How AI Is Quietly Rewriting Every Job

 

🎧 Listen on your favourite platform Apple | Spotify | YouTube

What if AI isn't replacing jobs, but quietly redesigning the tasks inside them?

In the most recent HR Leaders Podcast episode, I had an important conversation with Sultan Murad Saidov, Former CEO / Founder and Investor at Beamery. He explains why task intelligence could become critical to workforce planning, how AI is changing the work inside existing roles, and why deciding what gets automated should become an HR question, not just a technology question.

Drawing on more than a decade of building Beamery and working at the intersection of AI, skills and workforce data, Sultan explains why skills alone are no longer enough to understand where work is heading.

5 things you’ll learn from this episode:

  1. Why looking at tasks instead of job titles changes how leaders understand AI's impact on work

  2. The research Sultan references suggesting 75% of jobs may need redesign because of AI augmentation

  3. How digital twin teams could help leaders model workforce decisions before making them

  4. Why reducing junior roles may create a long-term talent and career pipeline problem

  5. Why Sultan believes HR and technology teams should jointly lead the redesign of work

What if AI agents were not just another way to create more learning content?

What if AI agents could help talent teams find real skills gaps, build the right intervention, and deliver it at the moment employees need it most?

That is what Arist is building with the first end-to-end AI agent for enablement.

Instead of relying on slow needs analysis, outdated content libraries, and one-size-fits-all training, Arist helps organisations move from guessing what people need to identifying real gaps in real time.

Its AI agents can interview employees, uncover talent gaps, create personalised learning, and deliver it directly through tools like SMS and MS Teams.

Because the future of enablement will not be built by more content or more manual workflows. It will be built by teams that can spot business needs faster, deliver learning that fits the moment, and prove impact.

With Arist, AI agents become a way to close skills gaps faster, improve performance, and help employees get the right learning before the business has already moved on.

 
 

WEBVTT

1

00:00:00.151 --> 00:00:05.760

We need to treat this as a central decision-making process for how are we

2

00:00:05.790 --> 00:00:09.390

redesigning work, because that's what agents are doing, and that should be an HR

3

00:00:09.480 --> 00:00:13.395

question, not a tool question or just a single line of business question,

4

00:00:13.831 --> 00:00:17.581

particularly because these things interact across the company, not just within the

5

00:00:17.610 --> 00:00:21.780

function. Now, a lot of companies are starting to create these sort of hybrid HRIT,

6

00:00:21.960 --> 00:00:26.701

HRAI pockets. That should be more the norm in every company.

7

00:00:26.790 --> 00:00:31.590

So I think that sort of hybrid of tech and HR teams tackling this problem is

8

00:00:31.830 --> 00:00:32.580

probably the best way.

9

00:00:48.630 --> 00:00:50.970

Hey, Salta, welcome to the show, my friend. How are you?

10

00:00:51.090 --> 00:00:52.830

I am fantastic. Good to see you, Chris.

11

00:00:52.981 --> 00:00:56.759

I can't believe that you've been in London this entire time, and we haven't met.

12

00:00:56.821 --> 00:00:58.080

Yeah, around the corner too.

13

00:00:58.290 --> 00:00:58.651

I know.

14

00:00:59.160 --> 00:00:59.580

Less than a week or so.

15

00:00:59.640 --> 00:01:01.410

Yeah. Us antisocial Londoners.

16

00:01:03.630 --> 00:01:05.040

Anyway, how you been, first and foremost?

17

00:01:05.640 --> 00:01:11.610

I've been well. It's a good time to be in tech, AI, HR, all the things that

18

00:01:11.640 --> 00:01:14.040

I do, and definitely a good time to be living in London.

19

00:01:14.100 --> 00:01:18.180

Yeah. I love the way you're the opposite of all the CTOs I interview every day.

20

00:01:18.810 --> 00:01:23.760

They're like: "It's a crazy time to be in AI and I'm drowning.

21

00:01:23.821 --> 00:01:27.660

I don't know what I'm doing, and I'm overwhelmed." And we're like: "It's an amazing

22

00:01:27.720 --> 00:01:29.940

time to be..."

23

00:01:29.970 --> 00:01:32.700

Well, I think it goes just in a different order.

24

00:01:32.836 --> 00:01:38.310

I probably felt the it's overwhelming in early '23 when we were

25

00:01:39.000 --> 00:01:42.150

grappling with how fast AI suddenly started working.

26

00:01:42.180 --> 00:01:44.940

And I think now we've had enough time to sort of settle into it and make sure we're

27

00:01:45.120 --> 00:01:51.090

doing the right things with it. But I think there's a joy to be

28

00:01:51.150 --> 00:01:53.730

found when problems are hard, but important.

29

00:01:54.510 --> 00:01:59.295

Yeah. I know, I love it. For me, it's difficult because one of the things we talk

30

00:01:59.310 --> 00:02:01.230

about internally here is seek discomfort.

31

00:02:03.211 --> 00:02:07.215

Shane and I've always, even as when we were athletes, we always seek discomfort,

32

00:02:07.260 --> 00:02:08.866

because that's where the growth and the magic happens.

33

00:02:09.211 --> 00:02:12.660

It doesn't feel good when you're in it, but when you come out the other side,

34

00:02:13.290 --> 00:02:15.000

that's when the magic really happens, right?

35

00:02:15.330 --> 00:02:15.480

Sure.

36

00:02:15.660 --> 00:02:20.145

Yeah, as well. So it's just kind of building up that, putting the reps in and

37

00:02:20.190 --> 00:02:24.060

building up that resilience, so when you are in it.

38

00:02:24.360 --> 00:02:27.300

The key thing is to know when you are in a sprint.

39

00:02:28.650 --> 00:02:32.610

Because if you don't, then you can burn out along the way.

40

00:02:32.700 --> 00:02:35.760

But anyways, before we get into the details, tell everyone a bit about your

41

00:02:35.820 --> 00:02:39.480

background personally and your journey to where we are now.

42

00:02:40.171 --> 00:02:46.005

So I started Beamerie about 12 years ago, and it

43

00:02:46.050 --> 00:02:51.615

was while I was working in finance at Goldman Sachs during the tail end of the last

44

00:02:51.690 --> 00:02:57.375

recession. And the genesis of the company was actually not with the intention of

45

00:02:57.630 --> 00:02:59.970

starting a software company or AI company.

46

00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:05.476

It was initially an experiment, because I was doing some coaching for kids from

47

00:03:05.520 --> 00:03:10.305

underprivileged backgrounds to help get them jobs in the city, and suddenly lots of

48

00:03:10.500 --> 00:03:12.360

people are unemployed, lots of careers are cut.

49

00:03:12.840 --> 00:03:18.390

And the experiment was, can you look at labor market data to figure out what

50

00:03:18.451 --> 00:03:20.610

actually makes one job similar to another?

51

00:03:21.150 --> 00:03:24.510

Particularly living in London and working in finance at the time, everyone I knew

52

00:03:24.541 --> 00:03:29.101

was called an analyst or an associate, and these sort of amorphous titles and jobs.

53

00:03:29.220 --> 00:03:34.710

And obviously, you had this sort of growing Cambrian explosion of startups and tech

54

00:03:34.740 --> 00:03:39.345

and different types of jobs. And I'd started a company before, which

55

00:03:40.770 --> 00:03:43.845

meant that I did a bit of coding, a bit of data analysis, and essentially this

56

00:03:43.860 --> 00:03:48.360

experiment showed that you could look at which jobs are adjacent to other jobs and

57

00:03:48.390 --> 00:03:50.744

look at sort of underlying things like skills within jobs.

58

00:03:51.451 --> 00:03:56.835

And I then just started trying to speak to any HR leaders that I could meet or that

59

00:03:56.835 --> 00:04:02.490

would listen and try to understand what is it that makes us not really look at data

60

00:04:02.520 --> 00:04:06.525

when it comes to people decisions, why things sort of are so based on precedent and

61

00:04:06.541 --> 00:04:07.860

where people went to school and so forth.

62

00:04:08.430 --> 00:04:12.675

And one thing led to another, and it led to us essentially trying to figure out how

63

00:04:12.690 --> 00:04:17.970

do you try and take the principles of what make companies smart and data-driven in

64

00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:20.955

how they approach their customers, and then start treating their employees and

65

00:04:20.970 --> 00:04:23.940

their candidates like customers. And that was the genesis of Beamerie.

66

00:04:24.600 --> 00:04:29.701

Love that. And it's so interesting how you never know where you are now, right?

67

00:04:30.060 --> 00:04:35.265

Back then, looking at where you started, was it more of a challenge back then?

68

00:04:35.310 --> 00:04:39.105

Because the type of conversation you just described is very top of mind right now,

69

00:04:39.180 --> 00:04:41.550

and everyone's kind of talking about this.

70

00:04:41.610 --> 00:04:45.945

But 10 years ago, you're probably entering rooms with HR leaders and others

71

00:04:45.960 --> 00:04:48.570

thinking, "What is this guy talking about?"

72

00:04:50.190 --> 00:04:50.369

Yeah.

73

00:04:50.640 --> 00:04:52.244

It's so far away from-

74

00:04:52.320 --> 00:04:57.750

It's interesting to look back. Definitely, what people generally wanted is their

75

00:04:57.781 --> 00:04:58.875

job boards to work better and-

76

00:04:58.951 --> 00:04:59.701

Yeah, exactly.

77

00:05:00.270 --> 00:05:01.560

Yeah.

78

00:05:01.574 --> 00:05:01.574

Yeah.

79

00:05:01.980 --> 00:05:06.781

But it happened quite quickly. I think the interesting thing 12 years ago was also

80

00:05:06.900 --> 00:05:12.540

being a company that wasn't based in San Francisco was odd if you're trying to be a

81

00:05:12.600 --> 00:05:13.140

tech company.

82

00:05:13.531 --> 00:05:14.100

Yeah.

83

00:05:14.341 --> 00:05:19.725

Even that was odd. My co-founder is my brother, and the two of us moved out and

84

00:05:19.770 --> 00:05:22.470

lived in New York and San Francisco for about six months.

85

00:05:23.190 --> 00:05:28.500

And one of the things that actually made us build our team, our core technology

86

00:05:28.560 --> 00:05:31.350

team in the UK, is that it was a talent advantage.

87

00:05:31.410 --> 00:05:37.350

And even more so, over time, as London became a center for AI thanks to

88

00:05:37.380 --> 00:05:43.230

companies like Google. But at the time, we were essentially a non-California

89

00:05:43.290 --> 00:05:47.115

AI company that was trying to come up with a new product in HR.

90

00:05:47.400 --> 00:05:48.600

The first couple of years were super hard.

91

00:05:49.455 --> 00:05:49.455

Yeah.

92

00:05:49.470 --> 00:05:54.360

And actually, what ended up helping us get through that was partnering.

93

00:05:54.570 --> 00:05:57.720

We ended up taking the approach of we don't want to be all things to all people.

94

00:05:57.750 --> 00:06:01.800

We want to be the best at AI and data and the people side of what we look at.

95

00:06:01.860 --> 00:06:05.940

And we ended up partnering with companies like Microsoft and Workday, who both

96

00:06:05.970 --> 00:06:09.570

invested in us, and I think that approach helped us to stay focused on the problem

97

00:06:09.600 --> 00:06:12.180

and not try to convince everybody about everything.

98

00:06:12.240 --> 00:06:14.400

Yeah. I'm going through a similar process

99

00:06:16.230 --> 00:06:19.230

right now, so that makes sense. One of the things I'm really excited to talk to you

100

00:06:19.290 --> 00:06:25.081

about is the rise of task intelligence, which you guys are at the forefront.

101

00:06:25.095 --> 00:06:29.910

Probably for our audience, probably good to describe what is that first, and then

102

00:06:29.939 --> 00:06:32.341

we can jump into it, because maybe it'll be the first time some of them have come

103

00:06:32.369 --> 00:06:33.091

across that phrase.

104

00:06:33.690 --> 00:06:37.320

I'll start by saying that the thing I just mentioned of how we started out by

105

00:06:37.350 --> 00:06:43.320

looking at how jobs evolved back 12 years ago to figure out how can you

106

00:06:43.350 --> 00:06:47.100

help people get discovered for different types of careers.

107

00:06:47.130 --> 00:06:51.526

At the time, what we were doing is analyzing things like job descriptions and

108

00:06:51.570 --> 00:06:54.315

career transitions. And the thing about jobs is

109

00:06:56.100 --> 00:06:59.430

they don't mean much as titles. And for the last 10 years, there's also been a lot

110

00:06:59.460 --> 00:07:03.510

of talk about skills, but people have skills, but jobs aren't really described with

111

00:07:03.540 --> 00:07:04.951

skills in any way that makes sense.

112

00:07:05.716 --> 00:07:05.716

Mm-hmm.

113

00:07:05.790 --> 00:07:10.951

And tasks was actually something that consultants have been using for decades.

114

00:07:10.980 --> 00:07:16.860

There's books like "Work Without Jobs" by Ravin from Mercer, because in order to

115

00:07:16.890 --> 00:07:21.901

understand how to break down work and redesign it, we have to look at the tasks

116

00:07:21.930 --> 00:07:25.890

that make up the work. But technology providers didn't really go down that route

117

00:07:25.920 --> 00:07:29.490

because it was very hard to know what to do with that.

118

00:07:29.910 --> 00:07:35.505

You couldn't really extract tasks from jobs until recently, and it was hard to sort

119

00:07:35.520 --> 00:07:37.890

of figure out, well, why would we even bother extracting it?

120

00:07:38.490 --> 00:07:43.980

But suddenly, with the advent of AI and robotics and the speed of technology, tasks

121

00:07:44.010 --> 00:07:49.290

have become one of the most important things to understand, because AI augments

122

00:07:49.305 --> 00:07:52.470

tasks or automate tasks. It doesn't replace jobs.

123

00:07:52.591 --> 00:07:56.460

There's been studies, there's a recent one from McKinsey which highlighted that

124

00:07:56.520 --> 00:08:02.341

while only 10% of jobs are being fully automated today, 75%

125

00:08:02.460 --> 00:08:06.270

are already in need of full redesign because of the way that they're being

126

00:08:06.300 --> 00:08:11.175

augmented. And that requires us to understand how tasks don't just look today, but

127

00:08:11.190 --> 00:08:15.390

how tasks are changing. And the task intelligence refers to the principle of how do

128

00:08:15.420 --> 00:08:21.195

we understand the tasks that we need to do in our jobs, in our company, and how

129

00:08:21.240 --> 00:08:26.880

those tasks are evolving, either through technology or through the way that the

130

00:08:26.970 --> 00:08:32.160

needs of how people work alongside copilots and agents are changing.

131

00:08:32.280 --> 00:08:36.795

And it's also a way of looking at things like labor market data, not just as how

132

00:08:36.841 --> 00:08:41.160

many people are hiring for these jobs, but who are we truly competing with in terms

133

00:08:41.190 --> 00:08:45.135

of what the jobs look like? If the titles all look the same, but the work is

134

00:08:45.181 --> 00:08:49.515

changing, understanding the task intelligence helps you be more thoughtful around

135

00:08:49.590 --> 00:08:53.850

how you hire, how you train people, how you upskill people to actually where work

136

00:08:53.940 --> 00:08:57.719

is heading, rather than just where work is today, and so on.

137

00:08:57.840 --> 00:08:59.940

Yeah. We've gone a bit on this journey, right?

138

00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:03.630

So we've gone role-based, skill-based, now we're at task.

139

00:09:05.250 --> 00:09:08.880

What's the consequences for companies that don't make this transition?

140

00:09:11.172 --> 00:09:16.796

The skill-based piece only really worked in narrow contexts.

141

00:09:16.962 --> 00:09:22.842

I think the skill journey was very important, particularly in the post-2020

142

00:09:22.872 --> 00:09:27.537

era, when companies needed to figure out how do we start using some of these

143

00:09:27.537 --> 00:09:31.212

evolving AI models to match people to learning and to careers.

144

00:09:31.242 --> 00:09:35.202

And so we haven't moved beyond skill-based in the sense that skills are still the

145

00:09:35.262 --> 00:09:36.312

currency-

146

00:09:36.327 --> 00:09:36.327

Sure

147

00:09:36.327 --> 00:09:37.258

... that helps us understand

148

00:09:38.802 --> 00:09:42.387

what employees and candidates may be good at, and how systems speak to each other.

149

00:09:43.092 --> 00:09:46.842

I think the task piece is what actually allows us to scale to all decisions and

150

00:09:46.872 --> 00:09:52.812

jobs, and actually connect the way that HR teams support their businesses to

151

00:09:52.872 --> 00:09:56.922

business decisions. Because the language of the business is work, not skills, the

152

00:09:56.952 --> 00:09:59.952

language of whether you're bidding on a project or trying to decide

153

00:10:01.212 --> 00:10:05.113

what is our goal in this department or for the company.

154

00:10:05.127 --> 00:10:10.633

And so I think the opportunity that is already happening with the

155

00:10:10.782 --> 00:10:16.542

view of tasks is it's actually putting AI and HR

156

00:10:16.633 --> 00:10:22.287

using AI at the center of business decisions rather than being something that is

157

00:10:22.332 --> 00:10:26.846

being driven just by the technology teams or the CIO or others who are kind of

158

00:10:26.863 --> 00:10:29.562

deploying tools without understanding how they impact people.

159

00:10:29.577 --> 00:10:29.636

Mm-hmm.

160

00:10:29.772 --> 00:10:34.407

And so I think for the current chapter that HR is in, task intelligence is probably

161

00:10:34.452 --> 00:10:37.182

one of the biggest opportunities to elevate in business impact.

162

00:10:37.602 --> 00:10:42.072

Yeah. With us being kind of hybrid remote, does that also make a difference now,

163

00:10:42.102 --> 00:10:47.607

the ability to be able to really truly leverage our workforce globally, to be able

164

00:10:47.652 --> 00:10:53.532

to match tasks and skills to work? Is that also something you see as a big

165

00:10:53.592 --> 00:10:55.002

opportunity as well?

166

00:10:55.062 --> 00:11:00.972

I think the opportunity for having the best people, no matter where

167

00:11:01.032 --> 00:11:01.422

they are-

168

00:11:01.633 --> 00:11:01.647

Yeah

169

00:11:01.647 --> 00:11:07.302

... to do work is definitely something that is being enabled by

170

00:11:07.782 --> 00:11:11.532

being able to work remotely and hire, and train talent remotely.

171

00:11:12.192 --> 00:11:18.102

I do think that there's more nuance to consider for how do teams actually work

172

00:11:18.162 --> 00:11:22.512

best together on a problem, and how do teams work together alongside technologies

173

00:11:22.542 --> 00:11:28.242

and tools. The way that a company that is building

174

00:11:28.272 --> 00:11:32.772

physical objects will think about how do you optimize the components you have, you

175

00:11:32.802 --> 00:11:35.682

can suddenly get the best component from a different country, just like you could

176

00:11:35.712 --> 00:11:40.812

hire a remote person. But the way you think about it today would be by digitally

177

00:11:40.842 --> 00:11:45.282

modeling it. There are companies like Fincantieri that build digital twin ships.

178

00:11:45.642 --> 00:11:48.042

Rather than saying, "We're going to order all these components and it's going to be

179

00:11:48.133 --> 00:11:52.827

better," they simulate it. And they then can say, "Well, before building the ship,

180

00:11:52.902 --> 00:11:56.532

we're going to simulate the weather, the water," and it's something that's in

181

00:11:56.592 --> 00:11:58.242

manufacturing been known as digital twins-

182

00:11:58.752 --> 00:11:58.962

Yeah

183

00:11:58.977 --> 00:12:03.597

... for decades. I think the way I would look at your question of how do you think

184

00:12:03.672 --> 00:12:07.633

about whether remote is best, instinctively it is, but you can look at it in a more

185

00:12:07.662 --> 00:12:12.613

data-driven way by actually modeling digital twin teams and digital twin

186

00:12:12.672 --> 00:12:13.363

organizations.

187

00:12:13.932 --> 00:12:13.947

Mm-hmm.

188

00:12:14.202 --> 00:12:17.442

And tasks is actually one of the things that enables that, because you can model

189

00:12:17.532 --> 00:12:21.162

digitally the tasks that are being done and need to be done and model out the

190

00:12:21.192 --> 00:12:23.802

people we have, the skills they have, whether they're remote, and how they work.

191

00:12:24.732 --> 00:12:28.557

And then you can answer those types of questions in a much more precise and

192

00:12:28.872 --> 00:12:33.402

forward-looking way, and go beyond kind of the instinct of remote teams that should

193

00:12:33.432 --> 00:12:36.372

be effective to where would that be most effective and where would that be a

194

00:12:36.402 --> 00:12:36.702

problem.

195

00:12:37.152 --> 00:12:40.467

Wow. You just reminded me of a conversation I had a while back with Boeing, and

196

00:12:40.512 --> 00:12:44.052

they showed me the digital twin of their airplane.

197

00:12:44.113 --> 00:12:44.442

Yeah.

198

00:12:44.502 --> 00:12:47.786

And the fact that they build the entire airplane from the ground upwards into

199

00:12:47.802 --> 00:12:53.157

software, and everyone globally can work on building a plane digitally before they

200

00:12:53.157 --> 00:12:55.946

even think about going to manufacturing or building it out.

201

00:12:56.412 --> 00:12:58.376

Just kind of reminded me of that, which-

202

00:12:58.392 --> 00:13:04.272

And it's exactly what's starting to happen in HR today because the tools to do

203

00:13:04.333 --> 00:13:07.917

a digital twin team or organization, just like the Boeing example you gave, are

204

00:13:07.917 --> 00:13:09.252

already here. That's exactly-

205

00:13:09.297 --> 00:13:09.297

Yeah

206

00:13:09.297 --> 00:13:11.352

... what task intelligence is starting to unlock.

207

00:13:11.412 --> 00:13:16.062

Wow. This is super interesting. Are companies ready for this, though, in terms of

208

00:13:16.092 --> 00:13:19.722

the way their current tech stack is set up, the way their current data, where their

209

00:13:19.752 --> 00:13:23.172

data is currently stored? Because this sounds incredible, but I feel like you're

210

00:13:23.202 --> 00:13:25.602

going to a company and data's scattered

211

00:13:26.863 --> 00:13:28.241

all over the place.

212

00:13:28.722 --> 00:13:34.303

In terms of the systems that companies have today for people

213

00:13:34.392 --> 00:13:36.762

records, job records, analytics, no.

214

00:13:37.317 --> 00:13:43.196

But in terms of the things you need to actually be able to unlock this,

215

00:13:44.202 --> 00:13:49.962

it's bypassing existing data stores and problems and systems.

216

00:13:50.053 --> 00:13:54.852

There's a great example of, you're probably familiar with HubSpot.

217

00:13:55.092 --> 00:13:55.812

Yeah, of course.

218

00:13:55.962 --> 00:14:00.252

But HubSpot was one of the first companies that connected what's known as an MCP,

219

00:14:00.312 --> 00:14:04.767

which essentially a Model Context Protocol, is a new form of being able to

220

00:14:04.812 --> 00:14:09.522

integrate not just systems like an HRIS and LMS, but essentially AI models.

221

00:14:09.733 --> 00:14:11.682

There's also kind of agent integrations.

222

00:14:11.712 --> 00:14:16.182

And what HubSpot did is connect ChatGPT to HubSpot directly, and it basically said

223

00:14:16.242 --> 00:14:20.142

you don't need to suddenly figure out where do we put in all of this marketing

224

00:14:20.172 --> 00:14:23.892

data. And HubSpot is a lot like a CRM or a marketing tool that you use-

225

00:14:24.072 --> 00:14:24.147

Yeah

226

00:14:24.162 --> 00:14:29.712

... in HR. But it's an example of where they solved the problem of how do you make

227

00:14:29.742 --> 00:14:33.282

the data accessible and relevant by connecting directly into AI models.

228

00:14:33.702 --> 00:14:38.382

And there are similar things starting to happen with topics like tasks and task

229

00:14:38.412 --> 00:14:44.036

intelligence, because tasks are too nuanced to push into a job

230

00:14:44.113 --> 00:14:46.062

profile or an employee profile effectively.

231

00:14:46.077 --> 00:14:49.572

Like, it's tasks linked to groups of skills and automation potential.

232

00:14:49.602 --> 00:14:55.422

There's a lot of data about them, and it may take years to effectively house that

233

00:14:55.483 --> 00:14:59.233

in the way that we typically use HR systems and workforce planning systems.

234

00:14:59.262 --> 00:15:02.053

But suddenly you don't need to in order to be able to do some of these

235

00:15:02.172 --> 00:15:03.553

sophisticated things.

236

00:15:03.567 --> 00:15:03.567

Mm.

237

00:15:03.642 --> 00:15:08.847

And it does today take some engineers with some familiarity about how to do this

238

00:15:08.922 --> 00:15:14.727

within a company. But it's happening in every company outside of HR departments and

239

00:15:14.772 --> 00:15:18.057

how companies enable their salespeople and how companies are interacting with

240

00:15:18.072 --> 00:15:23.292

clients. So I think we're less than 12 months away from the problem of messy data

241

00:15:23.307 --> 00:15:26.472

and where do we put our data not really being a problem-

242

00:15:26.833 --> 00:15:26.892

Wow

243

00:15:26.907 --> 00:15:30.492

... for these types of use cases. It'll still be a problem for governance of you

244

00:15:30.553 --> 00:15:31.392

still need to have-

245

00:15:31.422 --> 00:15:31.542

Sure

246

00:15:31.572 --> 00:15:33.462

... data and payroll and how you do a lot of things.

247

00:15:34.152 --> 00:15:39.132

But for something like analytics and insights, it's becoming very easy to put the

248

00:15:39.192 --> 00:15:43.678

right data into the right places without having to rely on your systems being

249

00:15:43.692 --> 00:15:44.442

perfect.

250

00:15:44.502 --> 00:15:49.632

Yeah. I think my CTO was trying to explain something similar the other day to me,

251

00:15:49.662 --> 00:15:51.613

which you just explained very well.

252

00:15:52.062 --> 00:15:56.022

But for HR in particular, I think that's a really huge opportunity because I think

253

00:15:56.083 --> 00:15:59.472

there's no HR team out there that hasn't at some point been paralyzed by the

254

00:15:59.502 --> 00:16:00.972

difficulty of integrating systems-

255

00:16:01.092 --> 00:16:02.083

100%

256

00:16:02.113 --> 00:16:06.928

... and structure. And so I think the unlock of this being reliable, safe, and easy

257

00:16:07.032 --> 00:16:10.632

to model and generate insights around is significant.

258

00:16:11.172 --> 00:16:16.962

Do you think there's enough trust right now with companies to

259

00:16:17.022 --> 00:16:19.392

take that step, though, even if they can?

260

00:16:19.483 --> 00:16:19.767

Because I-

261

00:16:20.623 --> 00:16:22.422

I think there's a difference between

262

00:16:23.772 --> 00:16:29.757

using insights versus where you start to try to build agents or automate worker

263

00:16:29.803 --> 00:16:35.727

decisions. Because I think the boundary of automating decisions, even where

264

00:16:35.772 --> 00:16:40.632

the decision is safe, is something that should require a high boundary of

265

00:16:40.662 --> 00:16:42.777

validation, trust, people being in the review.

266

00:16:43.542 --> 00:16:47.772

But for insights, if you can improve the quality of labor market insights and make

267

00:16:47.803 --> 00:16:51.972

it more relevant to your company, and even if it's not perfect, but it's

268

00:16:51.988 --> 00:16:55.932

significantly better than what you had before and it's safe to run, I think the

269

00:16:56.053 --> 00:17:00.416

barrier for that to be something people get value from and can safely use is very

270

00:17:00.432 --> 00:17:01.242

low.

271

00:17:01.333 --> 00:17:06.087

Yeah, I love that, the data versus insights, because I think a lot of people are

272

00:17:06.162 --> 00:17:08.202

looking at both of those through the same lens.

273

00:17:09.883 --> 00:17:13.722

What about the one of the big things that we talk about a lot is really how do you

274

00:17:13.782 --> 00:17:16.812

balance the human-centered AI in talent decisions?

275

00:17:18.252 --> 00:17:19.902

That's a tough one right now.

276

00:17:19.932 --> 00:17:25.123

Yeah, for me, it's an interesting question because we started out 12 years ago

277

00:17:25.242 --> 00:17:29.263

building AI to make fairer people decisions.

278

00:17:29.532 --> 00:17:32.892

It's why we started looking at skill inferences 12 years ago.

279

00:17:33.553 --> 00:17:34.932

But back then,

280

00:17:36.312 --> 00:17:39.942

the ideas were simpler, and the AI was simpler.

281

00:17:40.362 --> 00:17:46.182

We were looking at can you compare how unbiased a decision is likely

282

00:17:46.242 --> 00:17:49.722

to be if you look at skills and degrees and all the stuff we now

283

00:17:51.222 --> 00:17:56.638

hear about a lot in HR circles. Today, it's a little bit different because we need

284

00:17:56.682 --> 00:18:02.592

to be very careful around how people actually use

285

00:18:02.622 --> 00:18:07.947

technologies, because making a recommendation to a

286

00:18:07.962 --> 00:18:13.212

person to say, "Hey, take a look at this Take a look at this candidate, take a look

287

00:18:13.242 --> 00:18:16.182

at this recommendation of a learning course, whatever it might be.

288

00:18:17.053 --> 00:18:22.962

Even if you transparently show how the AI works and so forth, it has to be

289

00:18:23.022 --> 00:18:27.897

something that is very carefully monitored for where does it lead people, because

290

00:18:27.942 --> 00:18:33.522

we're becoming used to AI in a way that varies obviously by how much you trust it.

291

00:18:33.582 --> 00:18:38.202

But it creates risk for how people interact with any recommendations, even if the

292

00:18:38.263 --> 00:18:43.362

AI is unbiased in how it's been tested, it doesn't mean people won't end up going

293

00:18:43.392 --> 00:18:46.962

down a path that creates biased outcomes and so on in their own context.

294

00:18:47.053 --> 00:18:52.707

One of the things that we've tried to do is really separate the areas where

295

00:18:52.782 --> 00:18:56.952

AI can do something completely safe, like improve the quality of your data or

296

00:18:56.982 --> 00:19:02.292

improve the quality of how you are nudged to take a look at something.

297

00:19:02.502 --> 00:19:06.882

Things that are without question not introducing any real risks in the decisions

298

00:19:06.912 --> 00:19:11.803

that you're making. And even automation, having something that automates a report

299

00:19:11.816 --> 00:19:14.546

that you look at every day is very different to something that automates something

300

00:19:14.592 --> 00:19:19.888

that happens for you. And I think those boundaries of how people don't just look at

301

00:19:19.962 --> 00:19:22.662

AI for like, is it audited? Is it biased?

302

00:19:22.722 --> 00:19:27.763

But actually, what things is it doing that otherwise we'd be comfortable with

303

00:19:27.792 --> 00:19:33.132

people doing safely, and what tasks do we actually want to automate rather than we

304

00:19:33.162 --> 00:19:36.342

don't want to automate? And so I think those conversations are something that is

305

00:19:36.372 --> 00:19:41.382

probably important for HR teams to help lead rather than for this stuff to just be

306

00:19:41.502 --> 00:19:44.382

a question of technologies and how audited are they.

307

00:19:44.892 --> 00:19:48.582

Yeah. Because I think the struggle we're having right now is maintaining that trust

308

00:19:48.763 --> 00:19:51.972

with employees while scaling workforce innovation, right?

309

00:19:52.242 --> 00:19:54.492

That's kind of the key thing I'm hearing out from them.

310

00:19:54.747 --> 00:19:59.442

It's less of a technology transformation and more of a mindset shift and a cultural

311

00:19:59.502 --> 00:20:00.192

transformation.

312

00:20:00.732 --> 00:20:01.782

Yeah, I feel like the

313

00:20:04.152 --> 00:20:08.772

way that people have been using AI as consumers is obviously falling into

314

00:20:09.882 --> 00:20:14.982

natural extremes. Some people who now live with ChatGPT as a friend and other

315

00:20:15.013 --> 00:20:18.763

people who avoid touching these things.

316

00:20:19.692 --> 00:20:24.912

I find that boundary interesting myself because-- So my wife works in AI governance

317

00:20:25.002 --> 00:20:25.122

and-

318

00:20:25.377 --> 00:20:25.797

Oh, really?

319

00:20:26.217 --> 00:20:29.907

... monitoring AI safety. And so our conversations at home often touch on this sort

320

00:20:29.952 --> 00:20:34.737

of topic. We don't have any devices in our home with listening tools, not because I

321

00:20:34.782 --> 00:20:37.917

assume someone's listening, but because at some point, I think

322

00:20:39.282 --> 00:20:41.997

your personal threshold of what are you comfortable with sort of kick in for how

323

00:20:42.042 --> 00:20:42.942

you use these tools.

324

00:20:42.957 --> 00:20:43.632

Yeah, that's understandable.

325

00:20:43.722 --> 00:20:46.782

So I've never had a smart lock in my house and so on.

326

00:20:46.812 --> 00:20:51.072

But I do think that there are a lot of things that we've assumed we can trust.

327

00:20:51.282 --> 00:20:54.763

Take Google search results before AI without using backlinks.

328

00:20:54.822 --> 00:20:54.837

Mm-hmm.

329

00:20:55.392 --> 00:21:00.372

Was that more reliable or odd than what we're using now, which has reasoning, which

330

00:21:00.432 --> 00:21:06.057

actually fact checks, right? So I think that I am optimistic about the fact that

331

00:21:06.072 --> 00:21:09.912

the way that AI is being developed and progressing, certainly from

332

00:21:11.202 --> 00:21:13.062

a lot of the leading players like Google,

333

00:21:14.292 --> 00:21:19.392

is making it more thoughtful and reliable than the way a lot of technologies worked

334

00:21:19.422 --> 00:21:22.362

before, which has always been algorithms of some kind.

335

00:21:22.782 --> 00:21:27.013

But it doesn't mean that's how people feel about it, and I think that the question

336

00:21:27.072 --> 00:21:31.362

of how do you give people a choice of building their own trust and opting in or out

337

00:21:31.392 --> 00:21:33.642

of these tools is always going to be really important.

338

00:21:34.182 --> 00:21:38.232

Yeah. I mean, the reality is they're going to be using them anyway whether it's in

339

00:21:38.292 --> 00:21:44.202

your organization or outside. And yeah, what I take for granted is how close I

340

00:21:44.263 --> 00:21:47.877

am to the technology. I have ChatGPT built into my headphones.

341

00:21:48.672 --> 00:21:51.822

So I have a pair of headphones where it's literally without my phone, I can access

342

00:21:51.896 --> 00:21:53.803

ChatGPT at any time in my headphones.

343

00:21:53.862 --> 00:21:58.662

It's extreme to a lot of people, and I just talk to my headphones and it's all

344

00:21:58.752 --> 00:21:59.022

there.

345

00:22:00.702 --> 00:22:06.162

But there is a certain element of trust of how

346

00:22:06.852 --> 00:22:09.642

your use of these things is going to impact you.

347

00:22:09.942 --> 00:22:13.962

No matter what call you're in, you're probably having a recording or listening to-

348

00:22:13.977 --> 00:22:14.022

Yes

349

00:22:14.037 --> 00:22:17.172

... even physical devices that people wear into meetings.

350

00:22:17.263 --> 00:22:22.047

And when you consider that all of the things that are being recorded from you, all

351

00:22:22.092 --> 00:22:25.572

the work you're doing is something that's recorded and trained, is also the kind of

352

00:22:25.632 --> 00:22:29.862

stuff that is potentially going to replace what you're good at, right?

353

00:22:30.042 --> 00:22:35.562

AI being trained on-- There was a great case of AI being trained on police forces

354

00:22:35.682 --> 00:22:38.803

that recognized people in crowds.

355

00:22:38.862 --> 00:22:42.252

There was a role known as a super recognizer years ago.

356

00:22:42.537 --> 00:22:42.537

Mm.

357

00:22:42.553 --> 00:22:46.992

One of the highest-paid jobs in security, people were asked to come in and have AI

358

00:22:47.053 --> 00:22:50.428

learn how do you actually recognize faces, and obviously didn't take very long for

359

00:22:50.472 --> 00:22:54.282

suddenly that job to disappear because the AI trained on what they did.

360

00:22:54.792 --> 00:23:00.132

And the same thing is starting to apply for you using recording devices in your

361

00:23:00.192 --> 00:23:05.472

work just comfortably because that's what the AI's doing, and your company could

362

00:23:05.532 --> 00:23:07.527

learn from that and automate some of the tasks you do.

363

00:23:07.572 --> 00:23:11.803

So I think trust isn't just about do you trust the tool, it's do you trust how the

364

00:23:11.832 --> 00:23:14.967

tool is learning and that it's going to be something that's transparent and used in

365

00:23:15.013 --> 00:23:16.872

your best interest, well, what does that mean for you?

366

00:23:16.932 --> 00:23:17.202

Yeah.

367

00:23:17.263 --> 00:23:21.492

And I think that's something that creates a mandate for companies to think about

368

00:23:21.522 --> 00:23:25.242

how do we give employees using our tools visibility into where this stuff is

369

00:23:25.272 --> 00:23:29.053

heading and how this could be for their benefit and where it could be a risk.

370

00:23:29.112 --> 00:23:32.547

Yeah. One of the things I wanted to ask you about, though, is what does this mean

371

00:23:33.162 --> 00:23:38.892

for traditional org charts, annual planning cycles, the way we look

372

00:23:38.922 --> 00:23:42.763

at the role of workforce design, because it's a huge disruptor.

373

00:23:43.303 --> 00:23:49.242

So I'd answer that in two parts. I think what it has started to mean in the short

374

00:23:49.303 --> 00:23:50.667

term has

375

00:23:52.212 --> 00:23:55.332

been things that aren't sustainable and will change.

376

00:23:55.422 --> 00:24:01.152

For example, companies moving from pyramid-shaped orgs to

377

00:24:01.182 --> 00:24:05.803

diamond-shaped orgs because you don't need as many junior people.

378

00:24:05.862 --> 00:24:11.232

And where AI is today, that often makes sense because you have more senior people

379

00:24:11.292 --> 00:24:14.502

in any role starting to be more efficient with copilots and agents, not needing as

380

00:24:14.532 --> 00:24:18.582

many entry-level people. But that is neither sustainable because at some point you

381

00:24:18.612 --> 00:24:19.602

have to feed the-

382

00:24:19.662 --> 00:24:19.812

Yeah

383

00:24:19.932 --> 00:24:20.172

... growth

384

00:24:20.382 --> 00:24:21.372

Mm-hmm.

385

00:24:21.492 --> 00:24:26.622

Nor likely to be how AI is used in a few years' time

386

00:24:26.742 --> 00:24:31.182

because it only is impacting entry-level tasks and work today.

387

00:24:31.212 --> 00:24:34.662

It's going to be impacting all work, and you have to think about actually AI being

388

00:24:34.692 --> 00:24:38.142

used by entry-level people more cost-effectively in a few years' time.

389

00:24:38.592 --> 00:24:43.122

So I think there's a sort of short-term impact of overall how do we design teams

390

00:24:43.152 --> 00:24:47.682

and who's adopting this stuff, which is obviously rapidly evolving, but I think is

391

00:24:47.742 --> 00:24:50.652

not how I would think about the true impact of this stuff when you move beyond the

392

00:24:50.712 --> 00:24:53.562

next sort of 18 months. And so the second thing I think is

393

00:24:54.792 --> 00:25:00.732

much more nuanced to the kind of industry you're in

394

00:25:00.792 --> 00:25:06.372

and what you're working on. But we're starting to see the traditional principles

395

00:25:06.582 --> 00:25:12.537

of your career is built on the size of the orgs you manage and

396

00:25:12.582 --> 00:25:16.662

the size of teams shifting away, right?

397

00:25:17.472 --> 00:25:21.702

We're talking in the tech world about one-person unicorns, and there are now

398

00:25:21.763 --> 00:25:26.517

companies with five or 10 people who are managing hundreds of million in revenue

399

00:25:26.562 --> 00:25:31.002

and so forth. And I think the same principle is how I'd look at what does it mean

400

00:25:31.032 --> 00:25:36.102

for org charts because obviously in some companies you can't just say, "Oh, we'll

401

00:25:36.162 --> 00:25:41.352

all move to flat org charts," or these sort of aspersions around how people

402

00:25:41.382 --> 00:25:46.662

interact. But you can reliably see that the principle of career progression and

403

00:25:46.722 --> 00:25:52.212

size of org going away means that there will be far more people in the position

404

00:25:52.362 --> 00:25:56.143

of being individual contributors who are managing technologies like you would in

405

00:25:56.203 --> 00:26:01.872

org, and then people who are going to be in much more true manager coach

406

00:26:01.902 --> 00:26:04.002

style, managing people who are using tools.

407

00:26:04.692 --> 00:26:09.852

And I do think that the skillsets of what makes a truly good manager will probably

408

00:26:09.882 --> 00:26:13.453

be more valuable than ever, even if what you're doing is managing people who use

409

00:26:13.482 --> 00:26:13.842

tools.

410

00:26:13.902 --> 00:26:14.682

Yeah, I agree.

411

00:26:14.742 --> 00:26:17.997

So I think that's going to create a path for people who do not have to be managers

412

00:26:18.013 --> 00:26:20.802

but be contributors that are scaled.

413

00:26:21.462 --> 00:26:25.302

And that kind of org bifurcation is already starting to happen.

414

00:26:25.393 --> 00:26:29.533

Yeah. No, I love that. Who's managing all these agents?

415

00:26:31.122 --> 00:26:35.563

Interesting question, right? I start by saying that I don't think of agents or

416

00:26:35.622 --> 00:26:37.962

copilots as being in the org chart.

417

00:26:39.582 --> 00:26:45.567

But I do think of the question of who is managing it as an interesting one from

418

00:26:45.643 --> 00:26:50.127

a within-the-company-who-does-this perspective because my view is it should

419

00:26:50.172 --> 00:26:53.203

actually be the new form of HR that does this.

420

00:26:53.322 --> 00:26:54.582

I agree. Yeah.

421

00:26:54.612 --> 00:26:59.757

Today, agents and technologies are brought in within lines of business, like a

422

00:26:59.772 --> 00:27:03.237

sales agent that does X or a marketing agent that does Y, and then the office of

423

00:27:03.237 --> 00:27:06.942

the CIO is typically managing internal technology deployments of pilots.

424

00:27:07.572 --> 00:27:10.783

We are starting to see that almost all companies in the last year have shifted from

425

00:27:10.813 --> 00:27:13.332

internal pilots to buying external technologies.

426

00:27:13.842 --> 00:27:17.712

In 2023, it was like 95% of spend was on internal pilots.

427

00:27:18.222 --> 00:27:23.277

Now it's flipped towards almost all deployments are far more successful by going

428

00:27:23.292 --> 00:27:25.212

through technologies and vendors and so forth.

429

00:27:25.242 --> 00:27:30.328

What that also means is that we need to treat this as a

430

00:27:30.372 --> 00:27:36.303

central decision-making process for how are we redesigning work Because that's what

431

00:27:36.318 --> 00:27:40.503

agents are doing, and that should be an HR question, not a tool question or

432

00:27:41.718 --> 00:27:43.428

just a single-line of business question.

433

00:27:43.458 --> 00:27:47.238

Particularly because these things interact across the company, not just within the

434

00:27:47.268 --> 00:27:53.118

function. Now, a lot of companies are starting to create these hybrid HRIT, HRAI

435

00:27:53.928 --> 00:27:56.748

pockets, like the CHRO of ServiceNow, Jackie-

436

00:27:56.899 --> 00:27:57.558

Right

437

00:27:57.573 --> 00:27:58.399

... and HR and AI.

438

00:27:58.698 --> 00:27:59.029

Yes.

439

00:27:59.358 --> 00:28:03.378

But I think that should be more the norm in every company.

440

00:28:04.339 --> 00:28:06.378

But it's obviously tricky to suddenly do that overnight.

441

00:28:06.438 --> 00:28:11.133

So I think that sort of hybrid of tech and HR teams tackling this problem is

442

00:28:11.478 --> 00:28:12.498

probably the best way.

443

00:28:12.618 --> 00:28:13.938

Yeah. Listen, I could speak to you forever.

444

00:28:13.998 --> 00:28:17.073

Is there anything that we didn't discuss that we should have?

445

00:28:18.139 --> 00:28:18.483

I think there's

446

00:28:19.758 --> 00:28:23.089

important ethical questions. I'm currently co-writing a book.

447

00:28:23.358 --> 00:28:24.183

I've been

448

00:28:25.488 --> 00:28:28.998

close to finishing it for a while, but the book is called "Work, People, Robots,"

449

00:28:29.058 --> 00:28:31.938

which has made it a hard title to ever feel like you've finished.

450

00:28:32.718 --> 00:28:34.218

Yeah, because it's continuous. Yeah.

451

00:28:34.248 --> 00:28:39.798

But one of the reasons I've been co-writing this is because the ethical

452

00:28:39.858 --> 00:28:42.889

dilemma of are we facing mass unemployment

453

00:28:44.208 --> 00:28:49.818

is a real and important one, especially in the next five to 10 years, and the role

454

00:28:49.908 --> 00:28:55.518

that HR leaders and teams can play in stewarding that

455

00:28:55.728 --> 00:28:59.568

thoughtfully rather than reacting to business job changes is also very important.

456

00:29:00.438 --> 00:29:03.228

Some of the things that we've been doing with our clients over the last couple of

457

00:29:03.258 --> 00:29:08.568

years is helping provide insights of how do you retrain people rather than just

458

00:29:08.628 --> 00:29:12.408

automating a function. Just because something can be automated doesn't mean it

459

00:29:12.438 --> 00:29:15.738

should be, but more importantly, it doesn't mean you can't give people the time to

460

00:29:15.768 --> 00:29:19.098

retrain and think about where they go and be intentional with these things.

461

00:29:19.158 --> 00:29:22.907

And it tends to be good for the business and certainly good for the employees.

462

00:29:22.938 --> 00:29:27.589

And it's a societal thing that I think we should probably have more space and

463

00:29:27.618 --> 00:29:32.343

narrative for HR leaders to speak to in terms of what things can you do within your

464

00:29:32.389 --> 00:29:37.248

company that help shape a world where we do minimize how many people are scared

465

00:29:37.279 --> 00:29:38.958

about this stuff or impacted by this stuff.

466

00:29:39.693 --> 00:29:43.654

If you get into a self-driving car, you can't help but think, "Well, what's going

467

00:29:43.654 --> 00:29:47.313

to happen to every taxi driver?" But that's come for the office, it's come for

468

00:29:47.358 --> 00:29:52.788

every job, and it doesn't mean that we won't all have important things to do.

469

00:29:52.878 --> 00:29:56.133

I'm actually an optimist and think that 10, 20 years from now, a lot of work is

470

00:29:56.149 --> 00:29:57.603

going to be more rewarding and interesting.

471

00:29:58.128 --> 00:30:01.203

But I'm not an optimist about the next few years on that front, and certainly not

472

00:30:01.248 --> 00:30:07.218

for all roles. And I don't think there's any group better placed than HR leaders to

473

00:30:07.248 --> 00:30:10.683

help drive that narrative and make sure that the world is being thoughtful about

474

00:30:10.698 --> 00:30:10.878

this.

475

00:30:11.448 --> 00:30:15.258

Yeah. I think that's a very important point, and it's going to be interesting to

476

00:30:15.288 --> 00:30:19.203

see in the next five years how that plays out, and I don't think anyone really

477

00:30:19.279 --> 00:30:23.538

truly knows what's it look like. But when can we expect the book?

478

00:30:23.958 --> 00:30:27.468

I wouldn't dare to commit to timing.

479

00:30:27.529 --> 00:30:29.598

On a live, on a podcast.

480

00:30:30.919 --> 00:30:33.048

I'm writing it without AI, ironically.

481

00:30:33.258 --> 00:30:35.868

That's it. I was thinking that as you said it.

482

00:30:35.899 --> 00:30:37.714

I was like, I wonder if you're writing it with AI, but no.

483

00:30:37.714 --> 00:30:41.839

No, it would've been a much faster effort if I did, but it still felt wrong for

484

00:30:41.899 --> 00:30:42.873

this particular effort.

485

00:30:43.339 --> 00:30:47.448

No, it would be, especially given the context, and I think you definitely need the

486

00:30:47.478 --> 00:30:48.348

critical thinking and

487

00:30:50.029 --> 00:30:53.238

it... You know what, I was saying this to the team the other day, we just wrote our

488

00:30:53.298 --> 00:30:56.658

web copy for our brand-new website we're launching, and I was like, "Imagine how

489

00:30:56.748 --> 00:30:59.628

hard this would've been if we just had a blank piece of paper like we used to do

490

00:30:59.688 --> 00:31:03.498

this." It would take so long, but it does remove...

491

00:31:03.919 --> 00:31:09.589

We went back over the copy without AI and just as a team, and the next day I woke

492

00:31:09.708 --> 00:31:11.913

up, I was like, "Oh, wow, this is really not

493

00:31:13.968 --> 00:31:17.582

what... Last night it looked great, but I woke up with some fresh eyes and read it

494

00:31:17.628 --> 00:31:20.073

again," and I was like, "This is

495

00:31:21.288 --> 00:31:21.738

not good."

496

00:31:22.639 --> 00:31:26.358

But even though I'm writing it without AI, I think that's something we all now do,

497

00:31:26.568 --> 00:31:30.123

even as consumers, but you forget how much of an impact it makes, which is

498

00:31:30.258 --> 00:31:35.118

research, like the speed with which you can find relevant things to research.

499

00:31:35.958 --> 00:31:36.797

Yeah. Obviously, yeah.

500

00:31:36.842 --> 00:31:38.342

Yeah, like finding additional information.

501

00:31:40.188 --> 00:31:42.768

We've become used to it, like you're trying to book travel suddenly it's much

502

00:31:42.798 --> 00:31:46.608

easier to find information. But I think in work, it's everyone's a researcher now

503

00:31:46.639 --> 00:31:49.413

no matter what you're doing, because it's become so much more time efficient to do

504

00:31:49.458 --> 00:31:50.029

it.

505

00:31:50.118 --> 00:31:54.348

Yeah. Well, listen, before I let you go, where can people reach out if they want to

506

00:31:54.408 --> 00:31:58.188

say hi, connect, and where can they learn more about Beamer?

507

00:31:58.818 --> 00:32:02.298

Well, firstly, reach out directly on LinkedIn.

508

00:32:02.598 --> 00:32:07.698

I'm happy for anybody who wants to connect to reach out directly.

509

00:32:08.238 --> 00:32:13.518

And also happy to share more about the book and what I'm writing about.

510

00:32:13.548 --> 00:32:16.863

But I very much welcome any questions, discussion.

511

00:32:16.908 --> 00:32:18.378

And Chris, thanks so much for hosting.

512

00:32:18.468 --> 00:32:20.718

Amazing. Well, now you've put it out into the universe, everyone's going to be

513

00:32:20.779 --> 00:32:24.348

like, "When are you publishing?" So there's no pressure.

514

00:32:24.393 --> 00:32:27.258

It's only going to go out to about half a million HR executives.

515

00:32:27.948 --> 00:32:30.303

They're now going to be waiting on your book as well.

516

00:32:30.318 --> 00:32:34.308

But I appreciate you coming on, and congratulations on the journey so far, and I

517

00:32:34.368 --> 00:32:36.649

wish you and the team all the best until next week. Thanks a lot.

518

00:32:37.128 --> 00:32:37.563

Great. Thanks a lot.

Chris RaineyComment