Here are 3 things HR leaders would do well to consider in the new world of work:

1. In-person work needs a fresh sell.

Many organisations have opted to mandate in-person work, whether it is a few days a week to full-time. However, employees are not convinced.

Many employees are either refusing job offers with strict in-person mandates or choosing flexibility and autonomy over promotions, while others are turning to ‘coffee badging.’

“Coffee badging” is a new term that describes a strategy where employees show up at the office for long enough to tick the in-person attendance box, before returning home to work remotely. First coined by Owl Labs, this trend is growing among hybrid workers who prefer to balance their time between home and office. A 2023 report found that 58% of hybrid workers in the U.S. engage in coffee badging, and it remains a popular tactic today.

While many leaders may be frustrated by this, the reality is that in-person work has not provided enough of a selling point to many workers. Employees are finding that they are attending the office, only to be doing the same work they would have done at home, in a more distracting and less convenient environment.[1]

Rather than simply mandating the change, leaders need to actually gear in-person work time towards activities that utilise it. Atlassian is a case-in-point of a company that understand this and is exploring a new way for doing in-person work that provides a genuine incentive for showing up while making most of the time.

For the past year, they have been trialling a ‘Connection Hub’ – a space where workers can show up (the key word is ‘can’, not ‘must’) in order to collaborate in person. The company’s fierce commitment to flexibility is exhibited by their Team Anywhere initiative, where employees can work in any of the 13 countries where the company operates. While other organisations have been seeing candidate numbers dwindle and employees resign over mandating efforts, Atlassian’s counter-cultural approach has seen the number of candidates per role more than doubled since the launch of the initiative, without any dips in productivity.[2]

Using in-person days for collaborative meetings, team activities, and creative ideation offers meaningful reasons for employees to return to the office voluntarily. After all, if an employee never had the option to say no, you can’t expect them to be very invested in their ‘yes’.  

2. Leaders need a humanised plan for corporate culture.

Within an age of flexible work and the empowered employee, though, leaders need a new plan for building corporate culture. In my work with leaders and organisations, I’ve found it to be consistently clear that a thriving corporate culture begins with trust. If employees don’t feel trusted to do their work, especially when seeking more flexibility, they are unlikely to participate in a positive workplace culture.

However, every leader knows the unique power of a water cooler for catalysing incidental creative conversation and innovation. For this reason, finding ways to create incidental connections through digital channels, even when they may sometimes feel like time-wasters, is crucial for maintaining connections and innovation within teams. Communicating more than feels necessary about what is happening in peoples’ work helps to replicate the conversations that naturally take place when people are in the same room.

Beyond this, personally checking in on employees as people, rather than just workers, is key to building a team that genuinely wants to engage at work. To support employees’ investment in their work and build psychological safety, people need to feel that their leaders care more about them than they do about their work.

3. To really harness AI, we need to rethink how humans spend their time.

Not only do employees need to be treated like humans, but the work they do as humans needs to be fundamentally rethought.

We’ve all heard about the ways AI will save us time, but harnessing its real value will depend on the ways we repurpose and upskill the humans we have working with us. Beyond this, human workers need their human resources leaders to support them through the transition of embracing new kinds of work as AI replaces their previous tasks.

Qualtrics Principal Behavioural Scientist Dr Cecelia Herbert highlights that increased productivity isn’t simply a matter of doing things faster; it’s about how the freed-up time is spent. For real gains, employees need to be shifted to high-value tasks that demand creativity, empathy, and deep problem-solving—things that technology alone can’t achieve.

Instead of bringing HR in as an afterthought, Dr. Herbert encourages involving them from the beginning of the tech implementation process to ensure that both the technology and individual workers can be harnessed and supported for the best results.

The rise of AI is providing leaders and organisations with an opportunity to rethink the role of the people in their teams and discern the best way to play into their uniquely human capacities while utilising the capabilities of the tech.[3]

As technology evolves, so does work. To keep their organisations happy, healthy and thriving, HR leaders must rethink how their systems and people operate in this new world of work.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubbornness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Torres, M 2024, ‘Over 50% Of Hybrid Workers Admitted To Partaking In A New Controversial Office Trend, And This Is Why They’re Defending It’, BuzzFeed, 4 July.

[2] Swan, D 2024, ‘Is Atlassian’s year-long experiment the future of work?’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 July.

[3] 2024, ‘HR “can’t skip this part” when implementing AI’, HRDaily, 22 July.

Beyond that, while I tend to err on the side of optimism when it comes to the impact of technology on our lives, even I fell into the trap of viewing some of the developments of the robotic front through the lens of sci-fi dystopia and fear. We tend to think of robots through the lens of threat rather than opportunity, and equate the rise of robots with the fall of humans.

It wasn’t until I was at a conference recently and was invited to try on a robotic exoskeleton that I really wrapped my head around how the rise of robotic technology has the potential to bring humanity forward with it in some novel and surprising ways. Not only was this piece of technology novel, but its capacity was also incredible – I was able to lift significantly more weight than I otherwise could, but what I learned about how this tech can prevent injuries was incredibly inspiring.

And the technology I had the chance to experiment with is just the tip of the iceberg. Berlin-based robotics company GermanBionic recently launched its latest wearable tech innovation in the Apogee+ power suit. This device is an e-exoskeleton designed to be worn by healthcare professionals to ameliorate their ability to lift and transport patients within healthcare environments like hospitals, rehab clinics and geriatric wards.

A previous iteration of this device has also been used in industries where heavy lifting is common, including construction, warehousing and manufacturing, being specifically designed to protect the lower back of workers.[1]

This is the way humanoid robot technology is likely to function best. Robot workers would be better understood as ‘cobots’ – collaborative partners working alongside humans in jobs that are physically demanding, dangerous or simply undesirable for people. Not only will their work reduce the risk for humans in this kind of work, but it will reduce the costs for companies. They will do the jobs human don’t want, and they will do them faster, better and cheaper.

True to character, Elon Musk recently announced that Tesla will begin using humanoid robots in its production as early as next year. This use of robots will boost efficiency in production as well as helping to reduce the labour shortages of human workers. The robots will work alongside humans, with built in conversational abilities.[2]

He is far from alone in the innovation of humanoid robots. US start-up Figure recently released a preview of its second version of their humanoid robot, the first of which is already working within a BMW factory in South Carolina.[3]

The role of robot labour becomes particularly important economically speaking when we map out the population trends over the next 100 years. When human populations experience a dramatic drop – a phenomenon expected to hit in the mid-2080s as a result of the current falling birth rates – there is going to be a great need for labour. Robots may provide the solution to that problem.[4]

A great example of this robot work comes in the food industry and hospitality sector. The meat industry has a history of labour shortages, and for good reason. Work in the meat industry is notoriously unpleasant, repetitive and incredibly physically demanding; fit-for-purpose robots are able to relieve humans of this task. At a factory in Iowa, there is a robot that spends its day doing the unpleasant work of carving up pig carcasses.

Rather than attempt to make such jobs more appealing with monetary bonuses or higher wages, the work of robots means costs are cut rather than multiplied. Here, there is no risk of human redundancy, as the few workers willing to work in such jobs are going to be re-assigned to more skilled positions.[5]

Similarly, robots are working alongside humans in the hospitality sector. CaliExpress by Flippy is a restaurant that also serves as a test kitchen for Miso Robotics, a company that designed robots for hospitality. The robots in this particular kitchen make everything from fries to burgers to mozzarella sticks. A similar robot, in use at Chipotle works at 6x the productivity of a human worker, making 180 bowls an hour.

In these environments, humans are still needed, especially for the more skilled tasks, as well as in managing the robots, making these humanoids genuine ‘cobots’.[6]

But the humanoids are not limited to workplaces; they are beginning to replace human labour in menial tasks and undesirable jobs even in the home. German start-up Neura also recently showcased  a humanoid robot 4NE-1 that cooks, cleans, tidies and irons within the home. This humanoid was announced around the same time as a Nivida, a chip company, announced it is launching a set of platforms and tools to support these robots. One such platform is Isaac Lab, which uses simulations to train humanoid robots.[7]

It is understandable that we survey the fast-approaching future of robots, humanoids and AI with some suspicion. However, the rise of robots does not need to mean the fall of humans. Rather, when applied well, this technology frees humans up for more meaningful work, and allows us to fill in the gaps of labour shortages that are only set to widen.

Given the ways companies are currently integrating the technology, we would do well to embrace some optimism. Having been able to deadlift more than I ever could at the gym with the help of that exoskeleton, my high hopes are more than restored.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubbornness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] 2023, ‘CES award-winning e-exoskeleton specialist German Bionic presents the Apogee+ power suit for the health sector, in Las Vegas’, GermanBionic, 14 December.

[2] Lukpat, A 2024, ‘Elon Musk Says Tesla to Use HumanoidRobots Next Year’, Wall Street Journal, 22 July.

[3] Mattin, D 2024, ‘New Week #139: The humanoids are coming,’ New World Same Humans, 2 August.

[4] Mattin, D 2024, ‘New Week #139: The humanoids are coming,’ New World Same Humans, 2 August.

[5] Thomas, P 2024, ‘Meet the Robots Slicing Your Barbecue Ribs’, Wall Street Journal, 9 April.

[6] Rylah, J B 2024, ‘We tried a restaurant where robots cook the food’, The Hustle, 3 April.

[7] Mattin, D 2024, ‘New Week #139: The humanoids are coming,’ New World Same Humans, 2 August.

Stubbornness may be alive and well in political discourse, but it is no less prevalent in our teams and organisations. Debates or disagreements can quickly descend into ego-driven battles causing individuals to double-down on their existing ideas as a form of self-preservation. But given the fact that we spend an estimated 40 percent of our work lives trying to persuade the thinking of others, we must be careful to avoid using 19th and 20th century techniques for trying to change 21st century minds. 

The vital first step in overcoming obstinance is to understand why people don’t change their minds – even when they want to and know they should.

The Psychological Sunk Cost

Many of us are familiar with the idea of an economic sunk cost. This describes what happens when we stick with an unfavorable decision or course of action simply because we have already invested so much money and time in it.

In much the same way, we have a tendency to hold onto opinions or worldviews simply because we have invested so much of our time, energy and – most importantly – our reputation into them. As a result, we will cling to old ideas, approaches, and ways of thinking rather than embracing ones we know will serve us better because the appearance of changing our mind can come at too great a cost for our dignity.

Sometimes this isn’t a matter of keeping up appearances, but of maintaining mental stability. If ‘the facts’ seem to be pointing away from an idea that we have built our career, status or authority on, then the price of following the evidence is simply too high. When confronted with inconvenient truths, many of us become afraid of what I call the Unravelling Effect, asking ourselves, “if this one thing is not true or accurate, what else have I believed to be true that may not be?”

Being “in-between beliefs” like this —where we are no longer sure of what we previously assumed but unconvinced about an alternative—can feel deeply unstable and unsettling. This psychological discomfort tends to be all the motivation we need to look for a resolution that will restore the safety of certainty—even if that means ignoring evidence and returning to old ideas despite a nagging sense that something’s not right.

Beyond the psychological aspects of stubbornness, there is a physiological process involved too. In their book Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us, Jack and Sara Gorman cite fascinating research that shows that we experience a genuine sense of pleasure in the form of a dopamine rush when exposed to information that reinforces our existing beliefs. “It feels good to ‘stick to our guns’ even if we are wrong,” according to the Gormans.

Put simply, feeling right feels good and as a result, many people would rather feel right than actually be right.

Reduce the Cost of Change

Given its real impact on our decisions, the influence of fear is something we cannot underestimate in our interactions with others. When we are the one being presented with a new idea, it’s essential that we remain conscious of whether our aversion to change might be blinding us. On the other hand, when we are attempting to persuade someone else, we need to use strategies that not only disarm their defensiveness but alleviate the fears behind it. In other words, we need to reduce the perceived cost of changing.

With the primary changed-related fears often centring around a perceived loss of dignity, certainty or power, the best strategies for persuasion work by restoring a sense of control to the individual and framing change as something that can be done without shame or embarrassment.

Bearing this in mind, persuasion is as much about allowing someone to save face as it is about winning them over. We need to ensure others feel able to acknowledge they may have been wrong without having to admit they are stupid.

Harness the Power of Doubt

The ancient masters of persuasion understood the power of self-disclosure. Before neuroscience and behavioural economics had studied it, Roman rhetorician Quintilian maintained that doubt and uncertainty were crucial to a persuasive argument. This idea came to be known as “dubitatio” from which we derive the modern English word “dubious.” 

Leading with vulnerability may feel deeply exposing, but it has a powerfully disarming effect on those we are seeking to influence. Numerous studies in recent years have confirmed precisely this dynamic. For instance, analysis by social psychologist Kip Williams found that jurors were more likely to view an attorney and their case more favorably if the attorney revealed weaknesses in their case before the opposition had the chance to do so. In doing this, the attorney signalled that they were fair-minded, balanced and honest. In fact, verdicts were statistically more likely to be given in favor of the party first to bring up a shortcoming in their argument.

Leading with self-disclosure might seem counterintuitive when our culture tells us that self-confidence and self-promotion are the key to getting cut through with our ideas. While we tend to assume that offering our strongest evidence and most polished arguments will prove most persuasive, winning hearts and minds is always a function of trust – and trust requires vulnerability.

By leading with your own doubts, you move the conversation away from the combative stance of, ‘I’m right, you’re wrong,’ and towards a place where both parties have the freedom to engage sincerely.

Familiarize the Foreign Idea

Our compulsion to cling to certainty means we are far more attracted to new ideas when they are framed as mere extensions of the past or are aligned with a belief we have already established. A new or foreign idea will always illicit a knee-jerk reaction from our limbic system because of the potential danger it may present. However, if it is familiarized by a connection to something we are already comfortable with, we are much more likely to stay open-minded. To this point, I’ve often marveled at the genius of eighteenth-century inventor, James Watt, in using “horsepower” to describe the capability of mechanical engines.

In his controversional but ground-breaking book, The 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene suggests a series of ways to familiarize foreign ideas. “A simple gesture like using an old title, or keeping the same number for a group, will tie you to the past and support you with the authority of history,” he observes. “Too much innovation is traumatic and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.”

Persuading stubborn people may be harder than ever but it is far from impossible. Those we are seeking to influence are far more likely to consider and embrace new ideas if we find ways to disarm resistance, aim for familiarity and reduce the cost of change.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubbornness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

Edward De Bono put it best when he observed that there is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and being merely disagreeable.

While many of us assume that being persuasive is about learning to present our arguments impactfully, the way we respond to individuals and ideas we disagree with is just as important. Speaking to the theme, venture capitalist and author Paul Graham devised a spectrum for describing different forms of disagreement—from the toxic to the constructive.

Beyond safeguarding civility, Graham suggests that getting better at disagreeing well has other tangible benefits too. He suggests that while we all have a tendency to fall into intellectual dishonesty and toxicity, the biggest benefit of healthy disagreement is “not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier.”

The Disagreement Hierarchy characterizes the five common approaches to disagreement in modern discourse.

Level 1—Labelling

This lowest form of disagreement is also the most common – especially in today’s political climate. It relies on ridiculing or dismissing another individual in the most simplistic of ways: “You’re a fool, a bigot, a moron, a socialist…” and the list goes on.

When we engage in labelling, the substance of another person’s point of view or perspective is entirely ignored as we attack them as an individual. This is the realm of thrown insults, vented anger, and bitter contempt. Not only is this approach entirely unproductive when it comes to persuasion, but it is dangerously destructive to our social fabric.

In suggesting that labelling was a sign of intellectual laziness or defeat, it was Socrates who said, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

Level 2—Characterization

The second level of the Disagreement Hierarchy centres on attacking the characteristics, title, or authority of another individual while ignoring their point or perspective. In other words, it is about undermining who the other person is rather than what their argument or ideas may be. “You would say that…you’re a politician, a pastor, a labour unionist,” etc.

Characterization tends to rely on the dismissal of another person as wrong simply because of who they are, or because of the group they belong to. In reverse, the characterization approach may see the responder bringing up their own credibility as a way to win the argument without actually engaging in it: “As a mother of four, I can assure you that…”

While uncharitable, the characterization approach is highly effective when it comes to point scoring. This is because attacking someone else’s identity and credibility, or bolstering your own, can result in a perception that you’ve won an argument in the eyes of others watching on. If there is a sense that one person seems right or sounds right, they’ll often be assumed to be right even if there is no real reason for this conclusion and vice versa. It is a common and effective strategy to discredit another person based on their background, race, gender, or associations even if these things have nothing to do with the argument they are making.

Level 3—Contradiction

At this third level of disagreement, a response starts becoming related to the point or perspective of the other person. However, rather than engaging intelligently with the issue, the disagreeing party simply states an opposing view as if, in its own right, that was enough to nullify debate.

Sometimes contradiction goes one step further than simply stating the opposing argument and also adds cherry-picked evidence to back up that viewpoint. While these counterarguments can be a valid response in disagreement, the challenge is that they are often aimed at a tangent from the other person’s argument. This often results in two individuals who end up arguing about different things.

Level 4—Misrepresentation

At this second highest level of disagreement, the disagreeing party looks to engage with the viewpoint or argument of the other but tends to do so narrowly. The focus is often on identifying the mistakes or shortcomings of another perspective while ignoring the broader context or nuance. Quotes taken out of context can quickly and effectively misrepresent another person and their argument.

The truth is that we’re all prone to the trap of misrepresentation. This is simply because when we encounter ideas or worldviews we agree with, our Instinctive Mind is open and we scarcely evaluate what we are seeing and hearing. However, when we encounter confronting or unfamiliar ideas, we tend to be on the lookout for things to disagree with—even if substantial common ground exists.

Level 5—Engagement

The highest level of disagreement is where real thinking and intellectually honest debate takes place. This is where the guts of another person’s viewpoint or perspective are challenged fairly and rigorously. To use the sporting analogy, this is where the ball gets played rather than the man or woman.

In today’s ideological climate, versions of the lower levels of engagement flood our discussions. It is easy, and often satisfying, to remain at the level of dismissal and mockery, but if we are going to really get anywhere with our public and private conversations, moving up The Disagreement Hierarchy towards sincere engagement with each other’s perspectives will be fundamentally necessary.

Disagreement is inevitable, but whether it is ultimately destructive or productive is up to us.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubbornness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

Here are 3 ways in which AI is impacting the future of healthcare:

1. Patients may begin taking instructions from robots.

While it may be the area in which human touch is most needed, patient care is one place where will likely start to see the influx of AI.

A startup called Hippocratic AI is now offering AI nurses, which have been designed to provide care to patients. This care can include pre-operative preparation and post-discharge instructions about for example optimising recovery or taking medications – conversations it conducts over video chat. The company points to the technology as cheaper alternative to nurses.[1]

The technology can also assist in patient interactions by freeing up a clinician from their administrative tasks, allowing a greater focus on the patient. For example, documenting appointments may now be automated, meaning clinicians can turn their attention to listening and engaging with the patient rather than focusing on recording their data. Scheduling appointments will also be streamlined, as patients can liaise with AI rather than the front office.[2]

With its ability to translate data into key insights, AI will also enable clinicians to make faster and more informed decisions, meaning greater potential for quick diagnoses and treatment.[3]

2. Hospital functions will be streamlined.

Behind the scenes of patient interactions, AI is now able to help with the administrative side of a clinician’s job and implement many of the functions that keep hospitals and healthcare organisations running.

Generative AI uses algorithms to organise and interpret unstructured data sets. This means the technology can help clinicians with filling in patient information, writing clinical notes, and creating diagnostic images and medicinal charts. On top of this, AI can create discharge summaries, checklists, lab summaries and clinical orders. Human oversight is still required in the process as the technology is still highly prone to errors, but it can execute much of the work that bogs doctors and nurses down.[4]

A hurdle often faced by hospital workers is that their workplaces are often made up of systems that don’t easily communicate. In response to this frustration, generative AI chatbots may be able to serve employees by answering IT and HR related questions and summarising information about different departments to enable more streamlined communication.[5]

Within the health insurance sector, AI can respond to the rising demand for more personalised services by explaining relevant policies in a chatbot function, or summarising the claim denial letters for customers. This will help to mitigate rising healthcare costs, as well as bolstering communications between healthcare organisations and customers.[6]

3. AI will ameliorate medical treatment.

Finally, with the implementation of AI in the healthcare industry, medical treatments and procedures can be improved significantly.

In a recent example, doctors at Cromwell Hospital adopted the use of the Apple Vision Pro for a surgical procedure. During both the surgery preparations and the surgery itself, the nurse had the Vision Pro googles on, enabling them to view virtual screens and monitor the process while it was happening. The software used was developed by eXeX which is a company that designs AI-driven apps for surgeons.[7]

Not only will surgeries be improved with the integration of AI technology, but so will the detection of illnesses. With cancer trends on the rise, a healthtech company in the US, Ezra, has created a full body MRI system that uses AI to scan for cancer in up to 13 organs. The AI technology then converts the MRI images and radiology reports into results written in accessible language that highlight key findings.[8]

There is scope for AI to be integrated in almost every facet of the health industry, all the way from patient care to administrative functions, hospital and healthcare organisation communications, and the surgeries, procedures and diagnoses themselves.

While the integration of AI is very impressive, there is still a long way to go in developing some of its crucial technologies. One recent study revealed that people are increasingly turning to ChatGPT to attempt to self-diagnose their symptoms, but the rates of the chatbot’s accuracy in answering health-related questions were dismal.[9] AI has exploded onto the scene of many industries, and is a rapidly-developing technology. But when it comes to the care of human beings, so far, other human beings win every time.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Rylah, J B 2024, ‘Are AI nurses the future of health care?’, The Hustle, 22 March

[2] Zurkiya, D N 2024, ‘The power of generative AI to transform the patient experience’, McKinsey & Co, 7 March

[3] Zurkiya, D N 2024, ‘The power of generative AI to transform the patient experience’, McKinsey & Co, 7 March

[4] Bhasker, S, Bruce, D, Lamb, J & Stein, G 2024, ‘Tackling healthcare’s biggest burdens with generative AI’, McKinsey & Co, 10 July

[5] Bhasker, S, Bruce, D, Lamb, J & Stein, G 2024, ‘Tackling healthcare’s biggest burdens with generative AI’, McKinsey & Co, 10 July

[6] Bhasker, S, Bruce, D, Lamb, J & Stein, G 2024, ‘Tackling healthcare’s biggest burdens with generative AI’, McKinsey & Co, 10 July

[7] Germain, T 2024, ‘Doctors Are Using the Apple Vision Pro During Surgery’, Gizmodo, 15 March.

[8] Khoury, K 2024, ‘Revolutionising early cancer detection with AI’, SpringWise, 29 February.

[9] Thomsaon, A 2024, ‘Why you shouldn’t ask ChatGPT for medical advice’, Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April.

In recent weeks, I’ve been reflecting on the degree to which my own profession and profile makes it hard to prioritize wisdom. Whether it’s speedily scanning volumes of research in preparation for a presentation, assembling bite-sized content pieces to share on social media, or crafting soundbite responses for media interviews, I too easily find myself merely trading in knowledge and information. While quality trumps quantity when it comes to thinking and ideas, I increasingly find myself consumed in the quantity game all too often.

I suspect that I’m far from alone in this.

In all of human history, the individual has never been as informed as we are today. News and fake news, fact and fiction, information, misinformation and disinformation are quite literally at our fingertips. This excess of knowledge has equally led to an excess of power. Our technology has never been so advanced, and the implications of its use have never been so significant. Artificial Intelligence especially grants us greater abilities than we would have thought possible and, alongside the plethora of powerful technologies available at the moment, its development continues to accelerate exponentially.

We quite literally have more knowledge and more power than we know what to do with – and this is the problem. Both our knowledge and our power become dangerous if our wisdom does not keep pace with them.

What is wisdom?

If wisdom is more than merely the accumulation of information or knowledge, then what is it? Here are 5 attributes that I’d suggest characterise wisdom:

1. Wisdom is slow rather than hasty.

There is a slow and steady pace to wisdom. While knowledge hastens to act and execute, wisdom is considered, restrained and discerning. Wise people are often characterised by a distinct air of calm – they are unhurried and non-anxious and do not respond to the pressure to rush into decisions and conclusions.

2. Wisdom is nuanced rather than superficial.

Where knowledge is prone to seeing things in terms of the black and white, wisdom is able to find truth in opposing perspectives and nuance in shades of grey. Ambiguity is not threatening to wisdom.

3. Wisdom is curious rather than certain.

There is an attractive certainty that comes with acquiring knowledge. We become comfortable in our ivory towers and intellect and fail to maintain a posture of curiosity. Rather than remain open to discovery and change, we become highly adept at arguing for our point of view. In contrast, wisdom embraces a posture of humility borne of curiosity and wonder.

4. Wisdom is deliberate rather than reactive.

Where our knowledge can lead us to react with defensiveness when our position is threatened, wisdom takes a slow and deliberate approach to others. Often, wisdom will first turn us inward to interrogate our own assumptions and reactions before responding.

5. Wisdom impacts rather than impresses.

Dazzling others with our knowledge and intelligence is appealing, but it is fundamentally opposite to wisdom. Where knowledge puffs up, wisdom builds up. Knowledge prioritises the ego, while wisdom prioritises the other.

Although we live in an age that’s abundant with sources of knowledge, I suspect that wisdom is what people are yearning for. Those we are looking for serve and engage are increasingly craving more than a fast-food diet of facts and information. Instead, they’re seeking out the input and perspective of those individuals willing to do the work of thinking deeply, deliberately, and diligently – and thus have real wisdom to share. My goal is to redouble my efforts to become one such person. Who’s keen to join me?

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

In the banking and finance sector, AI is set to enable significant productivity gains for those that integrate it. Providing automated reporting, improving risk transparency, automatically updating policies and procedures and performing compliance and risk audits are among the ways generative AI will be capable of improving efficiency. Beyond this, algorithms can analyse vast amounts of financial data to identify patterns and trends, enabling more accurate predictions and informed decision-making.[1]

In the risk and compliance sector, generative AI can take three broad forms. It can be used as a virtual expert, like the one recently developed by McKinsey which can provide tailored answers on finance related questions according to the firm’s information and assets. It can take the form of manual process automation, performing the time-consuming tasks that typically disrupt individuals’ workflows. Finally, it can perform code acceleration, updating or translating old code or assisting in writing new code.[2]

Role of Leadership

With all of this in motion, finance chiefs and leaders around the world are having to make decisions about the integration of AI within their companies. While the returns can be enormous, the initial cost is no small matter, with some big companies investing millions for the implementation of AI infrastructure and the forming of partnerships with software companies.[3]

There are several options for sourcing AI. Businesses can pay to use the proprietary models from companies like OpenAI or can also build their own generative AI tools using open-source models like Meta’s Llama 2 AI model. Building AI models from scratch is rare.[4]

Motorola is one company testing applications of AI. So far, they have used it to summarise complex industry contracts and assist in the development of code. Airbnb has been experimenting with implementing it within their customer service, using it to automatically identify features of properties on the platform like room types and amenities to help guests find relevant listings.[5]

Effect on Workers

While concerns about the effects of automation have been primarily directed towards blue collar workers for years, generative AI entails a much more widespread impact. People with university degrees, once considered the safest from the effects of automation are now in the direct firing line.

Workers including business analysts, marketing managers, administrators, software developers and lawyers are all at risk with this new wave of machine learning that is only gaining momentum by the day. Especially in organisations with budgets large enough for AI experimentation and implementation – including big corporations like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase or tech behemoths like Google and Microsoft – jobs are likely to be affected.

In the finance sector, research suggests that banks are spending 60 to 80 per cent of their payrolls on workers most likely to be affected – or replaced – by AI.[6]

It must be noted, however, that what is most likely is that AI won’t act as a complete replacement for human labour but as an addition that significantly streamlines workplace activities. For businesses and workers, there is a rising need to learn to work alongside AI as well as an opportunity to reimagine the human contribution of employees to their work. In any case, the trick will be using the technology to improve the lives of humans, rather than the other way around – lest it create a headache rather than cure one.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Agarwal, R, Kremer, K, Kristensen, I & and Luget, A 2024, ‘How generative AI can help banks manage

risk and compliance’, McKinsey & Co, 1 March.

[2] Agarwal, R, Kremer, K, Kristensen, I & and Luget, A 2024, ‘How generative AI can help banks manage

risk and compliance’, McKinsey & Co, 1 March.

[3] Braughton, K & Maurer, M 2024, ‘CFOs Tackle Thorny Calculus on Gen AI: What’s the Return on Investment?’, Wall Street Journal, 24 March.

[4] Braughton, K & Maurer, M 2024, ‘CFOs Tackle Thorny Calculus on Gen AI: What’s the Return on Investment?’, Wall Street Journal, 24 March.

[5] Braughton, K & Maurer, M 2024, ‘CFOs Tackle Thorny Calculus on Gen AI: What’s the Return on Investment?’, Wall Street Journal, 24 March.

[6] Lohr, S 2024, ‘Bankers, lawyers and tech workers mostlikely to be in AI firing line’, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 February.

All this to say, Gen Zs are thinking about their relationship with work very differently to their predecessors!

Here are 3 ways Gen Z is approaching work:

1. Gen Z are not to be tied down.

With a strong impulse for independence, Gen Zs are highly averse to feeling tied down to their work or workplace.

A ResumeLab study revealed that 83% of Gen Zs describe themselves as job hoppers, highlighting how comfortable young people are with this characteristic being a key feature of their identities. 75% would not he hesitate to leave a job even if they don’t have another to go to, and 43% don’t plan to stay with their current employer any longer than two years.[1] This generation is not interested in long term commitments to workplaces but would rather try multiple jobs and move quickly from one challenge to another.

Not only do Gen Zs not want to feel tied down to a job, but they don’t want to feel overly tied up in the work itself. 73% of Gen Z workers say a healthy work-life balance is more important than salary and 70% would willingly quit a job that was damaging their work-life quality.[2]

With this work-life balance being a priority for young people, the right to disconnect is crucial. It’s been highlighted that this right is especially important for because the lines between work and recreation are most easily blurred for Gen Z whose smartphones are crucial to both. Work notifications outside working hours are likely to come up on exactly the device they are using to relax.[3]

2. It’s not about the money.

Not only are Gen Z uninterested in being overly tied to their work, but they also claim they are more driven by meaning than money with almost two-thirds (65%) saying they’d prefer to do something of significance rather than merely earn a big pay packet.[4]

Consistently, Gen Z are looking for work that aligns with their values and gives them a sense of leaving a meaningful impact on the world for the better. The stats reflect this, revealing that

• 72% say having satisfying job duties is more important than salary.
• 70% say having meaningful work is more important than salary.
• 70% say they would quit their job if it doesn’t make them happy.[5]

Today’s young people have a clear sense of their own values and opinions and are ready and willing to confidently contribute within their workplaces. While older generations may view this confidence as a kind of arrogance or entitlement, it much more closely reflects the generation-wide desire to make a difference.

Gen Z thrive most when given opportunities to express their passions and use their skills in the workplace. Leaders can play into this by providing avenues for yoing people to bring use their abilities for the greater good of the company. Coupled with this, clear opportunities for growth help to weave a young person’s personal ambition in with their contributions to an organisation.

Particularly given the fact that Gen Zs are significantly mor driven by a sense of meaningful, impactful and values-driven work, this kind of leadership is crucial in engaging them.

3. Work and friends are not to be confused.

Interestingly, while Gen Z want their workplaces to provide them with this sense of purpose and meaningful work, they tend to keep their socialisation and their work separate. The prioritisation of work-life balance or separation and today’s remote work trends means that Gen Z is thinking very differently to older generations about their friendships at the office.

For Gen Z, work and life make up two separate worlds and work is not necessarily viewed as a place for socialising. With remote work having become a norm during the formative years of their entry into the workforce, many are unfamiliar with the idea of having strong social ties to colleagues. The convenience of remote work often trumps the connectedness of in-office work. and despite Gen Z widely reporting feelings of loneliness, these feelings are not enough to sway them towards workplace social connections.[6]

The lack of social connections within workplaces is highly related to Gen Zs high job-hopping rates, with friendships and a sense of belonging being key factors in motivating commitment to a particular workplace. The reality is that workplaces provide a significant amount of community to employees, not to mention unofficial mentorship and networking opportunities.

These work friend trends occur alongside statistics pointing to the poor mental health and high levels of loneliness in this generation. Whether these feelings of isolation will be enough to at some point sway them back towards the office remains to be seen. 

Overall, Gen Zs are thinking very differently about work than their older counterparts. They prioritise independence over commitment, meaning over money and work-life separation over socialisation. Engaging this generation will be about highlighting a meaningful vision and creating space for them to have an impact in their unique way.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Brower, T 2024, ‘7 ways to lead for the unique needs of Gen Z’, Fast Company, 16 February.

[2] Brower, T 2024, ‘7 ways to lead for the unique needs of Gen Z’, Fast Company, 16 February.

[3] Ward, M 2024, ‘Is the right to disconnect Gen Z’s workplace legacy? It’s complicated’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 February.

[4] Chiu, E. 2020, ‘Generation Z: Building a Better Normal’, Wunderman Thompson, December.

[5] Brower, T 2024, ‘7 ways to lead for the unique needs of Gen Z’, Fast Company, 16 February.

[6] Hall, J 2024, ‘What Gen Z Will Lose if They Don’t Have Friendships at Work’, Wall Street Journal, 7 March.

2024 is set to be another massive year for AI as we continue to see big companies integrate it into their operations, jobs evolve with the takeover, and regulations play catch up.

Here are 3 ways generative AI is set to affect the way we do business-as-usual.  

1. It’s not just blue-collar work in the firing line.

We have long been familiar with the threat of automation on industrial work, factories, administration and the simple, repetitive tasks that tend to clog up our everyday work. While there has been talk for years of AI replacing people like journalists, surgeons and lawyers, the reality of this seemed a long way off. This is no longer the case.

With generative AI having only accelerated since models like ChatGPT were launched a couple of years ago, white collar jobs are among those at risk of being taken over. The Burning Glass Institute recently published a report revealing the increasing need for workers to prepare for an AI-driven future workplace. Particularly for the large multi-national corporations with a high capacity to integrate the technology quickly, the trade off in paying such large employee bases will simply no longer prove worth it.[1]

It is most likely that AI won’t act as a complete replacement for human labour but as an addition that significantly streamlines workplace activities. For businesses and workers, there is a rising need to learn to work alongside AI as well as an opportunity to reimagine the human contribution of employees to their work. In any case, the trick will be using the technology to improve the lives of humans, rather than the other way around.

2. Generative AI will become a coworker in all parts of life.

Not only will we be learning to live alongside AI in our workplaces, but we will increasingly find it a part of our regular daily activities as companies integrate it into their existing systems.

Microsoft has begun the year with a change to its laptop and PC keyboards, adding a Copilot key which will enable faster access to the Copilot function on Windows. Rather than acting as an add-on, this move signals an integration of generative AI into the basic functions of computers, offering the ability to instantly and automatically create images, write emails, draw up spreadsheets and summarise information.[2] Alongside this, Microsoft also launched their Copilot app for iPhone users, enabling all the same functions via smartphones.

Google is running the same race, integrating its existing AI app Bard into a more advanced model which they are calling Gemini. Not only can Gemini complete the basic AI tasks of brainstorming business ideas or creating schedules, but it can engage in much more complex activities – coding, logical reasoning and creative collaboration. This will be available on both laptops and smartphones, meaning this kind of AI is set to pervade the most fundamental of our everyday tasks.[3]

It would be easy, and quite logical, to assume that AI like this would be kept in our homes and workplaces existing solely on our devices. This is not the case at all, with Volkswagen now integrating an AI-powered chatbot similar to its cars. Several Volkswagen models will be featuring the chatbot, including its line of electric vehicles. Mercedes-Benz features ChatGPT in its infotainment system as well, with both companies looking to include the technology enabling drivers to voice control car functions, source information and have conversations. And of course, it is all hands-free.[4]

3. The rules will need to play catch-up.

With the technology evolving so rapidly and with companies integrating it so quickly, it is no surprise that regulations are needing to play catch-up.

The Federal Communications Commission in the US recently banned robocalls that contain AI-generated voices, as a New Hampshire investigation into robocalls imitating Joe Biden continues. This will not only outlaw the dangerous use of AI impersonations for manipulative purposes, but any use of AI voices in phone calls. Harsh fines are in place for any company that breaks the law.[5]

However, cases like the Joe Biden impersonation call are becoming more and more common. Recently, a worker was scammed into paying $39 million as a result of receiving a deepfake video of his co-workers. Artificial intelligence software was used to impersonate his superiors in a video conference in which all members except him were fake. While this is an extreme case, deepfakes of public figures, celebrities and politicians can be found all over the internet, with some dangerous results. Both regulations and ethics themselves will need to keep up as this technology continues to burgeon.[6]

If we are wondering what will feature most heavily in our new normal moving forward, it is generative AI. Within a decade, it is likely that the most basic of our tasks will be unrecognisable with much of our human effort supplemented by this technology. How will it impact our quality of life, the way we spend our time or our philosophy of what it means to be human? The jury is still very much out.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Lohr, S 2024, ‘Bankers, lawyers and tech workers most likely to be in AI firing line’, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 February.

[2] Warren, T 2024, ‘Microsoft’s new Copilot key is the first big change to Windows keyboards in 30 years’, The Verge, 4 January.

[3] Hsiao, S 2024, ‘Bard becomes Gemini: Try Ultra 1.0 and a new mobile app today’, Google, 8 February.

[4] Korosec, K 2024, ‘Volkswagen is bringing ChatGPT into its cars and SUVs’, TechCrunch, 9 January.

[5] Swenson, A 2024, ‘FCC votes unanimously to ban unsolicited AI robocalls’, The Associated Press, 9 February.

[6] Titcomb, J 2024, ‘Deepfake video call scams global firm out of $39 million’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 February.

At the time, Stanford University social psychologist Leon Festinger became intrigued by this group’s rise to prominence. Having infiltrated the group with a group of colleagues under the guise of being true believers, Festinger uncovered some fascinating psychological findings about the nature of cognitive dissonance.

When December 21st came and went, with neither an alien visit nor a devastating global flood, Festinger assumed that the cult members would begrudgingly accept that they had been wrong and abandon the cult in short order.

Curiously though, the very opposite occurred.

Faced with the embarrassment that their certainty had been misplaced, the cult members doubled down in their commitment to both the cult leader and their belief that the world’s end was imminent. They merely changed the date and searched for an alternative explanation. Many concluded that the world had in fact been saved because of their devotion and faithfulness and so continued to preach their message with great vigour than ever.[1]

Festinger observed a common pattern: people have a powerful psychological need to maintain consistent attitudes and behaviour. [2]

In an attempt to make sense of this pattern, Leon Festinger introduced the term ‘cognitive dissonance’ which he defined as the distressing mental state in which people “find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.”[3]

The need to avoid cognitive dissonance was so strong in the cult members that even objective evidence against their beliefs was not enough to convince them otherwise. The desire to be and appear congruent in their beliefs and behaviours outweighed any alternative facts.

While it is easy to mock such groups, the reality is we all attempt to avoid the appearance of dissonance in this way. Instead of owning up to our hypocrisy, we will try any means possible of twisting our beliefs and judgements in a way that justifies our inconsistent behaviour.

Despite the obstinance that these habits often produce in people, harnessing the innate aversion to inconsistency can act as a powerful means of persuasion. Recent research into hospital hygiene – an area we all rely on to be consistent – highlighted precisely this principle.

While the value of hand washing in a medical context has been well-understood since the 1840s, one of the persistent challenges had been to turn this awareness into action. Many doctors, nurses and surgeons persisted in not adhering to proper hand hygiene procedures. This was especially pronounced among surgeons who washed their hands less than half as often as guidelines prescribed.

A few years ago, researchers Adam Grant and David Hofmann set out to address this. Grant and Hofmann were well aware of various interventions that had unsuccessfully changed the hand hygiene habits of surgeons. However, where other initiatives had focussed on educating, threatening or pleading with surgeons to do the right thing, Grant and Hofmann opted for a new approach.

In their experiment, they placed two different signs above various examination room soap and gel dispensers. The first of these said, “Hand hygiene protects you from catching diseases” while the second one read, “Hand hygiene protects patients from catching diseases.”

Although the difference between the two signs was only a single word, the impact was remarkable. The first sign saw barely any difference in the rate of hand washing while the second sign resulted in a 45% increase.

Why was this the case? The researchers concluded that the suggested change tapped into the self-personas and exposed how their behaviours and deeply-held beliefs were out of alignment. The reality is that most surgeons enter the medical profession with a passion for helping patients. And so being nudged with the idea that failing to wash their hands was putting their patients at risk caused dissonance that demanded a response. In this instance, the response was to start doing the right thing.[4]

The need to avoid incongruence can produce ugly habits in all of us, but it can also be used to guide others towards more positive practices. Nobody wants to feel like a hypocrite, even less to appear as one. This desire for congruence offers us a key way of motivating ourselves and others – by uncovering inconsistencies, we can move each other closer to the people we aim to be.

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubborness and the art of 21st century influence. 

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael’s keynote speaking topics, michaelmcqueen.net/programs.

[1] Levinovitz, A 2017, ‘Trump Supporters Refuse to Believe Their Own Eyes’, Slate, 27 January.

[2] Kolenda, N 2013, Methods of Persuasion, Kolenda Entertainment, LLC, pp. 64-66.

[3] Burton, R 2009, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not, St. Martin’s Griffin, UK, pp.12-13.

[4] Cialdini, R A 2016, Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade, Cornerstone Digital, pp. 230-231.