It was a highly stimulating, rich discussion. Below are slivers of the discussion organized around just two of the major themes of the conversation, focusing on my thoughts but also including insights from the other panelists (distorted through my memory and perception): 

Beyond productivity

Productivity should not be the goal; productivity is a flawed concept that only measures efficiency of tasks and output, not value created. Productivity metrics work well for machines and repetitive tasks but not for knowledge work where goals are less defined. Value often comes from not being busy, by wandering, doing things that seem to have no bearing on work, and coming across different ideas, having conversations. This is not usually achieved by sitting in front of computers at your desk. 

Productivity is based on metrics, so what should companies measure? The only truly useful measures are higher-order objectives such as customer satisfaction, customer happiness, employee personal growth, creativity, and so on. Any lower-level focus on tasks completed will be gamed and is close to meaningless in driving real value creation.

For knowledge workers productivity is only really meaningful over longer periods such as years or possibly months. This means that all exploration and learning along the way has time to flourish and bring unexpected benefits, people have the space they need to flourish, grow, reimagine, and find new pathways. Measuring productivity in short time frames necessarily quashes the ability to develop, grow, and create true value.

The organizations that will prosper in these increasingly wonderful, extraordinary, wild times are the ones that focused on the biggest possible picture of making people happier and better and more fulfilled. If they do, productive outcomes will flow richly.

Amplifying human potential

The starting point is believing in human potential. The question has to be: “who can we be?” Organizations need to move beyond the boxes of job roles and definitions to completely fluid work in which people can apply their talents – recognized and latent – in a multitude of ways. The organizations that enable people’s potential to emerge are the ones that will succeed in the years to come.

Growth has become for some a dirty word, but that’s only if you are focusing on growing revenue and profits to the exclusion of all else. We need to also frame it as the growth of humans and organizations to become who and what they can be. In a word, moving towards their positive potential.    

Growth is a mutual endeavor, an alliance between individuals and organizations. Companies need to shape work for employees to grow as a person in every possible dimension, emotionally, as well as in skills that they can sell in the talent marketplace. Employees should enable organizations to grow, to be more flexible and adaptable, maturing to engaging emotionally with the world and perceiving bigger, more important objectives for what the organization could be. 

Diversity is essential for creativity and learning, Organizations need to increase their “absorptive capacity” for different ideas and perspectives, and manage the “creative abrasion” that comes from this. Psychologically safe environments allow failure to lead to learning and growth, for both the individual and the organization. 

Photo: Amelia Loye

I believe that is perhaps the single most important question we face. If we understand that we can redesign work, focus on developing our unique capabilities, and best complement ourselves with machines.

In 2016 as part of my Humans in the Future of Work diagram I framed these as Expertise, Creativity and Relationships, and every way they can be combined.

With the leap in capabilities of generative AI, it is time for me to come back to rethink and reconsider this framing.

I’d love to get your thoughts as I rework this.

Of course any framework is a simplification, and perhaps a next iteration of this should be more nuanced, though it needs to start with the highest-order concepts.

What I meant by Expertise is a deep understanding of a domain, having the fullest context and richest mental models to best direct action and predict outcomes. Despite the surprising leap in AI abilities at pretending expertise, I believe this will remain a distinctive human capability. However perhaps the concept or language needs to be made more precise to distinguish what humans excel at.

Machines can now demonstrate Creativity to the degree that we can say it is no longer a uniquely human domain. We can argue about the nature and value of machine creativity, but it creates, it is literally generative.

I went to a youth art exhibition on Sunday, and was staggered at not just the talent, but the depth of emotion and even wisdom reflected in the works. There is creativity based on feeling and there is ersatz creativity. We will always value artists, and we will always value human creativity.

Yet there is something more specific in the distinction between machine and human creativity that I want to define.

Relationships are more obviously still a distinctive human ability. It is true that machines can evoke emotion, display apparent affect, and give a sense of companionship. There is no question that an increasing number of people will fall in love with AI and robots. Yet only humans can truly empathize with others, which gives the immense power of inspiration.

In Thriving on Overload I pointed to Synthesis as the “ultimate human capability”. I stand by that as a key element, and will share more on that soon.

Another reframing of Creativity is Innovation, which could be seen as including the creation of new technologies. Perhaps not unique to humans, but still highly distinctive.

In my Mapping Intelligence framework I identified 6 dimensions to intelligence across humans and machines: Goal orientation, Problem solving, Sense making, Freedom, Learning, and Adaptation. From these Sense making and Freedom are the most obviously distinctively human.

What I have been thinking the most about lately is Intent. Humans are the only ones who have intentions, and machines should only enact those intentions. If they have intentions and they are not fully aligned with ours, then we have a  problem. 

There are other dimensions I am exploring, these are just top-of-mind thoughts for now. Please let me know any input you have! 

Image: Zoltan Tasi

Melbourne, Australia, March 27, 2023

I find I am frequently asked where all the female futurists are. The discussion on why the profession of futurist appears to be so male-dominated has grown in recent years.

I know many outstanding female futurists, so whenever I am asked I point to a range of exceptional futurists to show that there are indeed many women in the field. However it is true that many are not as well known as they should be.

As such I thought it would be useful to compile a list of the world’s top female futurists, for those who are looking for diversity in their insights into the future. The following list provides a brief profile of 178 fabulous female futurists [up from 78 in the original list of September 2015, 143 in the update of November 2015, 158 in January 2018, 167 in February 2017, and 178 in the 2018 revision].

It is tricky defining a futurist, so while we have largely selected those who describe themselves as working in this space, we have also included others whose work is largely that of exploring the future.

We have limited this list to those who have a significant profile and impact, but I’m sure we have missed some who should be included. If you would like to suggest other prominent female futurists we should consider for updates to this list, please complete the form at the end of this page.

Summary list