Nay to AI in HR — Focus on the ‘H’
HR Management is one of the most critical departments in any organization. Would introducing AI in HR make them invincible? Nay. AI is not the Panacea. Humans are.
In the 2009 American movie ‘Up in the Air,’ the charming George Clooney plays a Corporate Downsizer. His job is to travel across the country and lay off employees on behalf of the companies. Over the years, He had developed a script he uses while giving people the news, and he’s made peace with himself that telling people that they don’t have jobs anymore is just a job.
Halfway through the film enters Anna Kendrick, an ambitious cost-cutter hired by Clooney’s firm. She believes she can reduce the traveling cost of downsizers by introducing Telecall. Instead of traveling to the physical location of the companies to lay off people, they can do it over a video call.
Just like what happens during the initial implementation of any new tech in any sector, many couldn’t understand the need for Telecall. But the company pushes it because it could save them a lot of money.
Clooney’s character vehemently opposes it. Because if it’s done, he cannot travel, which he loves. The other reason is he believes that telling the news face to face gives it a humane touch. Considering his character is pretty one-dimensional about things that don’t concern him, this scene shows that some flakes of empathy are still left in him.
Can AI have that empathy? I’m not expecting Will Ferrell’s level of compassion, but at least Clooney’s flakes.
Oracle’s Future Workplace Report says,
64% reported that they would trust a robot over their manager for advice’.
64% isn’t something we can ignore. It indicates a tectonic shift in Man vs. Machine conversation. The above line gives two clear perspectives.
1) People are open to trusting Artificial Intelligence.
2) Employees don’t trust their managers, or the managers are not good enough.
Let’s leave the first inference to psychologists & anthropologists to dissect, analyze, and develop the ‘How & Why it happened.’ Let’s concentrate on the 2nd inference, which is somewhat mind-blowing and terrifying.
To a large extent, employees’ engagement, retention, and fondness depend upon their managers because they are the first in the chain of command.
If the managers are not treating their employees well, the attrition rate will increase. It is as simple as that. It doesn’t matter whether they provide hazelnut-glazed donuts, interest-free car loans, or have a theme park on their campus. The best example to understand this scenario would be attrition case studies of India’s Big-4: TCS, CTS, HCL, & Infosys.
If 64% don’t trust their managers, HR has their job cut out for them. They need to focus their attention on the managers. AI doesn’t have anything to do here.
Is AI creating a Vacuum Chamber?
Replacing yearly reviews, Companies use AI chatbots and surveys to understand their employees and identify the roadblocks (if any). In these aspects, AI could help organizations conduct frequent mass reviews instead of one-to-one sessions that could consume humongous hours.
Companies that promote these methods claim AI chatbots make the employees feel comfortable and be frank about their intentions.
The drawback is not every employee can express what they feel, especially in a written format.
Let’s assume people are comfortable sharing their thoughts with an AI, and they can do it eloquently in a written format. But ultimately, the surveys and reviews are going to end up in the Manager’s table. If the managers don’t change their attitude or upgrade themselves to the present scenarios, even AI can’t do anything to improve the workplace environment.
From a conspiracy perspective: AI chatbots and surveys could be a distraction companies use. People vent out their anger on social media and leave it at that without doing anything in their real life. AI chatbots and surveys could be such a vacuum chamber. A place where employees can vent out their disappointments and go back to do their work. The noise they made would be stored away in the cloud, away from the eyes of decision-makers and reality.
AI is not the Panacea. Humans are.
Coming back to the movie, while letting go of a female employee, the employee says, ‘I’m gonna jump off the bridge.’ Clooney wouldn’t mind it at that point. But later, she jumped off a bridge. That incident would break Anna Kendrick, and she’d leave the job.
We’re living in a complicated world. Understanding a fellow human is not such an easy task. In these situations, our HRMs have to be more understanding and empathetic. An AI could never do that. An AI could never replace the effectiveness of humane touch.
The employees should feel that they are valuable to the organization and their well-being is essential to the organization. Their opinions should be heard. They should be respected and be given fair chances when they’re not performing well.
Anyways.
AI is here to stay. That is an irrefutable fact. But it is not going to lead the way. It should aid the HRMs to decrease their workload, automate the mundane, simple tasks, and ultimately enable them to spend more time interacting with the employees.
HRMs should focus on supporting and guiding people who’re at the fulcrum of dealing with employees and the management to bring more value to the organization. At last, AI is not the panacea. Humans are.
A statistics says:
‘Men have a more positive view of AI at work than women with 32% of men optimistic vs. 23% of women’
Well, they don’t have enough data to understand the Why. But it could mean that women are not comfortable with AI since it could take over their job.
Historically, when a technological upgrade happens in the workplace, women primarily lose their job. Thoughts?
