Azeem Azhar

And what is your advice to companies thinking about that?

Because someone in a big company might say, I actually can't go off and do a nuanced long-form interview.

with every one of my 85,000 staff or 225,000 staff.

So where do we go now?

The flip side of flexibility is instability.

And instability is connected to people's own psychological status, their sense of psychological safety.

It is connected to the degree to which a job

adds to their dignity or takes away from that dignity.

There's already issues with the notion of the organogram and a bunch of people moving from one to another.

A lot of what we've discussed feels like it doesn't add to the core components of

a job that connects to wellbeing, that look at people as more than just stacanovite worker bees to be optimized within the great machine.

What is that balance and what have you seen in working with organizations about how well this job architecture, hey, Ben, you're not Ben, you're actually employee number X who has skills in this bundle of tasks.

And we're going to change that bundle, right?

That to me already doesn't feel like it's a nice thing to be done to one.

I have two kind of answers here.

Can you give an example of one of those ways that gives integrity and purposefulness for someone as they go through this, something that you've seen in the field?

What you're describing is credible, Ben.

You can see how and why that would be more effective.

It does strike me that that will work for some types of corporate cultures.

I mean, what you have described, I'm thinking about tech companies and the big tech companies.