What Meta’s cuts, the BCG report, and my Hong Kong radio segment really tell us about the future of work

Every time a new technology arrives, the same headline follows close behind.

It will take our jobs.

We heard it when computers arrived.

We heard it when the internet arrived.

We heard it when automation became a serious business conversation.

And now we’re hearing it again with AI.

This time the headlines have fresh fuel.

Meta says it’s cutting 10% of its workforce and pushing harder into AI. That was enough to trigger the usual global panic. Social feeds filled up with the same old fear: this is it, AI is finally coming for everyone. That’s what kicked off my radio conversation in Hong Kong this week too.

And while I never downplay the reality that some people absolutely will lose jobs, I think the bigger story is being told badly.

Not just badly.

Lazily.

Because “AI is taking all the jobs” is a headline.

It is not a useful way to think.

The better question is this:

What is AI actually changing inside work?

That’s the conversation worth having.

And it’s very different.

---

Listen to the radio segment

I unpacked this live on air in Hong Kong yesterday.

If you’d rather hear the conversation before reading on, insert the audio here (16 minutes).

What I was trying to do on air was move the conversation away from panic and back toward reality.

Because reality is more interesting, more practical, and far more useful to anyone trying to lead through this well.

---

The jobs story is too blunt to be useful

Let’s start where the noise usually starts.

Job loss.

Of course some people will lose jobs because of AI.

There is nothing good about that.

There is nothing I can say to make that painless or abstract.

If your role disappears, it doesn’t matter that a consultant somewhere calls it transformation. It still lands as loss.

So I don’t want to pretend otherwise.

But the wholesale story we are being sold, that AI equals mass job extinction, does not stand up to scrutiny.

It didn’t stand up when the PC arrived.

It didn’t stand up when the internet arrived.

It didn’t stand up when tractors changed farming, or spreadsheets changed administration, or email changed communication.

And it doesn’t stand up now.

Because jobs are not one thing.

They are bundles.

---

Jobs are labels. Tasks are reality.

This is the part I keep coming back to.

Most jobs are made up of many smaller activities.

That’s how I’ve thought about work for decades.

You don’t really “have a job” in the abstract.

You perform a series of tasks.

You open things.

Write things.

Add things up.

Compare.

Decide.

Call.

Respond.

Create.

Organise.

Follow up.

Reassure.

Interpret.

Present.

Escalate.

Repeat.

That bundle of tasks becomes your role. Your title. Your work.

And what AI does, first and most aggressively, is not erase an entire title in one hit.

It starts picking off pieces.

The repetitive bit.

The administrative bit.

The pattern-recognition bit.

The drafting bit.

The searching bit.

The summarising bit.

The checking bit.

That’s why I’ve never found the sweeping job-loss story all that useful.

Because AI’s first real move is rarely the job.

It’s the task list.

And once the task list changes, the shape of the job changes too.

That is a much more accurate story.

And a much more important one.

---

Meta is not the whole story

This is why I pushed back quite hard in the radio segment when James raised Meta.

Yes, Meta is cutting 10% of its workforce.

Yes, it is talking loudly about AI.

But I do not believe the clean story being presented, that these cuts are simply “because AI”.

That’s too neat.

Too convenient.

And, frankly, too useful for any company wanting cover while it restructures.

What’s also going on is much messier.

Meta over-hired after Covid.

A lot of big firms did.

They fattened up.

Built new divisions.

Expanded speculative projects.

Tried things.

Some worked. Some didn’t.

And one of the clearest examples in Meta’s case is the long bet on virtual worlds, the metaverse, the hardware, the headsets, all the strange and expensive effort around trying to invent a new reality people never really asked for in the first place.

So when those jobs disappear, is that “AI taking jobs”?

Or is it the company finally acknowledging that a strategic bet didn’t return what was hoped?

That’s a different story.

A more honest one.

And I suspect we’re going to see this more and more.

Companies will use AI as a blanket explanation because it’s a fashionable one. A clean one. A future-facing one.

Sometimes it’ll be true.

Sometimes it’ll be partly true.

And sometimes AI will simply become the convenient curtain hiding a broader business decision that was coming anyway.

Leaders need to be careful not to confuse the headline with the diagnosis.

---

BCG got closer to the real story

This is why the Boston Consulting Group report matters more than the Meta headlines.

The report doesn’t really say “AI will wipe out work.”

It says something more interesting.

More than half of jobs are likely to be reshaped by AI over the next few years.

Reshaped.

That’s the word.

That fits far more closely with what I’m seeing.

Reshaped means:

• some tasks disappear
• some tasks shrink
• some tasks become easier
• some tasks become more important
• some entirely new tasks appear

That is much closer to reality than the simple and dramatic “AI takes jobs” story.

Because most of the time, AI doesn’t arrive like a wrecking ball.

It arrives like a redesign brief.

And many organisations still aren’t ready for that.

---

This is where HUMAND comes in

I’ve written and spoken for a long time about HUMAND, my way of thinking about how work gets distributed between humans, machines, and AI.

You can read the fuller thinking here:
https://www.morrisfuturist.com/workforce-revolution-why-jobs-are-over-but-work-is-just-beginning/

The simple version is this.

Every task needs to be looked at and asked:

Who is best placed to do this?

A human?
A machine?
AI?
Or some combination of the three?

That’s the real design problem now.

Not “Which jobs disappear?”

But:

Which tasks belong where?

Some things are still deeply human.

Judgement.
Context.
Trust.
Nuance.
Moral choice.
Relationship.
Care.
Timing.
Taste.
Sense-making.

Some things are obviously better done by machines or software.

Calculation.
Storage.
Sorting.
Speed.
Consistency.
Repetition.

And then there is a growing middle category, where AI is incredibly useful but should not be left alone without human oversight.

Drafting.

Researching.

Scanning.

Summarising.

Coordinating.

Pattern-spotting.

That’s the real world of work now.

Not humans versus machines.

But humans, machines, and AI learning how to work in a more deliberate mix.

That’s why the old jobs story is falling apart.

The categories are too blunt now.

---

Why leaders are getting this wrong

A lot of leaders are still asking the wrong question.

They ask:

“How many jobs will this save or replace?”

That sounds practical, but it is already behind the curve.

The better questions are:

• Which tasks in this role are repetitive?
• Which tasks require trust or judgement?
• Which tasks could be augmented?
• Which tasks should stay human even if AI could technically do them?
• What new work appears once old tasks disappear?

That is much closer to the real work ahead.

Because once AI takes over parts of the task list, leaders need to redesign:

• roles
• workflows
• expectations
• accountability
• capability
• learning pathways

That is not a software issue.

It is a leadership issue.

---

The hard part no one wants to say out loud

There is a class issue buried inside this too.

And I think we need to say it plainly.

It is easy for people in high-autonomy, high-discretion work to talk romantically about AI removing the drudgery.

And yes, for some people it absolutely will.

It will remove repetitive admin.

It will save time.

It will make work more interesting.

But for a great many people, especially lower-paid workers in highly repetitive roles, that repetitive work is their work.

That’s where they earn.

That’s where they live.

That’s where the bills get paid.

So while it may be true that AI can liberate some people from low-value repetition, it is also true that some people will be pushed hardest by exactly that shift.

That doesn’t make AI evil.

But it does mean we need to stop speaking about “efficiency” as if it is a morally neutral outcome.

For some people, efficiency feels like progress.

For others, it feels like the floor disappearing.

That’s why this cannot just be a technology conversation.

It has to be a human one too.

---

Agentic AI takes this one step further

James also asked me about agentic AI, which is the next layer beginning to come into view.

That matters here too.

Because once AI stops merely answering questions and starts acting on our behalf, the task shift accelerates.

Now we are not just talking about:

• drafting a response
• summarising a report
• analysing a data pattern

We’re talking about systems that can:

• coordinate activity
• trigger workflows
• manage tasks
• interact with other systems
• act like a junior digital workforce

That is where the next big redesign happens.

If you missed my deeper article on that, it’s here:
https://www.morrisfuturist.com/agentic-ai-explained-future-ai-agents-business/

And that’s why I think the current panic about “jobs” is still too narrow.

Because the actual shift is not only substitution.

It’s orchestration.

---

What this means in practice

So what should organisations actually do?

Not talk vaguely about being “AI ready”.

That phrase means almost nothing now.

What they need to do is more grounded than that.

1. Audit the task list

Stop looking only at job titles.

Go inside the job.

What are people actually doing all day?

What repeats?
What drags?
What requires judgement?
What can be sped up?
What should remain human?

That is where the useful redesign begins.

2. Redesign roles, not just headcount

If tasks change, roles must change too.

Do not assume people simply absorb the difference.

Roles need to be rethought around what still matters.

3. Invest in transition, not slogans

Telling people “AI will free you up for more meaningful work” means very little if you do not show them what that new work is, how to do it, and how they’ll be supported to move into it.

4. Protect human judgement

As systems become more capable, human judgement becomes more important, not less.

Not everything that can be automated should be.

5. Be honest

If you are restructuring because a strategic bet failed, or because you over-hired, or because you need to reshape cost, say that.

Do not hide everything behind the word AI.

People can smell spin.

And once trust leaves the room, the whole transition gets harder.

---

So where does this go next?

The next few years are not going to be defined by one giant employment cliff.

They are going to be defined by uneven redesign.

Some sectors will move quickly.

Some slowly.

Some tasks will vanish quietly.

Some will multiply.

Some workers will be stretched.

Some will be liberated.

Some organisations will do this thoughtfully.

Some will do it brutally.

And that is where the real leadership question sits.

Not in whether change happens.

But in how deliberately we shape it.

Because it is still possible to use AI badly.

It is still possible to use it cynically.

It is still possible to save time and lose trust at the same time.

The future of work is not just about capability.

It is about choices.

---

Final thought

So, is AI taking our jobs?

Some jobs, yes.

Some parts of jobs, absolutely.

But the bigger truth is more important.

AI is rewriting the task list.

And if leaders keep talking in blunt, old categories, they will miss the real redesign happening underneath their own organisations.

Jobs are labels.

Tasks are reality.

That’s where the future of work is being decided.

If you’re trying to make sense of what AI, HUMAND, and the redesign of work mean for your business, your workforce, or your leadership team, that’s the work I do.

On stage.
In boardrooms.
In strategy sessions.

Choose Forward.

Morris Misel
Foresight Strategist | Keynote Speaker | Advisor
morrismisel.com

---

#MorrisMisel #FutureOfWork #AI #Leadership #StrategicForesight #HUMAND #WorkforceTransformation #Innovation #BusinessStrategy #AgenticAI #EmergingTechnology #FutureSignals #ExecutiveLeadership #OrganisationalChange