Concours d'accès aux CRMEF

[1] The context of work is expected to change significantly as intelligent technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) combined with advanced sensors and robotics, become capable of substituting a broader range of manual and even mental tasks. Even though this topic has been studied through many perspectives, how such disruption could affect work culture is largely unexplored. Values are at the core of culture and develop in response to opportunities and threats in the environment, and changes in value priorities indicate a broader cultural change.

[2] A major share of current research on technological substitution and transformation of work concerns the consequences of labor substitution or the changing skill requirements. The tasks remaining after digital technologies substitute work are creative, socio-emotional or they require physical adaptability, such as maintenance work that complement the capacities of the advanced technologies. Interest is growing in the psychological and social consequences of the forecasted technologically induced changes in work. Such interest relates to well-being and fear of job loss. Because the technological change mainly affects certain types of tasks, it also has consequences for workforce readiness and impacts person-job fit. Digitizing work is demonstrated to disrupt person-job fit and consequently decrease employee job satisfaction and commitment.

[3] Technological substitution of work affects societies more profoundly than is currently being discussed in the debate on the future of work. Since the Second World War, western societies have become more liberal as living standards and existential security have increased. A radical change in employment security and consequently declining living standards and existential security in artificial intelligence society (AIS) will counter the development in liberal western countries. A key factor in this process is the rising inequality or “superstar” economy, which operates on a winner-take-all principle. When low-skilled workers are left with menial jobs (e.g., gig work), their living standards decrease. Consequently, there is a fear that the liberal societies are regressing towards materialism, resulting in an increased acceptance of authoritarianism and xenophobia.

[4] Inglehart's work on how the multiple, mainly income-related, uncertainties characterizing AIS would affect work values is one of the few attempts to consider the cultural consequences of technological substitution. He illustrates that when the standard of living improves, societies tend to become less conformist and more self-expressive, more tolerant of the ‘other’. Where living standards decrease and life becomes more precarious, as would occur in AIS, societies become more accepting of authoritarian leaders and xenophobia, which is manifested in fear, dislike or hate towards people who are perceived to be different. The higher the unemployment rate is in a region, the higher the support for authoritarian leaders.

[5] This change is becoming a reality in AIS where advanced robotics and digital technologies alter the nature of work. Driven by new developments in artificial intelligence, the internet of things (IoT), and robotics, smart technologies are expected to subsume a large portion (5% - 47%) of the work characterized by structure or routine. Even critics of these assessments agree that there is a genuine risk that those with low levels of training are restricted to menial, low skill, jobs. Furthermore, the increased presence of technology at work changes the characteristics of occupations and the competitions required to thrive in the new environment, requiring the workforce to retrain to remain competitive.

[6] Given that people with different values thrive in different contexts and that routine-based jobs are considered most susceptible to technological substitution, values that are better adapted to less routine-based and more creative work environments would become more important in automatable occupations over time. It would be expected that the share of people prioritizing well-adapted values over poorly adapted values would increase. However, the precarity associated with AIS increases the importance of values of conservation and self-enhancement as uncertainty increases and basic survival is threatened by an unpredictable labor market. Consequently, conservation and self-enhancement are more prominent in occupations susceptible to automation. These values are negatively associated with creativity and social skills in numerous studies, indicating that those values are less beneficial in AIS.

[7] People holding similar values tend to be attracted to similar occupations. The positive effects of fit between personal values and work environment have long been demonstrated empirically. Work-values fit impacts job engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational identification positively, and it has a positive effect on well-being in general. Therefore, fit is a desirable state for both organizations and workers, but it can be upset when the characteristics of jobs, such as tasks and workflows, are changed. In AIS, the technological capabilities to substitute specific types of tasks change the work requirements and prerequisites for well-paid work, making values associated with demanded skills a better fit for the work environment in AIS.

[8] Researchers give examples of how the work context in tandem with values relates to adaptability and affects the well-being of workers. They consider the many opportunities that accountants are presented with to follow rules and regulations in accounting firms, while the accountancy context can block creativity and imagination. Here, the environment provides advantages to thrive for those who value conformity, while it places those who pursue creativity at a disadvantage, with fewer opportunities to pursue their values, hence affecting their well-being negatively. Accordingly, the discrepancy between the values and the work context affects job satisfaction and change readiness negatively. Both aspects can prolong the process of automation and inhibit the worker's adaptation to the new work context in AIS.

[9] In conclusion, since technological capabilities can develop rapidly, we cannot conclude that occupational values will not polarize in the future. However, we can conclude that as the context becomes more precarious, it will certainly affect the value priorities of high- and medium-risk occupations. Still, it is possible to ensure person-job fit. Policymakers need to consider the socialization of individuals in different contexts and to establish policies that increase the existential security of individuals; then their values are more likely to become fit for work in AIS.

Adapted from: https://www.sciencedirect.com