Zukunft der Arbeit
Stimmen, die prägen, wie Organisationen sich an Automatisierung, hybride Modelle und verändernde Arbeitserwartungen anpassen
Speakers Associates represents 224 speakers on Zukunft der Arbeit, including Zavier Coyne, Thimon de Jong, Rahaf Harfoush, Nilofer Merchant, Russell Beck, Jeremy Blain, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington, Lauren Ducrey und Kayleigh Fazan.
Most organisations have built hybrid operating models without ever deciding which conversations belong on which channel. Email, video, instant message and phone get used by reflex, and the cost shows up in fractured trust, slow decisions and meetings that produce noise rather than alignment. The question is no longer whether to work remotely. It is which medium to use, for what conversation, and what that choice does to performance.
Most executive teams can describe what generative AI is. Far fewer can tell you which specific decisions inside their business should change because of it. The gap between surface-level fluency and operational judgement is where transformation stalls, budgets drift, and boards lose patience.
Most organisations have now invested significantly in digital infrastructure. Most are still not performing like digital organisations. The companies consistently outcompeting established players are not winning on technology budget – they are winning on operating model, decision-making speed, and cultural norms that established businesses have not yet diagnosed, let alone changed. Leaders are under pressure to demonstrate digital transformation outcomes without a clear account of what actually separates digital investment from digital performance.
Most organisations have stress-tested their strategy against geopolitical risk and AI disruption. Few have asked the same question about longevity. The shift to longer lives is already restructuring labour supply, consumer behaviour, healthcare costs, and fiscal policy, simultaneously. Boards that treat demographic change as a background condition, rather than a structural economic force, are calibrating long-term strategy around assumptions that have already been invalidated.
Senior teams know what high performance is supposed to look like on paper. They rarely have the conditions to produce it: psychological safety, honest disagreement, decisions made by the people closest to the work. Leaders inherit cultures that punish openness and then ask why their best people stop contributing.
Most career development inside large organisations has quietly broken down. Employees expect the company to map their growth, the company expects employees to drive their own, and neither side is honest about the gap. The result is disengagement, attrition among the people most worth keeping, and L&D budgets that produce activity but not ownership.
Most planning tools were designed for a world that no longer exists. Strategy cycles built for predictable horizons break down when disruption compounds across technology, geopolitics, and social change at once, producing false confidence rather than genuine foresight. Organisations that cannot distinguish structural change from noise will always be reacting to a future someone else shaped.
Most boards still treat AI, automation and connected mobility as a technology programme. The harder question is what they do to the operating model, the workforce, the customer relationship, and the social contract a company sits inside. Leaders need a way to think about exponential change that is sharper than scenario decks and more useful than another keynote about disruption.
Generative AI is trained on what people have already created, then competes with them using it. Boards now face a question with no settled answer: who owns the human capability a machine has absorbed, and what does the company owe the workforce it displaces? Most AI strategy stops at deployment and ignores the legal and economic claims forming underneath it.
Most diversity programmes have stopped producing measurable change. Budgets stay flat or fall, while the political cost of running them rises. Leaders need someone who can rebuild equity as an operating practice inside talent processes, products, and AI tooling, not as a campaign that lives on the side.
Organisations are deploying AI in hiring, healthcare, and operations before they understand whose assumptions are encoded in those systems. AI bias is not a data problem – it is a design problem, and it traces directly to the homogeneity of the teams building the tools. The second risk is less visible: research shows that humans routinely defer to automated systems in ways that go well beyond the reliability of those systems, including in high-stakes scenarios. Boards that have approved AI adoption have often not reckoned with either problem.
Most large organisations have funded AI programmes and run pilots. Most of those pilots never reach production. The gap is not technical capability. It is the absence of an outcome architecture that connects experimentation to structural change. Meanwhile, boards are approving AI investment without the governance frameworks to manage the risks that sit inside AI agents and automated decision-making systems.