Tag Archives: culture

Why I won’t be using AI anytime soon

Why I won’t be using AI anytime soon

Posted on by • Posted in Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

Every time I log on these days, I’m bombarded with articles about Artificial Intelligence (AI) – whether it is how it is the most wonderful labour saving thing ever (I’d send an avatar to a meeting too if I had the option!)  – to the apocalyptic, with some predicting, Terminator style, in AI wiping out humanity.

While I don’t fall into either category, I’m certainly a sceptic about its uses, particularly some of the most common AI bots that are available (ChatGPT/Meta/Gemini/Grok/Glamdring/Wall-E/Co-Pilot etc). Here’s why:

  • They get things wrong:

If you ask Gemini who Sarah O’Connor is, it will tell you she’s a truck driver who was interviewed for the Financial Times.  In fact she’s a highly regarded FT journalist. While Chat GPT informed me that drug dealer Howard Mark’s autobiography was called “Thy Damnation Slumbereth Not” and even explained to me how he’d arrived at that title. It’s not called that at all.

  • It makes stuff up:

Gemini created a totally fictitious act of parliament (“The Civil Justice Act 2004”). And a barrister nearly got themselves into very hot water with a judge for citing fictitious AI generated case law in court.

  • It can’t do certain things (but pretends it can)

This video from people professional Julie Drybrough, when she asked ChatGPT to help create a presentation for her reveals it be like an over-confident intern  – claiming it can do the job and constantly saying it was doing it, before finally admitting that it was unable to complete the task.

  • It doesn’t know what it doesn’t know

Large Language Learning Models (the basis of AI) has to learn from something. However, despite what we might think, not all human knowledge is on the internet. There are still plenty of books, films and novels that aren’t available and many museum and library archives are not yet digitised, or where access is limited. So, ask a question that it doesn’t know the answer to and it may be honest and admit it doesn’t know – but equally it may revert to point above and just make it up.

  • It comes with a lot of ethical and environmental concerns

Meta AI has been subject to a lot of criticism for using illegal copies of copyright works to train its AI (they are probably unlucky that they got caught since I can’t imagine that the other leading AI providers paid for their sources). If you don’t think that’s a problem, try walking out of Waterstone’s with a book you haven’t paid for, and use the defence of “I wasn’t stealing, I just wanted to read it to learn what it contained”

While the environmental consequences in terms of water use and electricity are only just becoming known – but one stat that stands out is that a Chat GPT query uses ten times the amount of electricity as a standard Google search.

And what does all this mean for managing  people in a business?

Firstly, relying on AI for information on employment law is risky to say the least. Like Wikipedia, it might be correct, but unless you know already you can’t be certain that it’s giving you the right information.

Secondly, AI can’t possibly know the information in a human head. For example, much of my understanding of HR issues comes from nearly 40 years of experience with a variety of industries and sectors. AI cannot possibly replicate what I learned from the Merseybus bus cleaning dispute in 1995 or the competitive tendering process for Leisure Centres in Runcorn in 1990. Or a TUPE transfer I managed between construction companies in 2004. Or how to deal with an employee charged with child abuse, or who one is terminally ill.

Finally, AI doesn’t understand culture. A solution that works in one company context may not be the most effective or appropriate in a different one, for lots of very valid reasons. AI might give you a range of solutions but can’t advise you on which one might be the best.

I’m sure that in 5 or 10 years, some of these issues with AI might be resolved. But until then, if you ask me to support your business with HR issues, you can be certain that you will be getting advice from an actual human, not a bot.

Just out of interest, I got Microsoft’s Co-Pilot AI (which is built into the latest versions of Word/PowerPoint/Excel etc) to rewrite this post for me. You can read what it came up with (minus the hyperlinks) here

bionic hand and human hand finger pointing
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Why I won’t be using AI (Co-Pilot’s version)

Posted on by • Posted in Work Related Posts • Tagged , , • 1 Comment

Title: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Examination

In today’s digital age, the prevalence of articles about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is overwhelming. From claims of AI being the ultimate labor-saving tool (who wouldn’t want to send an avatar to a meeting?) to apocalyptic predictions of AI wiping out humanity in a Terminator-style scenario, the discourse is varied and intense. While I don’t subscribe to either extreme, I am certainly skeptical about its applications, especially the most common AI bots available (ChatGPT, Meta, Gemini, Grok, Glamdring, Wall-E, Co-Pilot, etc.). Here’s why:

1. Inaccuracies and Errors

AI bots often get things wrong. For instance, if you ask Gemini who Sarah O’Connor is, it will tell you she’s a truck driver interviewed for the Financial Times. In reality, she is a highly regarded FT journalist. Similarly, ChatGPT once informed me that drug dealer Howard Marks’ autobiography was titled “Thy Damnation Slumbereth Not” and even explained the reasoning behind the title. This is incorrect.

2. Fabrication of Information

AI can create completely fictitious information. Gemini once generated a non-existent act of parliament (“The Civil Justice Act 2004”). Additionally, a barrister nearly faced serious consequences for citing fictitious AI-generated case law in court.

3. Overconfidence in Capabilities

AI sometimes pretends to be capable of tasks it cannot perform. In a video by people professional Julie Drybrough, ChatGPT was asked to help create a presentation. It claimed it could do the job and repeatedly stated it was working on it, only to finally admit it was unable to complete the task.

4. Limited Knowledge Base

Large Language Learning Models, the foundation of AI, must learn from existing data. However, not all human knowledge is available on the internet. Many books, films, and novels are not digitized, and numerous museum and library archives have limited access. When faced with a question it doesn’t know the answer to, AI may either honestly admit its ignorance or revert to fabricating information.

5. Ethical and Environmental Concerns

AI development raises significant ethical and environmental issues. Meta AI has faced criticism for using illegal copies of copyrighted works to train its models. The environmental impact is also concerning, with a ChatGPT query consuming ten times the electricity of a standard Google search.

Implications for Business Management

Relying on AI for information on employment law is risky. Like Wikipedia, AI might provide correct information, but without prior knowledge, you cannot be certain of its accuracy. AI cannot replicate the nuanced understanding gained from years of experience in various industries, dealing with trade unions, disputes, and complex issues. It also fails to grasp cultural contexts, making it difficult to determine the most effective solutions for different company environments.

While some of these issues with AI may be resolved in the next 5 to 10 years, until then, if you seek support for HR issues, you can be assured that you will receive advice from an actual human, not a bot.

A group of people engaging with a futuristic holographic interface, focusing on digital technology and artificial intelligence concepts.
Rearranging The Desks

Rearranging The Desks

Posted on by • Posted in HR Tips for Business and Charities • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

One of the things that concerns many small businesses in relation to employment law is the issue of constructive dismissal. A perception has grown up around the concept that if a business makes any change that an employee doesn’t like, they can resign and take the company to a tribunal. This perception isn’t helped by stories like this from The Guardian, especially its clickbait headline “Senior staff can sue if given ‘low status’ desk, UK tribunal rules”

Of course, the headline isn’t true and the story is far more complex. But it’s a useful one to look at since it covers a lot of issues that a small business might face when dealing with a change.

Firstly, what is constructive dismissal? It’s the idea that an employer makes a significant detrimental change to an employee’s terms, conditions or position that the employee can consider that they have effectively been dismissed and resign on the spot. It is in many ways the reverse of gross misconduct, which is where an employee does something so serious that the employer considers that dismissal without notice is the appropriate solution.

In some situations, constructive dismissal can be triggered by the ‘final straw’ in a series of changes. That’s in part what happened in this case.

The claimant, a Mr Walker, was a manager of a branch of an estate agents. He was moved without discussion to a smaller branch and given – again without discussion – a revised pay package. To achieve a similar level of salary he would have to hit more demanding targets. A couple of months later, he was required to return to his original branch in what was termed a joint managerial role, but which required him to sit with the majority of staff in the main office rather than at the manager’s desk. He considered this to be a demotion and considered that it would be difficult and embarrassing to have to sit among staff he had formerly managed. When he raised this with his Director, the director dismissed his concerns with a comment that he couldn’t believe someone of Mr Walker’s age would make a fuss about a desk (there was some dispute about whether the Director swore in this conversation). Mr Walker considered this the final straw, and resigned claiming constructive dismissal.

There are three key learning points from this for small businesses:

  • If you are making a change which has a negative impact on someone – even if they are in a senior role – discuss and (where possible) agree the way forward. Don’t just impose it.
  • Consider your company culture. In some businesses, where people sit would not be an issue. But if status is conveyed by office location, type of desk or anything else, taking that away will clearly indicate to people in the organisation that the individual’s status has been downgraded.
  • The Estate Agents had an external HR adviser who gave advice on how to handle the situation. The advice was not necessarily incorrect but was based on partial information (what the Director thought was important for her to know) and as result made the situation worse. Always tell your HR adviser (for my clients that means me ) the full story, even the bits that you don’t think are valid.

Constructive dismissal is actually very rare (in a 40 year HR career I’ve dealt with 2 cases and I don’t think that I am unusual in that). But you can make it rarer still by following the steps above.

A businessman in a suit sitting in an office, looking concerned, with colleagues working at desks in the background.

The Games People Play

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , • 1 Comment

Warning: The following post contains spoilers relating to Season 2 of The Traitors (UK).Don’t read on if you don’t want to know what happens.

Like many people in the UK, I’ve been gripped by reality show The Traitors over recent weeks. For anyone who’s not seen it, the premise is simple – a group of 22 people stay in a castle, with 3 of them secretly nominated as Traitors, the others known as Faithful. Each day a round table discussion, to identify who might be a traitor, is held where the contestant with the most votes is banished. Each night the Traitors can ‘murder’ a contestant who is then eliminated from the game.( If a traitor is identified, the remaining traitors do have the option to recruit a faithful rather than murder). By the final day, if a Traitor remains they take the entire prize pot, if only Faithful remain they share the prize between them.

So what’s that got to do with people management, I hear you ask? Quite a lot, surprisingly. Here are 5 HR lessons from The Traitors

  • You cannot make decisions on ‘gut feel’

Every day, the contestants who were favourites for banishment were ones who people had become suspicious of. It might be that they were too quiet,  too loud, said the wrong thing or just on the first impression they had given others. How may times have you interviewed a job candidate who has been selected or rejected on exactly those criteria? It’s well known that interviews conducted in this way have a hopeless success rate and The Traitors proved that – they found no traitors at the round-table except when another Traitor used their inside knowledge to betray one of their colleagues.

  • Diversity initiatives mean nothing if the underlying culture is still wrong.

The Traitors contestants were possible the most diverse you could find – there were people of all races, sexuality, age and disability. Yet the Traitors themselves became a very male dominated group who (I suspect unconsciously) targeted the women in the group for murder. This came to a head when eventual winner (and traitor) Harry explained that the reason Faithful contestant Diane had been murdered was because she was “getting too clever, so she had to go”. Similarly non-white traitors were set up to be betrayed. Even presenter Claudia Winkleman commented on the ‘boys club’ atmosphere. It shows that changing entrenched attitudes and culture is a lot more difficult that simply a few diversity activities, even if on the face of it they seem to be successful.

  • It’s very difficult to go against charismatic characters.

Traitor Paul was early on voted the ‘most popular’ in the group, and used this position of being liked and respected to his advantage to deflect suspicion onto others. The other contestants put more weight on his views, many refused to entertain the idea that he might be a Traitor, and it empowered him to take calculated risks secure in the knowledge he would not be challenged. How many times in a work environment have you seen people defer to a powerful boss, even when they know the boss is wrong?  Being a charismatic leader is not a good thing if the leader’s intentions are bad.

  • Whistleblowing requires courage

In the same vein, one particular contestant  (Jas) identified two of the traitors relatively early on, but was reluctant to voice his suspicions for fear of potential reprisals. Even at the end, when it was inevitable, he still raised his concerns in a hesitant fashion. It is a worthwhile reminder that despite legal protections, whistleblowers are still often unwilling to go against the group because of the personal consequences, and why HR people should always be supportive.

  • Teamwork works – but only if everyone is working to the same end.

To increase the prize pot, contestants had to undertake “missions” that required them to work together. Being a traitor or faithful did not matter as the common aim was to win as much money as possible. When this worked (particularly in the final challenge) it was a text-book example of how effective teams support each other and work effectively. Where it didn’t (particularly where contestants were able to win themselves individual protection from murder), team members had to balance their own agenda with the group objectives. Often in a work environment we’ll see the same – people pushing individual gain against team targets.

So at the end of the day, The Traitors is a reality show designed for entertainment. But it does provide some useful pointers of how people behave in group situations – just like they do in work.

HR’s Donald Trump moment?

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

There has been a view for many years that the UK is governed by what has been termed the “Good chaps” theory of government – that there are certain unwritten rules and conventions that are understood by all parties and which everyone works within, even if there is profound disagreement on the issue at hand. Some commentators argue that this has disappeared in recent years as certain politicians have wilfully disregarded these understandings in order to gain a particular advantage or objective. (It was also in evidence in the Donald Trump years in the US, where Trump would say or do things that shocked people, not necessarily by their intent or outcome but the fact that he said or did them at all)

The world of work in the UK had a similar Trump type moment yesterday when P&O Ferries announced via Zoom that they were sacking 800 UK crew immediately and intended to replace them with cheaper foreign staff via an agency. Much of the shock and anger from politicians, HR professionals and others was not so much around the decision (other companies in the past have announced far bigger changes or lay-offs) but the fact that they did so in a way in which broke all the unwritten rules of employment relations in the UK. Even if they can legally do something in a particular way, most companies would approach a decision like this with an understanding of how they would be expected to behave.

P&O are not the first company to break these norms – in fact it has always gone on, even in the days when trade unions were stronger. But they are a high profile well-established ‘household’ name and consequently the expectation would be that they would do things ‘properly’.

An example of Donald Trump breaking the political norms by making personal comments about rival John McCain

What P&O have also done is shown how weak UK employment law is in protecting employees from an employer determined to behave in this manner. They will have factored in not only the cost of 800 potential unfair dismissal claims (all of which they are likely to lose) but also the fact that it will take 18 months -2 years before a tribunal hearing takes place (and even then they could refuse to pay, meaning individuals would have to take further legal action to enforce their claims). By which time many  ex-employees will have given up and the news story will have died down.

So what is to be done? More, and/or stronger employment law is the cry from certain sections. But as has been pointed out when there is a call for the UK to have a written constitution to resolve the reliance on ‘good chaps’, this wouldn’t solve all the problems – and would take time to go through parliament.

A better solutions, in my view,  would be for existing laws to be more easily applied – not only by tribunals being made faster and their judgments more easily enforced, but by the use of a properly funded statutory body similar to the Health and Safety Executive) with powers to hold bad employers to account. We already have a pretty impotent “Director of Labour Market Enforcement” within the Civil Service so the basic structure is there.

But also, HR professionals need to stop living in their unitarist utopia and accept that there is a need to recognise that employees often want different outcomes from their employment relationship. And so we need to be more open to negotiation , compromise and the role of trade unions or other employee representatives. That means going back to the ‘good chaps’ theory of employee relations, that there are unwritten rules that we all follow. P&O may be a particularly egregious example but they are in many respects the ‘tip of the iceberg’ for modern HR and business practices.