Steven T. Hunt, Ph.D., SPHR

During the recent In the Cloud with Game Changers radio program, a much admired talent management colleague raised an interesting observation about the value of workforce planning in a rapidly changing world. Kevin Wheeler of the Future of Talent Institute noted that workforce plans can quickly become obsolete due to radical shifts in technology. Kevin cited the example of phlebotomy machines being developed to draw blood samples.  Historically phlebotomists have been critical skilled positions.

Many healthcare organizations create workforce plans that forecast supply and demand of phlebotomists several years into the future to ensure they have adequate staffing levels to support critical business operations. However, the advent of robots that safely draw blood could swiftly make these workforce plans obsolete and potentially irrelevant altogether.  Kevin noted that these types of changes in technology are happening in all sectors of the economy.  He then raised the valid question about the value of workforce planning in such a volatile labor market.

As with many things Kevin says, his comments challenged me to reconsider my views regarding talent management as it relates to workforce planning.  Workforce planning is not necessarily a difficult exercise, but it can be somewhat time-consuming.  One might reasonably question if it is worth developing workforce plans if there is a risk those plans will become obsolete due to changes in technology. These thoughts led me to three conclusions about why that workforce planning will continue to be valuable, even if the world is increasingly filled with blood-sucking robots.

It’s better to revise existing plans than operate without guidance

It is widely acknowledged that skilled labor will become scarcer over the coming years. The depth of labor shortages varies widely depending on industry and geographical location, but virtually all companies are finding it harder to acquire high-performing, highly skilled talent willing to do the work at wages they want to pay. With workforce planning, companies can forecast where labor shortages will have the biggest impact on business operations. Workforce planning decreases the risk of business operations slowing down or stopping altogether because of a lack of key talent in critical roles.

Although changes in technology may force companies to adjust workforce plans, it’s better to be aware of the need to make these adjustments than to be caught off guard due to a lack of planning. This is true in two different ways: First, if technology decreases the need for certain kinds of employees, the sooner you reduce recruiting of candidates for these roles and start re-skilling existing employees, the less disruptive this change will be. Second, most technology changes will require recruiting different kinds of employees or developing existing employees. The faster you recognize such trends and get a jump on  your competition in the war for talent, the more you’ll benefit  from this change.

Most workforce changes are incremental, not qualitative

Although some disruptive technologies can completely eliminate certain jobs, such changes tend to be the exception rather than the rule. I would argue that for every qualitative technology change such as automatic phlebotomy machines that could totally eliminate the need for skilled phlebotomists, there are far more incremental technology changes that require shifts in skill sets rather than the outright elimination of positions. For example, the shift from film to digital radiology machines did not eliminate the need for x-ray technicians; instead it required technicians to expand their existing skills. Such incremental technology shifts require adjustments to workforce plans and emphasize the importance of constantly monitoring and updating these plans. However, they do not make existing workforce plans obsolete.

What if the world doesn’t change all that much? 

There are two points I’d like to make here.  First, even though technology may change the future of certain jobs, it also may not. When I was a kid watching the Jetsons, I figured when I grew up we’d all have robot maids. And while I’m still hoping for a functional robot maid, in the meantime we’re still employing human housekeepers. Second, although I can marvel at all the things technology has changed, I can also marvel out how little technology has changed many of our basic behaviors at work and at home.

Remember when people said internet technology was going to spell the end of on-site retail shopping? It didn’t happen. It turns out shopping isn’t just about buying things — it’s also about the human experience of going to the store. I suspect the same will be true when it comes to technology changes in healthcare and other fields. A robot may be developed that can safely and effectively poke needles in our arms and draw samples.  But we may still need a person present to operate the robot and we’ll want a human to give us orange juice so we don’t pass out, tell us it will only hurt a little, and sympathetically hold our hand when it does.