Are managers at risk in an AI-driven future?

Business leaders are increasingly worried about AI’s disruptive effects on the future of work. Many workers fear job losses, but their anxiety also stems from the idea of AI making decisions about their work. Should we worry about a future with robot-managers? And are managers themselves at risk of losing their jobs?

The short answer is no. But this doesn’t mean the status quo will remain unchanged. The rise of AI is reshaping our expectations of management. Some suggest this could lead to a more human-focused approach in work relationships and a shift toward collective interests.

Our research into the history of management explains why it is possible that AI-enhanced management needs people-managers more than resource-managers. It seems that more AI in management requires fewer hard skills from decision-makers but more soft skills. It is likely we will distinguish less between managers and leaders. With AI, the top priority for anyone in a management position becomes making others feel like they belong, facilitating interactions and enabling followers to succeed. Our findings even suggest that the future of management has already begun.

The evolution of management

The concept of “management” has evolved significantly over time. Using historical texts, we traced five distinct periods of how “managing” has been perceived, each involving some form of hierarchy. But there are differences as to who the managing agent is, what the object of management is and how the hierarchy is justified.

The verb “to manage” has Latin origins in the word manidiare, which derives from manus (meaning “hand”). Initially, it referred to leading a horse by hand. In the 16th century, its use shifted from a farming context to a civilian one. During this time, people managed animals, persons and even weapons, but always through direct physical contact.

In a subsequent period, the noun management emerged, referring to negotiation or decision-making processes. This marked a growing distance between the person who manages and the object being managed. By the 18th century, the concept underwent further reification. “Management” began to describe the group of people who govern an organization. This usage became particularly prominent during the era of increased urbanization and the Industrial Revolution.

The fourth period of management, stemming from an Americanization of the concept, cemented the manager’s role as an expert in efficiency. According to philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, managers were not expected to have moral authority; instead, they were skilled technicians focused on turning resources into profits. This evolution provides the foundation for the hierarchical relationship between managers and those they manage. Management can occur at any level within an organization, and it is the manager’s expertise in efficiency that justifies their authority and power. A higher-level manager is presumed to possess more expertise in managing than a lower-level one. Since this efficiency expertise can be learned in business schools, individuals can gain more of it, thereby advancing up the hierarchical ladder. In this way, the social mobility of modern times, where “anyone can become what they want,” is validated by the concept of management as a science.

Tensions in modern management

However, there are two points of tension in this modern understanding of management. The first concerns the scientific claims associated with management as an efficiency expertise. Unlike natural sciences, social sciences have not succeeded in producing law-like generalizations, which calls into question the legitimacy of the expertise that modern management claims. The second point relates to the democratic nature of management skills, which can be learned by anyone. These skills result from effort and training rather than an inherent trait. But as management skills became something that anyone could learn, the concept of “leadership” emerged to distinguish higher-level managers from the rest.

This shift began to resonate in the latter part of the 20th century. In a 1977 article published in Harvard Business Review, Abraham Zaleznik distinguished between managerial and leadership personalities. According to Zaleznik, the manager is neither a genius nor a hero but is instead hardworking, intelligent, tolerant and analytical. In contrast, the leader is characterized as a brilliant, solitary individual in full self-control, which grants them a near-mystical status while managing those who are not like them. This perspective, we argue, marks the beginning of the current fifth period.

The future of management in the age of AI

Interestingly, the timing of Zaleznik’s analyses coincides with the rise of information technology, particularly the advent of personal computers and their increasing use in the workplace. The evolution of human-computer interaction (HCI) into artificial intelligence (AI) has since amplified the existing tensions. Initially, HCI studies focused on improving interface technology. Now, however, it is widely accepted that AI devices can understand us better than we understand ourselves—often without our knowledge. This capability is beneficial when, for example, AI detects diseases before symptoms appear, but it raises concerns about freedom of expression and movement.

The issue is that if managerial authority is based on scientific knowledge and expertise, machines may soon surpass humans in these areas. Without change, this could lead to a dehumanization of management, where machines effectively top the hierarchy. AI, often seen as the holy grail of optimization, has the potential to overshadow human managers.

Resisting this shift requires justifying the human role in management based on something other than efficiency expertise. Current leadership discourse suggests such a change, emphasizing virtue over technical skill and also emphasizing human relationships. How might this fifth period develop? Will AI systems “manage” objects and processes, similar to the first period, while human managers focus on “leading” people? Will this shift in leadership manifest at all organizational levels, transforming management into leadership at every tier? And what would that mean—a celebration of impulsive direction and authority, dismissing due process and rationality? A form of enlightened authoritarianism?

These outcomes are possible, but so is a more humane management approach that prioritizes well-being, confidence and inclusion within teams and organizations. The direction this takes depends on us. Ultimately, the future of management is more an art than a science.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.