Suggestions
Evan Schuman
Computerworld Columnist, writer for DarkReading, TechCrunch, SCMedia, podcaster, blogger. Focuses on cybersecurity and analytics issues for IT and Security enterprise executives.
Evan Schuman is a prominent technology journalist and content creator. He is currently the CEO of The Content Firm LLC, a company he founded in 1999, which provides editorial content services for B2B technology and media companies.1 Schuman is also a weekly columnist for Computerworld, focusing on topics such as retail, security, mobile, payment, and privacy issues.4 Additionally, he writes for CSO Online and CIO.com, and has been involved in various roles across the media industry, including serving as a moderator for webinars at VentureBeat.12
Schuman's extensive background in journalism includes roles at eWEEK, Ziff Davis, and CMP Media, where he covered retail technology and e-commerce issues.4 He was the founding editor of StorefrontBacktalk.com, which he sold in 2012.4 His work has appeared in numerous publications, including The New York Times, Associated Press, and Reuters.6 Schuman is also a visiting lecturer at NYU's graduate school and has been recognized with awards for his writing, such as the Azbee Awards of Excellence.1
On LinkedIn, his username is indeed "schumanevan," where he shares insights and updates on cybersecurity and analytics issues.35
Highlights
HBR published a report today talking about depression and drinking among employees who are being helped and/or displaced by AI capabilities. I did a piece on it for CIO but the HBR report did not mention what some might described as the most-obvious factor: fear of AI-fueled layoffs. That fear would relate to the employees worried about losing their own jobs as well as being worried about their colleagues getting laid off.
The best way to negate those fears is for management to directly and explicitly address them–but to do so in a credible manner.
Regarding AI-fueled staff reductions, just about all enterprises will fall into one of two categories: those companies that do indeed plan on executing AI-related layoffs and those that don’t.
If a company has no plans to reduce its workforce due tyo AI, they must be said loudly and immediately. To be maximally credible and persuasive, those messages can’t be limited to employee emails. The company needs to say it in SEC filings, to journalists and in public gatherings. By saying it in arenas where they are strong disincentives for lying, employees are much more likely to be comforted.
But if a company does indeed plan on AI-oriented workforce reductions, the best path is to do it as quickly as possible–get it over with–and then make the same public pronouncements that the AI-fueled layoffs as now over and there are no plans for any more–if true. That will provide comfort to the remaining workforce.
To state the obvious, a nervous workforce is going to be actively seeking other employment. And Murphy’s Law dictates that the people who leave will be precisely the ones the enterprise did not want to lose.
Historically, the change that AI is delivering is not that different. Industries have always experienced a similar reaction when any key technological change happened. Indeed, noted science fiction writer Rod Serling devoted a full episode of The Twlight Zone (https://lnkd.in/ex3ycwuE) to this precise topic–technology-fueled staff reductions and the worker malaise that it delivered–back in 1964.
In all of these developments, part of the workforce adapted and changed their skillset to do something that the new technology could not do. And the workers who did not or could not change bore the brunt of the layoffs.
https://lnkd.in/eJzNYEiF
