ReportWire

Tag: corporate America

  • AI is taking over managers’ busywork—and it’s forcing companies to reset expectations | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    AI isn’t just a new tool for the modern workplace; it’s already quietly reshaping how some companies are organized. Companies including Amazon, Moderna, and McKinsey are already eliminating management layers, working to flatten organizations, and deploying AI agents to automate routine work. 

    As AI rewrites the corporate org chart, humans can avoid some managerial drudgery, according to industry leaders at Fortune’s Brainstorm AI conference. Managers currently spend a lot of time bogged down with digital tools and administrative tasks, Danielle Perszyk, a Cognitive Scientist at Amazon’s AGI SF Lab, said: “Whether you are a manager or an IC, you are tethered to your computer screen, and all of the productivity apps that we are using are actually undermining our productivity.”

    AI agents functioning as “universal teammates” and doing some of these tasks could help managers escape this cycle, Perszyk said, allowing them to focus on strategy. Aashna Kircher, Group General Manager in the Office of the CHRO at Workday, said this could free up managers’ time for other kinds of work. “The role of the manager will very much be as a coach and enabler and a team work director, which theoretically has always been the role,” she said.

    Toby Roberts, SVP of Engineering and Technology at Zillow, said that the shift toward AI agents could fundamentally change management structure. Escaping day-to-day minutiae could allow managers to oversee larger teams, he said.

    However, as AI automates more of managers’ work, companies may need to reset expectations around what management means in the AI age.

    “Historically, we’ve measured management by the output of their teams, not necessarily by the human qualities of being a manager,” Kircher said. Organizations need to build “accountability and incentive structures around rewarding the things that are going to be absolutely critical moving forward for people leaders.”

    What AI can’t do

    AI can also have negative downstream effects on interpersonal relationships if it is overused or misused. When managers over-rely on AI for collaborative work, organizations risk deteriorating people’s ability to work together effectively, said to Kate Niederhoffer, Chief Scientist and Head of BetterUp Labs.

    “Direct reports’ perceptions of managers go down the more they perceive AI and agents to be used in moments of recognition or providing constructive feedback,” Niederhoffer said. “People perceive that humans are better at these empathetic and more essentially human tasks.”

    Some managers already struggle with the emotional side of leadership, with many becoming “accidental managers”—employees who were promoted for their professional talents rather than people skills. 

    But AI’s “synthetic empathy”—even if it’s sometimes more consistent than human interactions—is not the answer, said Stefano Corazza, Head of AI Research at Canva. “The more AI there is, the more authenticity is valued,” he said. “If your manager really shows that he will spend time with you and cares, that goes a long way.”

    [ad_2]

    Beatrice Nolan

    Source link

  • The Right-Wing Crusade Against DEI Isn’t Actually Working

    The Right-Wing Crusade Against DEI Isn’t Actually Working

    [ad_1]

    Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Getty Images

    The backlash to corporate America’s embrace of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies didn’t take very long. Last year, Google and Meta set the tone for Silicon Valley when they started cutting DEI positions and pulling back on investment. Billionaire investor Bill Ackman led the crusade against it at Harvard and on Wall Street, calling it the “root cause” of antisemitism on campuses. Governor Ron DeSantis passed the so-called Stop WOKE Act, which not only barred teaching topics related to race in schools but also barred businesses from using diversity-training programs. (Last month, a federal court spiked the law, saying that it violated businesses’ First Amendment rights.) Even supporters have withered on it. While the Human Rights Campaign’s corporate equality index shows that most Fortune 500 companies have some form of DEI policies, its critics on the left have countered that much of it is merely lip service.

    A general rule in business is that, if there is a trend, someone will find a way to capitalize on it, and in this case, that somebody is Robby Starbuck. A conservative documentarian who once directed music videos for the likes of Gucci Mane and Snoop Dogg, he started targeting corporate DEI policies this summer, arguing that they’re bad for business. This week, Starbuck took credit after Lowe’s and Ford ended some of their DEI-related commitments, including working with minority-owned suppliers and donating to LGBTQ Pride events. That brought the tally up to six companies that have buckled after his social-media campaigns, after Harley-Davidson, Tractor Supply Co., Jack Daniels’s parent company, and John Deere pulled back. The problem for Starbuck, though, is that his crusade is showing exactly the opposite of what he is arguing and that at the very most, DEI policies are benign and have no effect on how much a company makes or how well it does.

    Whatever Starbuck’s real motivations are, he dresses up his argument so that it appears to be one of dollars and cents. “If DEI and supplier diversity quotas were making you money, do you really think Tractor Supply and now Harley-Davidson would drop those initiatives? I don’t think so. We all know the DEI is not making you money,” he said in one of his videos. This is the kind of argument Wall Street might be amenable to if it were true. After all, corporate policies affect how companies spend money, which is what hedge funds and money managers care about. If money is not being used efficiently, investors tend to dump their shares and vice versa. But a strange thing has happened. Perhaps unwittingly, Starbuck has gone after companies that all happen to trade on Wall Street, giving the public a window into how the investor class thinks about his victories. So far, the reaction has been a shrug. After he posted about Ford’s changes on Wednesday, the stock essentially didn’t move after falling in early-morning trading. Lowe’s shares fell slightly but held steadier than Home Depot’s. The stock movements for the rest, coming after Starbuck’s social-media posts, are all slight movements up or down that show little to no interest from investors.

    In fact, Starbuck may be getting it all backwards. In a paper published in June, Hoa Briscoe-Tran, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Alberta, found that Wall Street had punished Florida-based companies after DeSantis’s Stop WOKE Act was first announced. The change in the law, and subsequent drop in stock price, was a “natural experiment,” he later wrote in a post for the Columbia Law School’s Blue Sky blog. The reasons why aren’t exactly straightforward. Policies that diversify executive ranks have no real correlation to higher profits, studies show. (They don’t show lower profits, either.)

    “The idea that DEI brings more perspectives, and that improves problem-solving and the collection of knowledge and expertise — that is actually documented from psychology field experiments or lab experiments. But on a large scale, at the company level, there is no evidence,” Briscoe-Tran said in an interview. “A lot of research also documents that when companies have a lot of diversity [among employees], they disagree with each other more often, and they reach conclusions slower. So in the short run, diversity and inclusion could hurt the company in terms of speed, you may slow down.  But in the long run, all these benefits may accumulate.”

    Dropping DEI policies also creates an economic advantage for companies that retain their policies and want to promote from rivals, according to Briscoe-Tran. “A lot of minorities, when they face backlash from a company changing their policies, how likely are they going to speak up?” he said. In essence, this is causing a company to look like it is doing the inverse of what it intends. By ending DEI policies, companies create a perception that they are restricting whom they hire, mostly to white men. That might give non-white employees who work at, say, Lowe’s more of a reason to work at Home Depot and for job applicants to think twice about sending a résumé for an open position.

    In an e-mail, Starbuck appeared to be putting some of the blame on DEI policies on Wall Street’s biggest investors. “Sanity will rule again and the customer will be king, not BlackRock, not the HRC, not State Street and not Vanguard,” he said. “Companies need customers to walk through their doors to buy products and it appears that our movement has done an effective job of reminding them of that.” (In his research, Briscoe-Tran notes that it’s smaller investors, rather than giants like BlackRock, who are more likely to dump company shares after a change in DEI policies.) He also claimed that both John Deere and Tractor Supply were down during his campaigns, but recovered after. “Clearly rejecting wokeness doesn’t crash your stock price!”

    But there is, probably, a better reason why Wall Street has not reacted — and that is that Starbuck’s supposed wins don’t add up to much. Ford’s biggest change, for instance, amounted to a change in its “employee resource groups” for underrepresented groups, which will now be open to all employees. At Jack Daniels, the changes may be even smaller. Starbuck claims that the liquor company changed how it gave out bonuses, trained employees in diversity, and worked with diverse suppliers after his crusade. But the actual wording from the company says nothing like that — it’s just mushy corporate-ese that makes vague promises to change “ambitions” and “ensure” that bonuses are tied to business performance. (It also stopped contributing to the Human Rights Campaign’s index — about as de minimis as you could get.) In a follow-up email, Elizabeth Conway, a spokeswoman for Jack Daniels’s parent company, Brown-Forman, told me that its change in DEI policies has had “no impact on jobs.” To translate: The changes here amount to mere lip service.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin T. Dugan

    Source link

  • Why We Just Can’t Quit the Handshake

    Why We Just Can’t Quit the Handshake

    [ad_1]

    Mark Sklansky, a pediatric cardiologist at UCLA, has not shaken a hand in several years. The last time he did so, it was only “because I knew I was going to go to the bathroom right afterwards,” he told me. “I think it’s a really bad practice.” From where he’s standing, probably a safe distance away, our palms and fingers are just not sanitary. “They’re wet; they’re warm; they’re what we use to touch everything we touch,” he said. “It’s not rocket science: The hand is a very good medium to transmit disease.”

    It’s a message that Sklansky has been proselytizing for the better part of a decade—via word of mouth among his patients, impassioned calls to action in medical journals, even DIY music videos that warn against puttin’ ’er there. But for a long time, his calls to action were met with scoffs and skepticism.

    So when the coronavirus started its sweep across the United States three years ago, Sklansky couldn’t help but feel a smidgen of hope. He watched as corporate America pocketed its dealmaking palms, as sports teams traded end-of-game grasps for air-fives, and as The New Yorker eulogized the gesture’s untimely end. My colleague Megan Garber celebrated the handshake’s demise, as did Anthony Fauci. The coronavirus was a horror, but perhaps it could also be a wake-up call. Maybe, just maybe, the handshake was at last dead. “I was optimistic that it was going to be it,” Sklansky told me.

    But the death knell rang too soon. “Handshakes are back,” says Diane Gottsman, an etiquette expert and the founder of the Protocol School of Texas. The gesture is too ingrained, too beloved, too irreplaceable for even a global crisis to send it to an early grave. “The handshake is the vampire that didn’t die,” says Ken Carter, a psychologist at Emory University. “I can tell you that it lives: I shook a stranger’s hand yesterday.”

    The base science of the matter hasn’t changed. Hands are humans’ primary tools of touch, and people (especially men) don’t devote much time to washing them. “If you actually sample hands, the grossness is something quite exceptional,” says Ella Al-Shamahi, an anthropologist and the author of the book The Handshake: A Gripping History. And shakes, with their characteristic palm-to-palm squeezes, are a whole lot more prone to spread microbes than alternatives such as fist bumps.

    Not all of that is necessarily bad: Many of the microscopic passengers on our skin are harmless, or even beneficial. “The vast majority of handshakes are completely safe,” says David Whitworth, a microbiologist at Aberystwyth University, in Wales, who’s studied the griminess of human hands. But not all manual microbes are benign. Norovirus, a nasty diarrheal disease infamous for sparking outbreaks on cruise ships, can spread easily via skin; so can certain respiratory viruses such as RSV.

    The irony of the recent handshake hiatus is that SARS-CoV-2, the microbe that inspired it, isn’t much of a touchable danger. “The risk is just not very high,” says Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Despite early pandemic worries, this particular coronavirus is more likely to use breath as a conduit than contaminated surfaces. That’s not to say that the virus couldn’t hop from hand to hand after, say, an ill-timed sneeze or cough right before a shake. But Emily Landon, an infectious-disease physician and hand-hygiene expert at the University of Chicago, thinks it would take a hefty dose of snot or phlegm, followed by some unwashed snacking or nose-picking by the recipient, to really pose a threat. So maybe it’s no shock that as 2020’s frantic sanitizing ebbed, handshakes started creeping back.

    Frankly, that doesn’t have to be the end of the world. Even when considering more shake-spreadable pathogens, it’s a lot easier to break hand-based chains of transmission than airborne ones. “As long as you have good hygiene habits and you keep your hands away from your face,” Landon told me, “it doesn’t really matter if you shake other people’s hands.” (Similar rules apply to doorknobs, light switches, subway handrails, phones, and other germy perils.) Then again, that requires actually cleaning your hands, which, as Sklansky will glady point out, most people—even health-care workers—are still pretty terrible about.

    For now, shakes don’t seem to be back to 2019 levels—at least, not the last time researchers checked, in the summer of 2022. But Gottsman thinks their full resurgence may be only a matter of time. Among her clients in the corporate world, where grips and grasps are currency, handshakes once again abound. No other gesture, she told me, hits the same tactile sweet spot: just enough touch to feel personal connection, but sans the extra intimacy of a kiss or hug. Fist bumps, waves, and elbow touches just don’t measure up. At the pandemic’s worst, when no one was willing to go palm-to-palm, “it felt like something was missing,” Carter told me. The lack of handshakes wasn’t merely a reminder that COVID was here; it signaled that the comforts of routine interaction were not.

    If handshakes survive the COVID era—as they seem almost certain to do—this won’t be the only disease outbreak they outlive, Al-Shamahi told me. When yellow fever pummeled Philadelphia in the late 18th century, locals began to shrink “back with affright at even the offer of a hand,” as the economist Matthew Carey wrote at the time. Fears of cholera in the 1890s prompted a small cadre of Russians to establish an anti-handshake society, whose members were fined three rubles for every verboten grasp. During the flu pandemic that began in 1918, the town of Prescott, Arizona, went so far as to ban the practice. Each time, the handshake bounced back. Al-Shamahi remembers rolling her eyes a bit in 2020, when she saw outlets forecasting the handshake’s untimely end. “I was like, ‘I can’t believe you guys are writing the obituary,’” she told me. “That is clearly not what is happening here.”

    Handshakes do seem to have a knack for enduring through the ages. A commonly cited origin story for the handshake points to the ancient Greeks, who may have deployed the behavior as a way to prove that they weren’t concealing a weapon. But Al-Shamahi thinks the roots of handshaking go way further back. Chimpanzees—from whom humans split some 7 million years ago—appear to engage in a similar behavior in the aftermath of fights. Across species, handshakes probably exchange all sorts of sensory information, Al-Shamahi said. They may even leave chemical residues on our palm that we can later subconsciously smell.

    Handshakes aren’t a matter of survival: Plenty of communities around the world get by just fine without them, opting instead for, say, the namaste or a hand over the heart. But palm pumping seems to have stuck around in several societies for good reason, outlasting other customs such as curtsies and bows. Handshakes are mutual, usually consensual; they’re imbued with an egalitarian feel. “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you see the rise of the handshake amongst all the greetings at a time when democracy was on the rise,” Al-Shamahi told me. The handshake is even, to some extent, built into the foundation of the United States: Thomas Jefferson persuaded many of his contemporaries to adopt the practice, which he felt was more befitting of democracy than the snobbish flourishes of British court.

    American attitudes toward handshakes still might have undergone lasting, COVID-inspired change. Gottsman is optimistic that people will continue to be more considerate of those who are less eager to shake hands. There are plenty of good reasons for abstaining, she points out: having a vulnerable family member at home, or simply wanting to avoid any extra risk of getting sick. And these days, it doesn’t feel so strange to skip the shake. “I think it’s less a part of our cultural vernacular now,” Landon told me.

    Sklansky, once again in the minority, is disappointed by the recent turn of events. “I used to say, ‘Wow, it took a pandemic to end the handshake,’” he told me. “Now I realize, even a pandemic has failed to rid us of the handshake.” But he’s not ready to give up. In 2015, he and a team of his colleagues cordoned off part of his hospital as a “handshake-free zone”—an initiative that, he told me, was largely a success among health-care workers and patients alike. The designation faded after a year or two, but Sklansky hopes that something similar could soon return. In the meantime, he’ll settle for declining every proffered palm that comes his way—although, if you go for something else, he’d rather you not choose the fist bump: “Sometimes,” he told me, “they just go too hard.”

    ​​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link