This is not just an issue for the NFL or other sports leagues. This is the reality in EVERY workplace. People ask all the time why no one talks about mental health at work, even when you have programs designed to support your employees. This is why. It’s the way everyone else in the workplace looks at them, talks to them, avoids them, and treats them differently than they did before they said anything.
So I ask again: why are we listening to the people who have the most to gain by getting everyone to buy AI tools, instead of making our own decisions about how quickly we should move forward with AI? Governance exists to slow things down – forcing people to think before they run off and do something disastrous.
Should we design better governance to address rapidly changing technology? Absolutely. Should we let Big Tech determine how we redesign it? I don’t think so.
Having a good backup strategy involves being slightly paranoid. What are the risks? What happens if…? You need to look at the worst-case scenarios and consider if there’s a copy of your important data that would still exist if it happened. It’s not a fun exercise, and if you suffer from anxiety, it can be a bit exhausting to invite that in, but in this case, it could save you from a data disaster.
Here’s the interesting thing. When workplaces have made people ill, we’ve done little to hold them accountable. We have done some things, though. (Asbestos lawsuits, for example.) It hasn’t amounted to much in the broader context, but we do acknowledge that working in an environment that causes health issues is generally frowned upon. We have not reached that point with mental health. We’ve not started thinking about the poor health outcomes for people pushed to the brink and beyond by their managers.
We should, and businesses should be leading the charge, because this is costing them a ton in health insurance premiums.
Honestly, I think we all know where this is coming from, and it’s gross. It’s also harmful to your business. You don’t recruit and retain the most talented employees by limiting your choices. You have to expand the choices to attract a wider range of people. It’s common sense and basic math. When you decide to deprioritize the career development of the women who work in your organization, you limit your choices and take some very talented, driven people out of the equation.
I can see why publicly proclaiming that you’re being innovative with new technology to reduce your headcount is a better alternative to admitting your firm isn’t doing well or to publicly blaming US policy. It might not be the whole truth, though. Usually, when there are large layoffs, the truth is a questionable idea anyway. AI just created another way to stretch it. In this case, Baker McKenzie may see a path in which new technology reduces the need for 10% of its staff. They may also be using that excuse to cover up failure, too.
Either way, 700 people are out of a job, and it’s become so routine that I fear it no longer raises an eyebrow. That’s the truly scary part.