Can we predict the future of work? No, but we can make it happen

When researchers asked 570 people what the world of work would look like in the future, technology experts, economists and writers all had very different ideas. However, they did all agree on one thing: that each of the other groups was wrong. 

The research from Nicky Dries (KU Leuven), Joost Luycks (IESEG School of Management) and Assistant Professor at Esade Philip Rogiers analyzed commentary in 485 print media articles and surveyed 570 experts. The results, published in Academy of Management Discoveries, revealed that technology experts were optimistic about the future, economists were skeptical, and writers were pessimistic. But what it also showed was that each group was convinced their own evidence was conclusive. 

Rather than providing a unique viewpoint that contributed to democratic discourse, the researchers say, their analysis shows that narratives surrounding the future of work are a series of competing fictions framed by the beliefs of those who share them. 

A new approach?

The research began to take shape during a period when the authors were reading about the implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and disruptive innovation. They questioned what these developments meant for their research field, but how could they find empirical data to study the future of work—since the future doesn't yet exist? When discussing it with colleagues and relatives, they were struck by the wide range of views and emotional reactions to different visions of the future, which seemed to depend on the personal background and worldview of the individuals they spoke with. 

Contemporary debates are fueled by a belief that technological innovation will determine the future of work rather than any societal factor

They realized that while historical debates about work had been a highly politicized issue, contemporary debates were heading in a different direction. Fueled by a belief that technological innovation would determine the future of work rather than any societal factor, the collective opinion appeared to be that the technology itself was driving change, rather than the people who created it.  

The researchers also found that, despite experts in the area claiming their work was objective and evidence-based, predictions were contradictory and confusing. To identify the drivers of these beliefs, they examined how and why the competing future of work narratives were constructed.  

Shaping narratives about the future

Their methodical mixed-method process began with a qualitative content analysis of 485 Belgian print media articles related to the future of work, published between 2015 and 2021. The search identified the topics being discussed and the experts most widely quoted. Three groups clearly dominated the media debate: tech entrepreneurs, economics professors, and authors and journalists.  

The topics being discussed in the media were categorized into seven narratives:  

• Dataism: the wide-scale acceptance of algorithms and Big Data. 
• Exterminism: climate disaster, the hoarding of earth resources and elimination of those who contributed little or no economic value. 
• Reskilling and upskilling: the need for continuous retraining to meet changing demands. 
• Augmentation: humans and machines working together for optimal results. 
• Singularity: AI transcending human intelligence to the point of no return. 
• Job destruction: mass unemployment and disappearing industries. 
• Work deintensification: a decrease in the need for human labor and a reduction in working hours. 

Technology and innovation experts featured in 185 articles and dominated the debate around dataism, augmentation and singularity; authors and journalists were the focus of 130 articles and more likely to push the exterminism narrative; economists and labor market experts appeared in 98 articles and favored the discussions regarding reskilling and upskilling, job destruction and work deintensification. 

Alternative facts

The researchers found that not only did each group agree with their peers, but they all strongly disagreed with the opinions held by other groups. Each group claimed that their predictions were correct and based on objective numbers, trends and scientific research. All were convinced the evidence presented by experts in other sectors couldn’t possibly be true.  

Journalists and writers are suspicious and distrustful, economists are rational and pragmatic, and tech experts are radical optimists

A second quantitative study was then developed, with surveys issued to people in the same three areas of expertise as those most prominently quoted in the media articles. The 570 experts who participated in the survey were drawn from the researchers’ own networks and mailing lists of Belgian CEOs and journalists.  

Participants were presented with seven scenarios based on the topics identified in the media analysis and asked to rate the likelihood of them occurring within a given timeline. They were asked to frame each narrative as either good or bad, and whether they would have positive or negative outcomes. In all cases, the experts held the same opinions as their counterparts quoted in the media.  

True to form

In the final phase of the analysis, the surveyed experts were asked to complete a personality test to identify their background, values and beliefs. Not only did the personality type of each expert fit neatly into their professional group — they also closely matched their beliefs about the future of work. 

Journalists and writers, whose media commentary focused on the exterminism narrative, tended to be suspicious and distrustful, and believed powerful figures made secretive decisions behind closed doors. Economists, who commented on the need to re-skill and adapt to meet the changing demands of the job market, were rational and pragmatic. Tech experts, who heralded the benefits of innovation and its positive contribution to society, were radical optimists.  

Democratic policymaking requires a much wider range of people and professions to speak up about their experiences and preferences

So what does this mean for workers and their future? First, say the researchers, all media coverage should be viewed critically rather than accepted as fact. Who wrote it? Who are they trying to influence? What do they want to achieve? 

The researchers also call for a more diverse range of voices to contribute to the discourse. The debate is currently dominated by closed groups, each with their own fixed agenda. Democratic policymaking, they say, requires a much wider range of people and professions to speak up about their experiences and preferences.  

When that happens, rather than being something that happens to us, our working future will become what we make it.