer who's leading the charge on operational efficiency.

So I'm demonstrating value of myself to the people that are making decisions about my career, right?

So that's the immediate short term thing that you can do.

Education and upskilling is always the key here because as things change, you wanna be one of the first people considered for whatever the position is.

I mean, that's all that you really can do because the future beyond the immediate next couple years is so wildly hazy.

Anyone who says they can predict what's gonna happen in five years, they're selling you something or they're overly confident because so much can shift so quickly, as we've seen, that it's just so impossible to tell.

- And I think that we will leave it there and have you back and maybe give us some guidance as the new trends start to reveal themselves.

- I'd be happy to come back, Scott.

Thanks for having me.

- All right, and that's our show.

Thanks to our guest and thanks to you for watching Studio Sacramento.

I'm Scott Syphax, see you next time right here on KVIE.

(bright music) - [Announcer] All episodes of Studio Sacramento, along with other KVIE programs are available to watch online at kvie.org/video.