The labour market currently resembles a landscape just before a sudden change of atmospheric front. Everyone sees the clouds thickening and feels the pressure drop, but most observers assume that the rain will fall on the neighbouring city, sparing their own garden. This phenomenon, perfectly evident in the latest data on the adoption of artificial intelligence in Poland, is becoming one of the most intriguing yet risky processes in the domestic business. Although AI technology and robotisation are no longer a futuristic pipe dream, the Polish worker has developed a specific form of mental toughness, which researchers call unrealistic optimism.
The “Polish Labour Market Barometer” report prepared by Personnel Service paints a picture of a society that is aware of the pace of change, but at the same time distances itself from its personal consequences. As many as 26% of employees explicitly declare that the pace of implementation of innovations in their companies has clearly accelerated. At the same time, 35% see this situation as an opportunity and do not feel anxious about their professional position. The biggest challenge for business strategists, however, remains the 38% of respondents who are still unable to form an opinion on the impact of AI on their future. This almost forty per cent ‘grey area’ of uncertainty suggests that a large proportion of HR is waiting for things to develop, rather than actively designing their new role in an automated world.
The foundation of this peace of mind, however, is not always a sound assessment of one’s own competence, but a deep-rooted psychological mechanism. The SWPS University report entitled “It’s not me that AI will replace” sheds light on the phenomenon in which the risk of negative consequences of technology is perceived as much higher for “others” than for ourselves. Faced with the uncertainty of the future, we find it easier to tame our fears by believing that bad scenarios are realised far from our private sphere. Research shows that the more distant the reference group – from loved ones to residents of the same city to citizens of the world – the higher we estimate the likelihood that artificial intelligence will take someone’s job away or impair their quality of life.
What is particularly important for organisational leaders is that this subjective safety filter is almost completely immune to demographic factors. It turns out that neither the prestige of a university degree, nor years of work experience or high social status protect against this cognitive error. Both young trainees and qualified professionals succumb to the same illusion of invulnerability. The only statistical variable turns out to be gender, as women declare a higher overall level of perceived risk than men, although both groups follow the same pattern of displacing danger from their immediate environment. For business, this means that employees’ sense of insecurity is democratic, widespread and, most importantly, often not substantiated.
From a management point of view, this mass unrealistic optimism carries serious market consequences. Indeed, the greatest threat is not the fear of technology, which usually motivates action, but the passivity that comes from a sense of insecurity. Since the employee believes that it is “others” who will be replaced by algorithms, he or she loses the natural incentive to reskill and acquire new digital competences. This attitude can lead to an efficiency gap, where companies invest in modern tools, but their human capital remains mentally in a previous era, convinced of its uniqueness that does not need to be updated.
In the long term, this psychological ‘glass shade’ can break violently and painfully. If employees are not brought out of their false comfort zone, the moment of real large-scale implementation of automation will cause a shock that paralyses internal communication and lowers morale. The role of the modern leader is therefore to subtly but firmly make teams aware that AI is not a weather phenomenon that can be waited out in a safe haven. Rather, the transformation requires active navigation.
Instead of scaring people with generic statistics about the elimination of professions, business should focus on transparent education and personalisation of change. The key to success is to show the employee how specific AI tools will change their day-to-day duties, not their employment status. Only by replacing unrealistic optimism with rational adaptation will Polish companies be able to fully exploit the potential of the fourth industrial revolution. After all, it is not artificial intelligence that will ultimately replace humans, but humans able to work with it that will replace those who believed that change does not affect them.
