Handing over to Machines : The Why and why-not Question?

Like all dimensions of work, the conventional work done by Human resource professional is also under scanner and expected to be given to, fully or partially, to machines.  

The prime motivation is to leverage the tireless energy, unbiased application of decision rules, immense retrieval and computing capabilities and NLP based interactions of new set of digital technologies (RPA, AI ML, Chatbot, Agentic-AI) for the good of employee, managers and organisation.  

The Why-Machine question?

The key motives for introducing machine power in HR context hovers around the following:

1 If Talent is the strategic asset, then machines help identify, acquire and deploy this asset better, and more efficiently. It can provide fitment score. predict the performance outcome, attrition risk and often provide the hidden talent option that is hidden in the remote work location.    

2 If employee experience at workplace is to be as good and personalised as at market-place, we can emulate same solutions for validation, interaction, recommendations and transactions, chatbots for example.    

3 If trust, transparency and auditability behind routine transactions are important, machines deliver better and at scale, using RPA as a disciplined agent.   

4 If machine releases cognitive capacity of the workforce, by taking over routine and rule-based decisions, why not? And machine capacity to adjust to scale is far more than of workforce. 

5  If the outfall of mistake by machine is manageable and not disproportionate from ethical, reputational and economics consideration, lets go ahead.   

In recognition of the above, over 70% big corporations are using machines in HR for some purpose or other.  

The Why-Human question?

At the same-time, need for putting Human in the loop is often felt: 

1 If the decision or action would create negative consequence, (say disciplinary action, dismissal), human judgement is warranted?

2 If there is less confidence in defending explainability of decisions or actions by machines to externl party, keep Human in the loop

3 If the empathy and emotions are as important as the content of the interaction for employee satisfaction, oblige

4 If the reliability of the data sets driving transcations and decisions are a suspect, let humans decide

5 If the decisions require case-2-case considerations with high level of contextual and subjective discretion, humans are not replaceable.

Moving work from humans to machines has to be a deliberative, and structured transition, ensuring coordinated readiness around policies, processes, technology and people dimensions, to make it seamless and well recived by stakeholders.         

Competition at Workplace may not deliver results associated with Free-market competition

Often market place innovations and ever improving customer service standards are attributed to free market environment and players’ need for one-upmanship.
Competition is assumed to be motivating force that pushes all players to do their best. Organizations often seek to rely on internal competition (practicing relative performance ranking) to provoke employees’ efforts and spur creativity. The process surely leads to categorization of employees into winners and losers, but does not necessarily enhances overall organization effectiveness or financial performance. Some of the gaps in the outcome can actually be explained in the difference between Work Place Competition and Market Place Competition. 
 

 

The contention is not to let go leveraging the benefits of competition, but to be conscious of its limitations. Create enough avenues for all well meaning employees to win and make it evident that collaboration and partnerships in the overall interest of organization also pays.

Reflect!!!