Futuro del lavoro speakers
Voci che plasmano come le organizzazioni si adattano all’automazione, ai modelli ibridi e alle mutevoli aspettative lavorative
Speakers Associates represents 224 speakers on Futuro del lavoro, including Zavier Coyne, Thimon de Jong, Rahaf Harfoush, Nilofer Merchant, Russell Beck, Jeremy Blain, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington, Lauren Ducrey, e Kayleigh Fazan.
Younger consumers and workers no longer accept the trade-offs older marketing playbooks were built on. They expect brands to take a position, deliver on it, and prove it in the product, not in a campaign. Most commercial and brand teams are still reaching them with research that is one cohort behind the cultural reality.
Hybrid work and generative AI have arrived faster than the operating habits of most teams. Leaders are watching productivity tools multiply while collaboration, creativity, and trust quietly erode. The hard question is not which technology to adopt, but how to redesign the daily practice of teams so that adaptability becomes a built-in capability rather than a slogan.
Boards have approved AI strategies and run pilots. Few have moved beyond them into operating advantage. Most leadership teams still cannot answer a basic question: which decisions, processes, and roles should an AI agent now own, and how do we govern that shift without breaking the business?
Burnout has become a workforce productivity problem, not a wellness problem. Engagement programmes, resilience training, and hybrid policies have multiplied, yet attrition, presenteeism, and disengagement still cost organisations billions a year. Leaders need workplace wellbeing treated as a clinical and operational discipline, not a perks budget.
Employees are told AI will augment them, and quietly conclude it will replace them. The doubt surfaces as disengagement: quieter meetings, and less of the judgement that made people worth hiring in the first place. Most AI rollouts hand a workforce new tools without giving anyone language for what remains theirs.
Most organisations evaluating AI can assess technical performance. Few can assess what AI systems do to decision-making structures and accountability lines once deployed. That gap, between what AI promises and what it changes about how organisations operate, is where governance risk accumulates before it becomes visible.
Most leadership teams are running organisations where Gen Z is now the largest cohort entering the workforce, and the assumptions baked into their culture, policies, and management norms were written for a different generation. The data they have on this group is filtered through marketing research, not lived experience, and it shows up as turnover, disengagement, and a widening gap between what executives think young employees want and what those employees actually do. Closing that gap is no longer an HR project; it is a retention and credibility problem at the top of the house.
Most large organisations are drowning in their own processes. Meetings, reports, approvals and rules accumulate faster than anyone removes them, and the cost is not just time, it is the disappearance of space to think, decide and innovate. Leaders keep adding initiatives on top of a system that is already saturated, then wonder why nothing moves.
Most organisations have run out of patience with culture work that does not change anything. Engagement surveys plateau, hybrid policies are contested, and five generations now sit on the same teams with conflicting expectations about trust, communication and what work is actually for. The cost of getting this wrong shows up in attrition, manager burnout and quietly stalled change programmes.
Most companies have spent a decade publishing diversity statements without moving the numbers on women in senior leadership. The gap between policy and outcome is now a board-level credibility problem. The harder question is what disciplined, measurable inclusion practice looks like when public commitments alone have stopped persuading employees, investors, or regulators.
Most HR functions were designed for a workforce that no longer exists. Annual appraisals, competency frameworks and compliance-led processes keep running while engagement falls and the best people leave. The tension is that leaders know the operating model is outdated, but the cost and risk of redesigning it from inside the function is precisely what stalls the work.
Hybrid working has settled into an awkward truce, and most operating models still reflect 2019. Boards want productivity, fairness and retention at once, and the workforce has changed underneath them, with longer careers, blurred role boundaries and higher expectations of how work fits a life. The question is no longer whether to redesign work, but how to do it without breaking the business in the process.