Author: Cecilia Hayes

Transition to Culture by Design, Human Powered, AI Augmented

AI is rapidly becoming a transformational resource. It’s already affecting white collar jobs. In response, organizations would benefit from reconsidering the following:

• Which values still apply?
• Which have become unnecessary (or archaic)?
• Which new ones could be beneficially added?
• Are we best supporting humans in their evolving roles?
• Are explicitly stated cultures and values necessary to succeed in business?

There are many reasons why this needs to be challenged.

It was a business reason and motivation that drove the concept. 

Does a change as transformational as the current use and early adoption of AI into the business warrant a chat around the water cooler or espresso machine? Should companies wait until the dust settles? Is there a perfect time to contemplate how an intentional culture may or may not contribute to success in the new environment?

At a minimum, companies should reflect on their current culture and whether their values conflict with the narrative that efficiency and productivity are the only ways to compete and win.

Recent departures of key talent at AI companies like Anthropic and Meta are indicative of a shift in corporate culture and a change in values, resulting from AI entering the scene. So it is not just the thousands of people being laid off that signal the impact of AI on jobs, it is also the few that these companies might have preferred to retain.

The nature of cultures

Cultures develop by design or by default. Organic cultural foundations happen when founders and entrepreneurs hire like-minded individuals who might share similar values, and have bought into the vision and mission of the endeavor.

The commitments regarding acceptable behaviors that are made at the beginning of the relationship are more often implicit, and the hierarchy establishes the norms amongst team members. The tone is normalized and the dynamic can be smooth when all team members behave in a similar manner.

These initial behaviors might or might not serve the company well over time. Cultures evolve! In 2018 Google removed their famous “don’t be evil” value/tag line.

When the organization grows beyond the circle of internal referrals, hiring individuals who might object to the behaviors, or bring in different and potentially controversial behaviors, the  culture enters a transition period when there is an adjustment, correction, that typically results in a culture palatable to different people, with diverse values and experiences. 

If one of the embedded behaviors is self-awareness, the leadership observes how the culture is changing and intentionally addresses sources of conflict or development of habits that work against the growth and level of harmony, or how much conflict to embrace, in the spirit of innovation and growth. If awareness is not in the repertoire, or conflict aversion is in the foundation, the opportunity to correct course is missed, and the culture deteriorates to the point of dysfunctionality and ultimately poor economic performance. Enron and Theranos are in the extreme of morally corrupt cultures that failed miserably. But there are less extreme examples.

Regardless of the stated core values, what matters most is, can the leadership be trusted to do what they say they will do? It matters less ‘what’ that is – if the leadership indicates that a core value is ‘do no evil’, and they start doing evil, they can’t be trusted. If the message is ‘make as much money for the company as possible, and you’ll be rewarded for upholding that value’ – and they follow through, that’s a trustworthy value. We can judge if the values align with ours or not, and choose to not work for that company. But that is different from judging whether values are truthful and honest. 

When it comes to TRUST, doing what we say we will do is all that matters. 

Enter AI 

AI will impact companies’ cultures in various stages differently and in varying timeframes.

For new companies, entrepreneurs and leaders come with experience, but also in a fund raising environment that has already determined its worth. Many are promising success based on their AI ‘strategy’. Few will deliver, perhaps the same percentage that in the past when a different technology hype came at us with impunity (.com bubble 1995-2000, bust 2000-2002). Or a pandemic! These are the external factors that impact culture. We have limited, if any control over these changes. 

With AI on the scene, CEOs still address culture. 

Two examples worthy of mention in this context:

Reed Hastings, long term Founder and ex-CEO and currently Chairman of the Board at Netflix, has gained fame in his reputation as a cultural leader. Amongst his most famous quotes:

• “Lead with context, not control.” [5, Goodreads]
• “Companies rarely die from moving too fast, and they frequently die from moving too slowly.” [SucceedFeed]
• “At Netflix, we think you have to build a sense of responsibility where people care about the enterprise. Hard work… doesn’t matter as much to us. We care about great work.”
• “You have to be big, fast, and flexible.” [Medium]
• “Most entrepreneurial ideas will sound crazy, stupid and uneconomic, and then they’ll turn out to be right.” [SucceedFeed] 

What would be the behaviors in the organization that these messages might influence? 

Alex Karp, Palintir’s CEO, has made waves in the corporate world, both with his political stance, economic success, and openly anti-WOKE narrative.  These are some of his quotes. 

• “Warrior Culture” & Performance: “We are dedicating the company to the service of the West and the USA,” [as discussed in this Reddit post]. Karp describes his company as “chaos in the best way,” where people move fast and focus on mission over hierarchy, [as mentioned on this Instagram reel].
• Anti-Woke Meritocracy: Karp calls his company “completely anti-woke,” emphasizing that talent and results matter more than ideology. He has described Palantir’s values as “fighting for the right side of what should work in this country — meritocracy, lethal technology,” [as noted in this Business Insider article].
• Value Creation vs. Status Quo: “We get paid on value creation. Everybody in this world is going to get paid on value creation,” as reported by Forbes.
• Corporate Accountability: “Poor people are the only people who pay the price for being wrong in this culture,” Karp said, arguing that executives should absorb the risks of their decisions, [according to this Fox Business article].
• Western Values & Tech: In a letter, he stated that “the rise of the West was not made possible ‘by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion… but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence,'” [as highlighted in this Facebook post]. 

Same question, what behaviors can be expected from the organization that is led with these goals and values?

It would take many more interviews to fact-check the actual impact of the messages from these leaders with regard to culture, core values, and behaviors. The point here is not to define what a good or bad culture is. The point is that employees are buying into these cultures, and the learned behaviors, how they impact the world, don’t stay at work. This has to be a conscious decision.

Early keen awareness of how external factors are impacting our business and professional growth applies. Awareness alone is insufficient. These conversations with the team need to happen now. Not decision-making meetings. Thought provoking discussions that inspire team members to have agency on the outcome, and build an emotional and intellectual individual investment that may result in a shared benefit between the employer and the employee. Organizations will benefit from the inclusion of diverse opinions regarding AI adoption. The topic must be demystified, so that the organization can recognize AI as a resource, or a challenge for the human in each role.

It can’t be left at ‘talk’. The outcome has to be acted upon and with the sense of urgency that applies when the environment is moving as fast as this is moving. Analysis paralysis could kick in, because it’s a complex and complicated challenge.  

Most leaders might choose to ask an AI agent about cultures, values and behaviors. The responses will be based on history, how these concepts have been interpreted in the past. The AI content is expansive, because the opinions and developments regarding cultures have been fully documented by humans. The leaders will still have to make a judgment call, and this is the right time to be innovative and creative, not to copy and paste from the past.

The Opportunity

“The transition to an A.I.-first world may be inevitable, but the path is still being paved with the heavy lifting of the very people being phased out.” Is this what the company wanted? As an example…

Moving too fast through the “transition” period is a mistake, because we are not operating in a business as usual mode.  It is a high expectation given that what’s ‘right’ is up for interpretation. Some executives care a lot, others don’t, but changes in leadership take time and full value alignment is challenging to achieve.

Employers that proactively decide to transform the culture, prevent unintended harm to humans, use AI to enhance performance, feed self-esteem and confidence in all, and build a greater business culture than previously conceived, will demonstrate the way to preserve and build a thriving human workforce. Employees can view this as an opportunity to emphasize the FORCE in the workforce, and insist on the changes that they wish to see enacted in the new environment.

This conversation with employees about AI-given transitions has to start now, along with dedicating adequate dollar budgets and time allocation for training and development, and exercising flexibility on what type of employment relationship makes sense for varied roles. Organizational development and headcount planning can be very different from how it has been done.

These choices can result in economic success AND job satisfaction for all involved.

---

All relationships end.

In the cleanest scenario, as ironic as it might be, the relationship ends with a death. Closure is irrefutable, and the grieving process is filled with humanity and compassion from others.

The loss of a job is much muddier, and we can hide behind the adage of ‘it’s not personal, it’s business.’ But what is more personal if not the loss of livelihood? It removes our ability to provide for our families; it brings the shame and embarrassment that comes from being the one let go, and not others.

When I quit a job and gave one month’s notice, as is typical for an executive role, and was walked out rudely and unnecessarily, I felt a tinge of what being fired or laid off might feel like. It felt like a stomach flu and regular flu at the same time, sadness, anger and confusion. What did I do wrong? The reflection came much later, and I came to understand that the employer’s reaction only reflected the quality of  the relationship we had while I was employed, or the lack thereof, and the trust that wasn’t at the level I thought. My bad. But also, theirs?

Separating amicably is both an art and a science.

The science part is about business economics and process management, and the art is about relating as human beings even while we are separating. A smooth parting of ways is possible, even under the worst of circumstances. This is where corporate culture, as experienced by the employees, makes a difference. Connecting as humans in the process has always been challenging, and labor laws give all corporations pause when it comes to messaging –what language should be used to explain ‘why’ the separation is happening. It’s complicated.

After sitting for decades at the table where these life altering decisions have been made, the experience hasn’t changed much. Leadership teams struggle with their decisions and positions depending on how they view people in the equation. Are we resources? Team members? Collaborators? Contributors? Commodities? Perhaps we saw and understood these attitudes and beliefs during the good times, but there is no other time when we experience the true colors more than when the ship is going down, or as we have seen recently, when the data shows that companies don’t need, or won’t need, the same number of people currently in their payroll. 

Separation as Strategy: How Thoughtful Exits Drive Human Leverage

Whether we call it a layoff, restructuring, efficiency measures, or whatever, the emotional impact on the individual losing their job is the same. They were rejected. Dumped. Hurt. In some cases, careers are negatively impacted. And the tendency, due to cultural values, is to believe that more money, or less money if you are paying, is the goal, the answer, to what will make the problem go away quickly. When the communication and the process are mismanaged by the company, not only can it be more costly, but it can destroy any semblance of trust and loyalty that might have built with the workforce. The employee carries this sentiment to the next job, starting it with suspicions about the new employer and their intentions.

‘Employees are our greatest asset’ seems like an antiquated or today, an insincere tag line many companies continue to include in their stated core values. When a company does not act on this value, all its stated values may bequestioned. Are customers first? Are Vendors partners? etc. These stated values might live on websites and employee handbooks, but in practice, does leadership live these values, especially when employees are told they are no longer employed, that effective today they are terminated? Apt messaging after a termination decision could and should reinforce these values, rather than contradict them. 

When very successful companies, based on market valuation, profitability and growth projections, lay off workers because efficiency, competition, and productivity can be achieved by AI,, this decision can be the most challenging to accept, the most painful, and the most confusing. In an M&A transaction, it is common to have redundancies in roles. It still hurts, but at some rational level this might be understood by the employee.

Handling these layoffs unskillfully has the real potential to damage the fabric of our society. To prevent this, we need skillful communication, with empathy, listening skills, patience, sympathy, negotiation skills, diligent follow up, and even love for our fellow human being can throughout the process. For an employee, separating from an employer involves a grieving process. To come through that process with one’s dignity intact requires support from the employer and/or from the wider community. 

As with the death of a loved one, nobody can jump to acceptance without going through the process of grieving. Moreover, nobody can do this alone. Employers have the responsibility, the duty, to support employees through this process. Those who fail to do so risk damaging the morale of the employees who have kept their jobs (this time). It can devastate the post-layoff company culture.  

Elevating Transitions: A Human First Framework for Separation.

The time to review the off-boarding process and how decisions are made and communicated is now.

Managing the Process:

1. Timing. Although there is no good timing, companies can make it worse by having a layoff right before a holiday. When the reason for the layoff is financial – the company’s revenues have been declining, not profitable, running out of money – it makes a difference and payroll for others is at risk, if you have to pay for holiday time. But when the action is due to efficiency predicted (time will tell), why not pay for the holidays and make the effective date later? The amount of money is less relevant than the gesture.
   • Spend time with people. Listen to their feelings. This is time invested in the reputation for the future of the organization.
   • Do not rush. The emotional process varies by individual. Take the cues from those laid off.  Some will emote longer than others.
   • Never on a Friday or before the end of the month.
2. Communication. Tell it like it is. Express empathy for those affected. Avoid making it sound like it’s a ‘good move’ for anyone. It is not. Save the positive vision for later, for those who remain employed. Reducing the communication to a mass email to all being laid off is not just insufficient, it’s ignoring the individual impact – that varies widely depending on personal circumstances. Chronic illnesses, college tuitions, mortgages, pregnancies and disabilities, for example, could all be dependent on one person’s employment. Yes, it is a lot more work on the part of the company, but the individual touch speaks to the character of the leadership and the ‘people’ culture invoked. 
3. Organization. Have all needed documentation and information ready and easily accessible. Leading people to a website is convenient, but also transactional. There is upside to handing out a paper version if the layoff is done in person. Something easy to refer to. EDD Unemployment links, Cobra for benefits, summary of last paycheck, etc. Make this EASY for those leaving. For remote employees, offer Office Hours when they can ask questions.
4. Outsource Support. IF the reason for the layoff has to do with AI efficiencies, conducting a workshop on AI resources available, help with resumes, a list of companies hiring, and how to process the change – use HR to lead and facilitate multiple sessions, individual and for groups, all help laid off individuals and differentiates great companies from others. Train laid off employees on how to use AI in their search. HR can organize support group opportunities, like coffee gatherings, to maintain the ‘connection’. This builds good will with retained employees as well.
5. Exit. IF the company trusted the employee the previous week to not be violent, to not steal, to not want to hurt others in any way, to behave professionally and decently, why not trust them the day of the layoff? This is about measured risk taking, and if the leadership knows the team members and can predict their behavior, why not treat them like law abiding employees and spend time, one last time, to part amicably? 

In turn, employees should respect the company’s policies, including returning company property (laptops, cell phones, etc.). 

Food for Thought

In the recent article The Agent in the Backpack, we addressed how employees can determine their value in relation to how they can use AI. It is becoming increasingly more important and critical, to intentionally reflect on what we each bring to the table for a new employer, or when becoming self-employed. There is a new vocabulary and to engage in the new relationship, we have to speak the same language.