25% of CEOs’ Time Is Spent on Tasks Machines Could Do(hbr.org)
hbr.org
25% of CEOs’ Time Is Spent on Tasks Machines Could Do
https://hbr.org/2017/02/25-percent-of-ceos-time-is-spent-on-tasks-machines-could-do
7 comments
Clickbait headline linked to opinion piece about general automation with no content.
You can download the real 7MB pdf from the linked URL: http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/digital-disruption/har...
I bet 100% in most cases (like a lot of other jobs).
Unlikely. A CEO's job is literally about being the face of the company. How exactly will a machine replace that? Perhaps in 100 years when we have human-level androids walking around.
We've already got virtual pop stars. Why not a virtual CEO?
https://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/04/waving-glow-s...
RIM had a par of co-CEOs. Why not buy one CEO from IBM, and hire another to play golf?
https://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/04/waving-glow-s...
RIM had a par of co-CEOs. Why not buy one CEO from IBM, and hire another to play golf?
Is it? Or is to make the best decision? I think a AI CEO could perform a lot better than most of these expensive showmen.
"We estimate that about 25% of CEOs’ time is currently spent on activities that machines could do, such as analyzing reports and data to inform decisions."
It seems to me they're just describing inefficiencies that could be fixed, not automation. Hard to tell, though, because the source they link to doesn't mention this stat at all. Technology always makes things easier (it's a lot quicker to write an email than a letter, or to use Excel over a calculator), but I wouldn't necessarily consider that "tasks machines could do". Machines can't just go analyze data on their own, but they can make it more efficient.
Automation in an assembly line might mean you can layoff 25% of your factory workers, or that there will be 25% less need for people with that skillset in the market. However you can't reduce your number of CEOs by 25% – there's one CEO, and they have an infinite amount of work to do. Of all the things this article mentions, quantifying the automation of a CEO (and using it as the title) seems like the least relevant metric to care about.