Nola Simon is an everyday futurist who works in “the window before the decision,” when an organization hasn’t yet committed to a decision, and there’s still room to question the assumptions underneath it. Her method, the Assumption-Ground Audit, is a structured look at what a company is taking for granted. I first interviewed Nola a few years ago, when her focus was hybrid and remote work. This time, we talked about what she’s seeing as companies rush into AI. You can find Nola on LinkedIn and at nolasimon.com. You can also check out her Substack, Everyday Futurism.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Anna Burgess Yang: When we talked before, your work was centered on remote and hybrid work. Now you describe yourself as a futurist. How do you think about that shift?
Nola Simon: Part of why I was involved in hybrid and remote work was that where I live doesn’t have a lot of infrastructure for childcare. So the only option I really had, if I wanted to be an involved parent, was to work from home. But now my kids are in university. I fully think that flexibility and the ability to work remotely support women and families. But personally, it’s not my motivator anymore.
There’s so much pushback against remote work, and the pushback is all centered on control, the value of commercial real estate, what it really means to lead, and surveillance. It’s fundamentally about the people in control: who they are, what they believe, and the narratives and values they want to live. And there’s nothing stopping them from working the way they want and hiring the way they want to. Nothing has significantly changed to act as an irritant against it. So it’s plateaued.
I don’t see remote work as an area of opportunity. Do I think it will eventually keep going? Yes, because technology is going to fuel it. And what that really means is that work itself is fundamentally transforming.
ABY: I wanted to get your thoughts, specifically, on how AI is impacting work. Because when we talked before, it hadn’t really taken the world by storm the way it has now. What are you seeing?
NS: Ironically, AI is pulling in all the things companies would have done if they had committed to remote work when the pandemic first started: redesigning job functions, how you lead and how you manage, standard operating procedures, documenting how you actually work, and putting those systems in place. If you had done all of that, you would have been in much better shape for AI.
The companies that did that are further along in the reinvention that’s happening with work itself and the impact of AI. That’s the ironic part. Does being wedded to how things have always been really serve you? Because there are convergences. You may stand your ground in one area, but everything else around you is still changing.
The trends and scenarios we saw a long time ago just continue to push. So the opportunity is: how do we reinvent, and how do we adapt? Change is continual. There’s no going back to normal, because what’s normal, and when was normal?
What’s normal is that there is no stability. There’s just constant change. How do you deal with the ambiguity and the uncertainty? How do you reinvent your skills to function in this new reality and prepare for the future, which is going to be more of the same?
ABY: The problem I see with companies saying “we’re going to go all in on AI” is what you described. They’re trying to bolt it on top of a broken system, on top of what they’ve always done.
NS: And you have to deal with the emotions that go along with that. A big part of why so many companies failed at managing remote work was that they didn’t deal with what the change meant for leadership, or the emotions that came with it.
The idea of Zoom boxes that are all the same size was so upsetting to so many people who were truly invested in the narrative of “I’m big and important, but on the Zoom screen I’m just another little box.” Because what is hierarchy, really? A lot of it is the interpretation of narratives surrounding power and influence.
ABY: What do you see as the biggest assumptions people are holding on to?
NS: The huge assumption about AI is that the narratives the AI companies themselves are telling are true. A lot of the narrative is “AI is going to take your job, AI is going to do this.” Whatever you believe about it, that narrative really serves the AI companies, the chip manufacturers, and anybody involved in making sure that technology is successful. That doesn’t mean it won’t be hugely impactful. But is it going to be impactful in the way those companies perceive it to be?
There’s also the whole cost aspect. At companies like Accenture, everybody was told that you basically have to use AI or you’re risking your job, your promotion, your future. There was all this pressure and commitment put behind it. And this year they turned around and said, “Oh, the cost is kind of problematic.”
And it becomes an inequity issue: who is allowed to experiment with AI, to benefit, and to build up the skills? Who is getting that investment in reinvention, and which areas of the company are valued enough to get that development?
ABY: When we talked before, we focused on transparency and trust. What do you think about the trust relationship between employer and employee in this AI world?
NS: When it comes to trust, there are lots of different aspects of how we’re trusting. Do we trust the environment we work in? Do we trust the country we live in? Do we trust the leadership of the country, the politicians who are governing us and creating the policy and the legislation? Those processes are very long-term. So there’s a time aspect, too. Legislation will eventually catch up, but how long is that going to take?
In that case, it reverts back to: do I trust the leadership of my company, at the executive level, the development level, the management level, my immediate supervisor, to make decisions in the absence of clear legislation? That’s a lot of moving pieces. And you might trust at different levels.
ABY: How does our inability to tell what’s real affect work?
NS: I think our ability to know what’s real or truthful, and to have that common experience, is being reduced by how much information is being curated for us. Algorithms and personalization are affecting our ability to have that common experience.
What’s happening at work is about who has access to the information, who knows it, who believes it, and why they believe it. It’s all rooted in your personal values, your education, and where your family is from. What makes you is influenced by everything that’s out there.
We’re doing ourselves a disservice if we aren’t at least looking at how we’re thinking and trying to make sure that the information that we’re consuming is fair, unbiased, based in reality, and comes from a variety of sources, not just one that’s influenced by a particular loyalty.
Thinking about a career change? Download my guide: 5 Types of Career Pivots.
If you want to support my work as a writer, you can subscribe to receive additional issues I publish.
Have a work story you’d like to share? Please reach out using this form. I can retell your story while protecting your identity, share a guest post, or conduct an interview.