Business Profs Find Work that Delivers High Value Is Less Likely to Be Automated
Image by Ed Brennen
10/24/2018
By Ed Brennen
From self-ordering kiosks at fast-food restaurants to mail-order prescriptions online, automation continues to seep into our everyday lives. And with it has come an avalanche of research and reporting on how artificial intelligence, robots and the Internet of Things are disrupting industries and taking people鈥檚 jobs.
In surveying this shifting landscape, Manning School of Business faculty members Scott Latham and Beth Humberd noticed something important was being overlooked: how the value delivered by workers 鈥� either to customers or within their organizations 鈥� can help predict whether their professions will survive in the future.
鈥淓veryone is talking about the changing nature of work, but it seemed most of the guidance and discussion was for organizations in terms of what they鈥檒l gain in efficiency and cost reduction,鈥� says Humberd, an assistant professor of management. 鈥淲e realized that there鈥檚 too much of a monolithic story out there for individual workers, who were just hearing, 鈥榃atch out, the robots are coming. Your job is danger.鈥欌€�
To help people figure out if they鈥檙e safe from the robots or if they should be pivoting to a new line of work, Latham and Humberd have co-authored a research article, 鈥�,鈥� which was published this fall in one of the world鈥檚 leading scholarly journals, the MIT Sloan Management Review.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not just low-skilled workers who are going to be displaced and professional workers who are fine. A plumber might outlast a doctor.鈥� -Asst. Prof. of Management Beth Humberd
By evaluating 50 professions (everything from accountant to plumber to toll-taker) according to the type of value delivered and the skills required, they created a framework that can help workers assess the threat level posed by automation. The professions ended up falling into one of four quadrants, or 鈥減aths of evolution鈥�: displaced (the most in danger), disrupted, deconstructed or durable (the safest).
Real estate agents, for instance, would fall into the 鈥渄isrupted鈥� category because their skills are becoming standardized by websites and apps, but they still provide value through the more nuanced work of advising clients. A pharmacist, meanwhile, is considered 鈥渄isplaced鈥� (high threat to value and skill), while a livery driver is 鈥渄econstructed鈥� (high threat to value, low threat to skill) and a physician鈥檚 assistant is 鈥渄urable鈥� (low threat to value and skill).
鈥淭he idea of value allowed us to show that there鈥檚 different ways that jobs are going to evolve, and it may not be in the way you think,鈥� says Humberd, who notes that education level and wages are not necessarily strong predictors of job evolution. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not just low-skilled workers who are going to be displaced and professional workers who are fine. A plumber might outlast a doctor.鈥�
Image by Imelda Joson
That analysis has helped the article gain considerable traction on social media, where it has been retweeted by everyone from the McKinsey Global Institute to a high school principal in Pennsylvania, with the comment 鈥淲e need to be thinking about this for our students.鈥�
鈥淭he response has been incredible,鈥� says Latham, an associate professor of management. 鈥淲e thought it would be well-received, but we鈥檝e been pleasantly surprised by how widely it鈥檚 been disseminated.鈥�
The idea for the research sprang from Latham鈥檚 former role as the university鈥檚 Vice Provost for Workforce Development, which gave him an up-close look at how businesses were confronting automation.
鈥淢y whole career has looked at how technology disrupts industries and organizations,鈥� says Latham, who found the perfect collaborator in Humberd, whose research centers on how that disruption impacts individual workers.
And their work is not done.
鈥淲e鈥檝e found that there鈥檚 some interesting stuff that people are not talking much about, at that intersection of broader technological disruption and the ways in which individuals identify with their work that we want to follow up on,鈥� Humberd says.
鈥淭here鈥檚 too much hysteria when we talk about the future of work. There needs to be more grounded research,鈥� adds Latham, who says that while the evolution of automation is unavoidable, no one really knows how it will unfold.
鈥淚t could come to a point where the automated stations you see at McDonald鈥檚, in five years people could say, 鈥楾his stinks. I want a person.鈥欌€�