The World Economic Forum does not do alarmism, which is why its latest scenarios on AI and jobs deserve attention. Not because they predict catastrophe, but because they expose something more uncomfortable: the future of work is no longer about technology at all. It is about readiness. And readiness, at the moment, is being treated with surprising passivity.
The WEF outlines four plausible futures for work by 2030. Some are optimistic, some bleak. But they all share one premise: AI’s impact depends less on how fast the technology advances and more on how quickly people and institutions adapt. That sounds reassuring. It should also be unsettling, because while leaders talk fluently about skills, culture and transformation, many behave as if time itself is still on their side.
In boardrooms, the conversation has become oddly detached. AI is discussed as a capability to be rolled out, a tool to be adopted, a layer to be added. Workforce implications are acknowledged, then deferred. Culture, we are told, will ‘catch up’. People will reskill. The organisation will adapt. Eventually. That assumption is the risk.
The uncomfortable truth is that understanding is no longer the problem. Most senior leaders now grasp the scale of change underway. What is missing is urgency. We behave as if readiness is a natural by-product of progress, rather than a deliberate act of design. As if relevance renews itself. It doesn’t.
Augment or replace?
The WEF’s most optimistic scenario–a so-called co-pilot economy, where AI augments rather than replaces–depends on sustained investment in people, continuous learning and redesigned work. It requires leaders to act early, not react late. Yet many organisations are drifting towards a more fragile reality: uneven adaptation, widening gaps, and growing anxiety disguised as confidence.
What makes this particularly worrying is who stands to lose most.
Early-career professionals should, in theory, be the best positioned. They have time, long runways and decades to adapt. And yet they may be the least prepared. Many are entering roles designed for stability, not adaptability. They are trained for tasks that will change faster than their job titles. They are told to be resilient, without being shown how to build it.
This creates a contradiction. Those with the longest careers ahead of them are being equipped for the shortest half-lives. Across organisations, this plays out as a strange emotional mix. Anxiety and complacency coexist. Some worry constantly about being left behind. Others assume relevance will take care of itself. Neither response is useful. Both are passive. And passivity is the one thing this moment does not tolerate.
Relevance as a practice
For boards and executives, the implication is clear. AI strategy without workforce strategy is incomplete. Culture does not ‘catch up’ by accident. It responds to incentives, signals and leadership behaviour. If readiness is postponed, irrelevance is accelerated.
But here is the more personal challenge–and the one leaders are often reluctant to voice. In a world where skills decay faster and roles mutate constantly, no organisation can carry responsibility for relevance alone. Institutions can enable. Leaders can invest. But ownership has shifted. Permanently.
The real dividing line in the future of work will not be between those who use AI and those who don’t. It will be between those who treat relevance as a project, and those who treat it as a practice. Between those who wait for permission, and those who act.
If relevance is no longer guaranteed by tenure, title or employer–if it must be continually earned rather than occasionally refreshed–then the most important question is no longer what AI will do to your job. It is this: what are you doing, right now, to remain relevant?
Photo: Dreamstime.
