Business leaders are there increasingly fearful on the destructive impact of artificial intelligence on the longer term of labor. Many employees fear losing their jobs, but their anxiety also stems from the concept that artificial intelligence will make decisions about their jobs. Should we worry in regards to the future with robot managers? Are managers themselves at risk of losing their jobs?
The short answer is: no. However, this doesn’t mean that the established order will remain unchanged. The development of artificial intelligence is changing our world management expectations. Some suggest this may lead to a more people-centred approach to skilled relationships and a shift towards collective interests.
Our research on management history explains why it is feasible that AI-powered management needs people managers greater than resource managers. More AI in management seems to require less hard skills but more soft skills from decision-makers. We will probably differentiate less between managers and leaders. With AI, the highest priority for anyone in a leadership position becomes making others feel like they belong, facilitating interactions, and enabling followers to succeed. Our findings even suggest that the longer term of management has already begun.
The evolution of management
The concept of “management” has evolved significantly over time. Using historical texts, we traced five distinct periods of perceptions of “management,” each of which involved some type of hierarchy. However, there are differences as to who’s the managing agent, what the thing of management is, and the way the hierarchy is justified.
The verb “to manage” has Latin roots in the word , which comes from (meaning “hand”). Initially, it referred to manually leading the horse. In the sixteenth century, its use moved from an agricultural to a civilian context. During this time, people managed animals, people and even weapons, but all the time through direct physical contact.
Later, a noun referring to negotiation or decision-making processes appeared. This meant a growing distance between the person managing and the managed item. In the 18th century, this idea was further reified. “Management” has come to explain the group of people that run an organization. This use became especially visible in the era of increased urbanization and the commercial revolution.
The fourth period of management, resulting from the Americanization of the concept, consolidated the role of the manager as an efficiency expert. According to the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyremanagers weren’t expected to have moral authority; as an alternative, they were expert technicians focused on converting resources into profits. This evolution forms the idea of the hierarchical relationship between managers and people they manage. Management can happen at any level of the organization and it’s the manager’s knowledge of efficiency that justifies his power and authority. It is assumed that a higher-level manager has more management knowledge than a lower-level manager. Because this performance knowledge could be learned in business schools, individuals can acquire more of it, thus moving up the hierarchical ladder. In this fashion, the social mobility of recent times, where “everyone can become who they want”, is confirmed in the concept of management as a science.
Tensions in contemporary management
However, there are two points of tension in the fashionable understanding of management. The first concerns scientific claims related to management as efficiency expertise. Unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences have did not make law-like generalizations, which undermines the validity of the expertise claimed by modern management. The second issue concerns the democratic nature of management skills that anyone can learn. These skills come from effort and training, not an innate trait. But as management skills became something anyone could learn, the concept of “leadership” emerged to tell apart senior managers from the remaining.
This change began to reverberate in the second half of the twentieth century. In an article published in 1977 Abraham Zaleznik distinguished between managerial and leadership personalities. According to Zaleznik, a manager is neither a genius nor a hero, but hard-working, intelligent, tolerant and analytical. In contrast, a pacesetter is characterised as an excellent, solitary individual in complete control of himself, which supplies him an almost mystical status in managing those that aren’t like them. We argue that this attitude marks the start of the present fifth period.
The way forward for management in the age of AI
Interestingly, the timing of Zaleznik’s evaluation coincides with the event of knowledge technology, especially the emergence of private computers and their increasing use in the workplace. The evolution of human-computer interaction (HCI) towards artificial intelligence (AI) has exacerbated existing tensions. Initially, HCI research focused on improving interface technology. However, it’s now widely accepted that AI devices can understand us higher than we do – often without our knowledge. This ability is helpful when, for instance, AI detects diseases before symptoms appear, nevertheless it raises concerns about freedom of speech and movement.
The problem is that if managerial power is predicated on scientific knowledge and experience, machines may soon surpass humans in these areas. Without changes, this may lead to a dehumanization of management, in which machines will actually be at the highest of the hierarchy. Artificial intelligence, often seen because the holy grail of optimization, has the potential to outshine human managers.
Opposing this transformation requires justifying the role of humans in management with something aside from knowledge about efficiency. Current leadership discourse suggests such a shift by emphasizing virtue over technical skill emphasizing interpersonal relationships. How might this fifth period develop? Will AI systems “manage” objects and processes, as in the primary period, while human managers give attention to “leading” people? Will this transformation in leadership present itself at all levels of the organization, transforming management into leadership at every level? And what would that mean – a celebration of impulsive direction and authority, rejecting due process and rationality? A type of enlightened authoritarianism?
These outcomes are possible, but so is a more humane approach to management that prioritizes well-being, confidence and inclusion in teams and organizations. The direction in which all this can go depends upon us. Ultimately, the longer term of management is more art than science.
