What is the future of work?

I am honestly beginning to develop a love-hate relationship with the phrase “future of work” after nearly a decade in this space. In many ways the pursuit of this phrase reminds me of an episode from, Better off Ted called, Jabberwocky. It’s a hilarious episode that shows how quickly with the right buzz, excitement and build up of the unknown, a fake project to help solve climate concerns takes off at a company. The main character out of desperation to impress his boss convinces everyone he has a secret project that will help make the company’s products more green. Even though it's all just talk with no real substantial idea, the main character Ted, is invited to take part in a big sales meeting to launch the idea. The episode ends as,

“Ted steps out on stage in front of 2,000 people and...completely dazzles everybody with a bombastic slideshow containing music, flashing lights and a dance routine performed by himself and Veronica! The entire division steps out of the auditorium, bursting with excitement for Jabberwocky. That they weren't told what the project does never crosses anybody's mind.”1?

I see a lot of similarities with much of the future of work dialogue as I do with Jabberwocky. Jabberwocky worked because it promised to solve a very real and pressing problem - climate change. The narrative was easy to get behind because it was going to make the company and world a better place. Jabberwocky also worked because it was filled with intrigue. No one quite knew what it was or how it worked, but everyone wanted to be associated with it as it was the next big idea. Sounds familiar to the future of work dialogue, no??

The reason I am writing this article is I recently saw a comment on LinkedIn that questioned the credibility of the future of work space and asked when would we know if we actually arrived at this supposed future state of work. A couple other C-suite leaders jumped in and added eye-rolling emojis, confirming that many of them saw it as nothing more than headlines and another Jabberwocky type presentation for sales meetings.?

The problem is understanding the future of work is not equivalent to Jabberwocky. It’s a very real, philosophical dialogue around the inherent purpose of business in society, creating new models of work that enable greater flexibility for both companies and people, embracing a globalized talent market, solving for deep systematic inequalities in the workforce and rethinking what it means to lead in the 21st century. To tackle these concerns, the future of work involves a deeper inquiry into business history, re-examining the assumptions that underpin our behavior in organizations and ultimately re-rethink the models and systems that worked in the past. The future of work actually starts by investigating our history of work and upending the narratives from the past that no longer serve us well today.?

Let me illustrate one example of a theory that may no longer serve us well in the future of work.

My sense is that many people working in organizations today may not be familiar with agency theory and how it guides almost every public company’s organizational design and leadership decision-making. It became mainstream in the late 1970’s due to the theory put forward by two University of Rochester professors. Note, I emphasize theory as the authors never intended to put forward a business law, but simply a theory to explain decision-making within firms. It was meant to be questioned, examined and refined. The problem, as you will see with most management theories, is that they never go through the same skepticism in the literature like other fields such as medicine or law. And so here we are in 2023 and still operating our organizations as if these ideas from 1976 were sources of truth rather than potentially flawed theories that don’t serve us well - especially in light of technology advances, such as generative AI. So, what exactly is agency theory?

Agency theory describes managers as agents and shareholders as principals. The theory argues that the value of a firm cannot be maximized if appropriate incentives or adequate monitoring are not effective enough to restrain firm managers from using their own discretion to maximize their own benefits.2?

In layman terms, agency theory believes people are only self-interested in their decision-making and mostly negligent when it comes to their motivation to work. And so today’s organizations and policies are largely designed on the philosophical idea that people are inherently lazy and cannot be trusted to work in the interest of shareholders. We relied on administrative process (i.e. carrots and sticks) and management (i.e. adequate monitoring) to help solve this problem. The entire premise of MBA education is to plan, administer and control resources in order to maximize shareholder returns. Traditional talent management was then birthed with this same mindset. The underlying purpose of most talent systems - though you won’t find this on any HR motivational poster - is to use incentives and management to alleviate people’s self-interest at work. Many of us may not realize that many of the symptoms we experience in organizational life are a direct result from the inherent distrust that the system design is built from.?

And so I would argue the future of work is about upending this theory as a starting point for organizational design and suggest that people’s decision-making are multifaceted and complex. Individuals don’t only adhere to self-serving interests, but can also be remarkably generous, creative and compassionate within their organization. The future of work is about reframing how people make decisions in regards to their interest and make room for the alternative that we are also wired for belonging and connection and make decisions based on this need as well. As a result, I’d argue that self-interest does not only have to be curbed through individualistic performance management systems and micromanaging, but can also be crowded out through team-based initiatives and rewards, skills development and learning programs and a compelling shared purpose that transcends self-interest.?

The future of work must not simply admire the problem, which is that work is broken today. We all know and deeply feel the problem of outdated working models, managers who believe their job is to monitor the work of others, and the soul-crushing experience of many organization’s performance management systems. What the future of work needs to do is to paint the reality of a different way to do work. It needs to create new assumptions around people at work and then redesign our ways of operating. It needs to move beyond the Jabberwocky headlines and ask really hard questions of ourselves and our leaders. To do so requires deeper examination of our hidden assumptions and position new theories that make work actually work in the future. This requires patience and deep thinking rather than quick-fixes that simply overlay a new process on an outdated paradigm of work.?

Figure 1: What the future of work is and isn't

So, what would a future of work look like if we no longer relied on agency theory to guide the structure and management style of organizations? What is the new theory of how people behave and make decisions on behalf of shareholders and the company that leads us to a more collaborative and sustainable future of work??

Let me know your thoughts not just on the Jabberwocky episode, but on the realities facing us as we chart a deeper narrative and dialogue for the future of work. It won’t be for the faint of heart!?

About the Author

Dr. Kelly Monahan is a Managing Director at Upwork's Research Institute, leading their future of work research program. Her research has been recognized and published in both applied and academic journals, including MIT Sloan Management Review and Journal of Strategic Management. In 2018, Kelly released her first book, How behavioral economics influences management decision-making: A new paradigm (Academic Press/Elsevier Publishers). In 2019 Kelly gave her first TedX talk on the future of work. Dr. Monahan is frequently quoted in the media on talent decision-making and the future of work. She also has written over a dozen publications and is a sought-after speaker on how to apply new management and talent models in knowledge based organizations. Kelly holds a B.S. from Rochester Institute of Technology, M.S. from Roberts Wesleyan College and Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership.

1 https://betteroffted.fandom.com/wiki/Jabberwocky

2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/agency-theory?