I'm glad none of the employers there were heartless businessmen only looking at the bottom line, but when this get released into the public, it will inevitably fall into the hands of those types.
I think it is a good tool if it is used as it was above but it also doesn't measure interactions between employees like let's say if your best performer was good friends with your worst performer, getting rid of the worst performer would theoretically hurt the performance of the top performer.
I saw a post earlier about how modern businesses are taking on a more reductionist philosophy moving forward, like how mcdonald's is experimenting with digital human-less ordering systems, and how more manufacturing jobs are getting replaced by machines. Now I see this... the thing on my mind is where does it end? I know a big part of running a business is reducing unnecessary costs but if every business eliminates all employees there will be nobody with money to buy their products.
I feel that for the modern employee it will soon be a race to the bottom for them; who can put out the most work at the lowest cost.
You're absolutely right! I just came back from a conference a few weeks back in San Francisco where the theme was Artificial Intelligence and Automation...and the impacts to the workforce.
The net takeaway from the conference was that more and more repetitive jobs will likely be automated in the not so distant future, but that the non-repetitive labor, will not go away...so it just means that the market will have to adjust their skillset for what the industry needs.
They also said that productivity needs to increase if we are going to keep up with the demand needed to maintain constant growth. So it's not necessarily that we need more people with skills, it's that we need to figure out how we become more productive with the skilled folks that we have already.
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply...great context.
-JackThaR1ppir