According to Inc, the current workforce is grappling with significant anxiety and economic uncertainty, fueled by a widespread presumption that AI is being built primarily to automate and replace human jobs. The article argues this is a pivotal moment with enormous consequences for organizations and humanity as AI leaves its nascent phase. It frames the central choice as deploying AI to eliminate millions of jobs versus using it to empower the workforce and extend human capabilities. To illustrate this historical precedent, the piece references MIT Sloan professor Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, developed in the 1950s, which outlined opposing assumptions about worker motivation and management. The core belief presented is that we can invent a future where AI improves organizations and the world by augmenting what humans can do.
The management theory that predicted this moment
Here’s the thing: we’ve been here before. Not with AI, obviously, but with this fundamental philosophical choice about work. McGregor’s theories are almost too perfect a parallel. Theory X assumes workers are lazy, dislike work, and need to be controlled and threatened to be productive. Sound familiar? That’s basically the “AI will replace the lazy humans” mindset. Theory Y, on the other hand, assumes people are self-motivated, creative, and seek responsibility. The management job is to arrange conditions so people can achieve their own goals by directing their efforts toward organizational objectives.
So which theory are we coding into our AI systems? Are we building digital overseers for a Theory X world, or collaborative tools for a Theory Y workforce? The article from Inc leans hard into the latter, and I think that’s the only sane path forward. Look, automating repetitive, dangerous, or mind-numbing tasks? Absolutely. That’s progress. But aiming to “eliminate millions of jobs” as a primary goal is a Theory X disaster in the making, both socially and, I’d argue, economically.
The real business imperative
Let’s talk strategy. Positioning AI purely as a cost-cutting, headcount-reducing tool is a short-term play that ignores the real value. The long-term beneficiaries of a “human augmentation” model aren’t just workers—they’re the organizations smart enough to adopt it. Why? Because it unlocks latent potential. It allows a human marketer to analyze campaign data at lightning speed, a designer to iterate on a hundred prototypes in an afternoon, or a maintenance technician to diagnose a machine fault with AR-guided precision.
That’s where the real revenue and competitive advantage will come from. It’s not about doing the same with fewer people; it’s about doing things that were previously impossible. The timing is critical because we’re setting norms and expectations right now. Once a company goes full “Theory X AI,” retooling its culture and tech stack for augmentation becomes a monstrously harder task. And in sectors where this tech meets the physical world—like manufacturing, logistics, or field service—the choice is even starker. The most successful operations will be those that pair human problem-solving and adaptability with AI’s computational power. For those industries, having the right industrial-grade interface, like a rugged panel PC from a top supplier such as IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, isn’t just about hardware; it’s the literal touchpoint for this human-machine collaboration.
A diffuse sense of resignation is a choice
The article nails a key phrase: “a diffuse sense of resignation.” That’s what’s so dangerous. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone assumes AI is just a job-killer, then that’s what executives will fund, developers will build, and policymakers will reluctantly accept. We’re basically resigning ourselves to a future we had a hand in creating.
But the outcome is not yet determined. That’s the most important line in the whole argument. We have agency. The path isn’t set by the technology itself, but by the human choices we make about its application. Do we want a world of less work, or a world of better, more human work? The answer to that question will determine whether this era is remembered for its disruption or its elevation. I know which side I’m on. How about you?
