Avenir du travail speakers
Des voix qui façonnent l’adaptation des organisations à l’automatisation, aux modèles hybrides et aux nouvelles attentes du travail
Speakers Associates represents 224 speakers on Avenir du travail, including Zavier Coyne, Thimon de Jong, Rahaf Harfoush, Nilofer Merchant, Russell Beck, Jeremy Blain, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington, Lauren Ducrey, et Kayleigh Fazan.
HR is still organised around managing employees. The question business leaders are now asking is whether the function delivers value to customers, investors, and communities as well. The four domains that produce that answer, talent, leadership, organisation, and the HR function, are still run as separate agendas in most organisations.
Leadership teams are typically drawn from the mobile, credential-holding minority, and they design organisations in their own image. The workforce, consumer base, and voting public include a larger, more rooted majority with different values and a different relationship to change. Organisations that misread this divide face growing friction in talent retention, public trust, and political risk.
Most boards are setting AI strategy from briefings that are already out of date. The pace of frontier development now exceeds the speed at which incumbent organisations can absorb it. Telling which shifts genuinely change the operating model from those that do not has become a core test of senior leadership.
Female founders raise less than two pence of every venture pound deployed in the UK, and most growth-stage businesses still treat that gap as a marketing problem rather than a capital one. Boards that want to act find they have neither the operator language nor the investor network to move money differently. The question is no longer whether to back women, but how to redesign the pipeline that decides who gets funded.
Most technology products fail not because the technology stops working, but because people won’t use them. Organisations pour investment into building capability and almost nothing into understanding adoption. The psychology of why users reject genuinely useful innovations is a problem most corporate innovation teams are not equipped to see – let alone solve.
Boards know AI will reshape their operating model. They do not yet know how to make defensible decisions about deployment, workforce displacement and public legitimacy at the same time. The leaders who launched the current AI systems are now the ones warning about where they lead, and the gap between corporate ambition and public trust is widening faster than governance can close it.
Employee engagement scores have flatlined while turnover and disengagement costs keep rising. Most culture programmes still rely on annual pulse surveys and inspirational language, neither of which tells a board what to fix or whether a culture investment paid back. The gap is measurement: an instrument that turns wellbeing and engagement into numbers a CFO will defend and an HR team can act on.
Most boards now own an AI strategy on paper. Very few can describe the governance, the deployment route, or the human-machine boundary their organisation will actually operate against once the pilots end. The harder question is not whether to invest, but how to make defensible decisions about autonomy, accountability, and workforce design when the technology is moving faster than the policy around it.
Most enterprises have bought into generative AI in principle and stalled in practice. Pilots multiply, demos impress, but very few make the jump to operating on proprietary data inside real workflows. The hard question for boards is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how to make it useful at scale without losing control of accessibility, governance and the workforce alongside it.
Generative AI has moved faster than most operating models can absorb. Boards approve pilots, then stall on how to make the technology work inside real processes, real teams and real customer experiences. The gap between technology curiosity and operating capability is where transformation programmes lose momentum.
Employees are arriving at work already exhausted by their relationship with technology, then asked to absorb AI on top of it. Attention is fragmented, identity is leaking into datasets, and the human costs of always-on connection are showing up in engagement scores and mental health budgets. Leaders are running wellbeing programmes that do not touch the actual mechanism causing the harm.
Most inclusion work in firms is built on good intentions and weak evidence. Leaders spend heavily on training, charters, and targets, then cannot show which actions moved hiring, promotion, or retention. The gap between stated commitment and measurable progression is where credibility, talent, and money quietly leak away.