Forget WFH, the future of work has a more pressing issue

The death knell many are sounding for remote work is premature. While high-profile return-to-office mandates continue to grab headlines, the reality is more measured.

Recent data shows over a third of Australians continue to regularly work from home and suggests the push to get everyone back in the office is softening. The workplace is no longer only a physical office but a constellation of digital spaces, devices and cloud-based platforms.

If we want our work to feel like it means something, we’ll need to be extremely careful about AI.Credit: Getty

However, beneath the persistent question of where we will work, a deeper one is emerging: what’s the personal meaning of work in a world increasingly shaped by AI?

For most, work is a means to an end – paying the rent, putting food on the table, caring for our families. Yet research shows the majority of us want more from work than a transactional exchange. We want work to be an end as well as a means.

Meaningful work helps us turn our values into real-world impact for ourselves and others. When are the times you’ve felt happiest at work? I’ll bet it’s when you’ve felt connected – to a cause, your colleagues or your own growth. At its best, work provides us with a shared sense of purpose, identity and community.

Into a decade that’s already reshaped how we work, AI has arrived. In its second half, we need to think hard – not just about where we wish to work, but what work means to us. In an age where workplace loneliness is on the rise and correlated with a lack of engagement, what must we safeguard to support our wider flourishing as human beings?

If we want our work to mean something, we’ll need to consciously make space for connection and the messy, generative parts of being human.

In considering how AI could change our work, we can look to political philosopher Hannah Arendt, who considered activity as a fundamental condition of being human.

She divided activity into three domains: labour, the repetitive tasks that meet our basic needs; work, which creates more lasting artefacts; and action, the space of human interaction where meaning is made through speech, story and shared decisions.

AI’s impact on the first two is already clear. In labour, AI promises to automate drudgery (though history shows automation often intensifies rather than reduces work). When used thoughtfully, AI has the potential to enhance meaning for those (and it’s not everyone) who can transition from repetitive tasks to more fulfilling ones.

In the domain of work, AI is positioned as a collaborator – helping us generate and design faster while retaining direction. It fast-tracks initial drafting and can act as a thinking partner for iteration.

But some are sounding caution. Over time, will humans continue to steer this process, or simply curate what a large-language model serves up? If we skip the struggle, do we lose the deeper learning that only time can teach?

The third domain – of action – is where AI’s impact might be most subtle yet significant. This is the realm of shared conversations, storytelling and decision-making, where we understand difference, make meaning and build trust.

Have you been to a meeting lately where someone’s brought an AI note-taker – or sends their bot to represent them – often without notice? This rising trend leaves many unsure how to respond. How will information be summarised and stored? Comments represented? Meaning made?

Ethical norms around request and consent haven’t kept pace with adoption. And in the absence of an upfront conversation, many are silent on the AI elephant in the room, perhaps afraid to risk seeming behind the times.

The presence of AI can inhibit authentic conversations, where meaning is built. People pull punches. Debate flattens. Friction fades. And while friction can be awkward, it’s also essential. It’s how we test ideas, navigate disagreement and build shared understanding.

We all need the skills to tolerate friction, even use it, productively. What matters most is what happens after friction: choosing to stay in the conversation and work through tensions, practising curiosity and reflection. That’s where growth and connection live.

Individuals aren’t powerless in the AI transition. We can advocate for transparent guidelines on its use in our teams. We can create spaces for human-to-human collaboration and exchange. We can each norm-build on the use of AI – initiating conversations on consent, providing notice about when you’ll use AI and allowing others real choice to opt in or out.

AI will bring productivity gains, releasing many of us from hours with fiddly spreadsheets and long reports. But if we want our work to mean something, we’ll need to consciously make space – for connection and the messy, generative parts of being human.

Meaning is made by humans, but we risk abdicating it to AI at the cost of our own wellbeing. As we seek to settle the question of where we work, a larger question looms: what will work mean to us by 2030?

Catherine Woo is director of engagement at Cranlana Centre for Ethical Leadership.

Get workplace news, advice and perspectives to help make your job work for you. Sign up for our weekly Thank God it’s Monday newsletter.