Slashdot Mirror
Even the CEO's Job Is Susceptible To Automation, McKinsey Report Says (networkworld.com)
colinneagle sends word that according to a new report it's not just blue collar workers who need to be concerned about being replaced with a robot, top execs should be worried too. According to Network World: "Global management consultants McKinsey and Company said in a recent report that many of the tasks that a CEO performs could be taken over by machines. Those redundant tasks include 'analyzing reports and data to inform operational decisions; preparing staff assignments; and reviewing status reports,' the report says. This potential for automation in the executive suite is in contrast to 'lower-wage occupations such as home health aides, landscapers, and maintenance workers,' the report says. Those jobs aren't as suitable for automation, according to the report. The technology has not advanced enough."
The actual non-clickbait article http://www.mckinsey.com/Insigh... says: "For example, we estimate that activities consuming more than 20 percent of a CEO’s working time could be automated using current technologies."
That's called a tool, rather than a threat to a CEO's job.
Seeking to manage synergy through actionable enterprise wide initiatives with all shareholders in the loop. This will drive market capitalization through our managed shareholder proxy model and improved salesforce engagement pilots. Customer satisfaction is a priority and therefore will be a prime driver of profit margin in the upcoming quarter. We expect to take a one-time write down of fiduciary costs related to acquisitions and duly reported on form X-11.
(include ginormous "forward looking statement" boilerplate here)
Actually, given our current crop of sociopathic CEOs, the humanity would actually probably be higher.
Yes, automation can wipe out most jobs in manufacturing, production, computers, law, medicine, etc, etc. So it's time to start thinking about how we will obtain the necessities (and niceties) of life. We will be a fabulously productive and rich country but all the money will go to the top, the owners of the automation companies. So now it's about the post-scarcity society perhaps as illustrated in Star Trek. But for real, Finland is now working on the idea of a national guaranteed income. This may upset the puritan types who think that hard work is somehow connected to morality. You know, dancing is sinful because it's too much fun.
So yes, this means taking money from the extremely wealthy and providing an income and services to those who are not. Is this socialism? No, not the Marxist version anyway because that means the ownership of the means of production by the state. But this definitely is redistribution of wealth, just as has been done by every nation on the face of the earth in all of recorded time.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
One of the last vestiges of the Old Boys Network is company boards, where even after making a wreck of the world economy and a few decades of screaming for reform has yield squat: the SEC prosecutes with a velvet glove and shareholders are either scheming themselves or left wondering what the next golden parachute will do to the stock price. It's easy to make 4000% more than the underlings when all your CEO friends sit on other corporate boards as well.
No one sane believes that most CEOs are worth what they are paid, and their performance has proven that mostly correct. Shareholders can't even make inroads at disciplining executive pay, so I sincerely doubt most executives are at risk of losing their jobs.
What I can see is maybe automation playing the role of the 8 year old adviser, correcting the most egregious fuckups that come down the pike (which will be a vast improvement) but short of armed revolt the moneyed class will not go quietly into the night.
My father has long worked in a variety of CEO and president roles for different large companies, on the very fields that this software is designed to optimize. My thoughts?
1) This is nothing new. It's called operations research/operations management, and it's been around for a long time.
2) Except for in perhaps small companies, CEOs don't do this themselves. They direct the team of experts that manage the system.
3) The systems don't run themselves. They require significant setup, maintenance, and ongoing improvement. In particular the ever-changing data streams that can play a role need to be worked into the model. And they're often based on very complex issues that require specialist understanding.
These are tools that help you make the right decision. They're not people. People are the ones who run the tools.
The yellowcake is a lie.
CEOs operating for the long term good of their corporation instead of pumping their stock short term to get a stock option payout would be a marked improvement.
This will only happen when they can make robots powered by cocaine.
ralphbarbagallo.com
Imagine that if the source code for CEO were available for the SCC, FTC, etc. to examine, it would be glaringly obvious what kinds of unethical behaviors were being programmed in. Well, at least there'd be more of a market for Obfuscated C programmers...