Beyond the Backlash: Lattice and the Digital Workers

On July 9, 2024, under the guidance of CEO Sarah Franklin, Lattice announced on LinkedIn that AI should no longer just be seen as a tool. It can be a team member, too, complete with an employee record (aka “personnel file”). The announcement promised a groundbreaking shift in the workforce dynamic.

And people collectively freaked out.

On July 12, in a tidal wave of legitimate concern, Chat GPT-generated critiques, and blogger “think pieces” on social media, Lattice suspended its plan.

What, Exactly, Happened Here?

Go back and read the announcement. In the initial post, there were four key points that I saw:

1. Introduction of Workers: Lattice announced that it was okay to treat AI as tools and team members, complete with employee records. Think about how you have an employee ID number. Digital workers would have that, too. Lattice wanted to put some rigor around it.
2. AI Personas as Colleagues: Lattice thought that codifying the concept of digital workers and giving them a personnel file, so to speak, would make them less scary and thus better able to work alongside human employees.
3. Strategic HR Technology Redefinition: The initiative seemed poised to redefine and simplify HR technology, fully integrate Lattice’s platform with AI, and support human and digital workers in a way no other organization could (or would).
4. Vision of Collaboration: Lattice emphasized a future where digital workers are managed alongside human employees, suggesting that AI could be part of everyday work life.

This slice of the announcement caught my eye:

AI is transforming the workforce, not just as a tool but as an entity we work alongside. We’re seeing AI personas like Devin the engineer, Harvey the lawyer, Einstein the service agent, and Piper the sales agent enter the workforce and become our colleagues. When we asked our Resources for Humans community of more than 22,000 HR leaders representing over 3 million employees about their plan for digital workers, over half told us they were already planning to hire them.

Does that seem off to you? Part of me thinks the polled HR leaders confused “digital worker” with “remote worker.” Change my mind.

Also, and this is worth mentioning, the announcement of Lattice’s strategy came out of nowhere and was just weird. People want a raise, affordable healthcare and childcare, and an extra week of vacation. Nobody is asking for AI coworkers.

Let’s not forget that the timing clashed with a week of people returning to work after the Fourth of July holiday here in America. Everybody has a ton of crap in their inboxes. Plus, last week, thousands of people were affected by layoffs across America. The whole announcement seemed tone-deaf at a moment when humility was crucial.

So, the internet had a fit about the Lattice post, causing the company to hold off on its implementation. But there’s something worth exploring here: Maybe we’re all wrong? Could Lattice’s now-paused venture have been onto something?

Henrik Ibsen famously suggested that the majority is often wrong. And in the case of the internet, that’s almost universally true. Although paused, Lattice’s initiative might be worth a second look, even as a post-mortem exercise.

First, let’s explore the potential and pitfalls of integrating “digital workers” into the workforce.

Why There Was Backlash

People love to rip apart a good idea on the internet. Lattice’s leadership team ought to know that if you’re going to go first and take a crack at something big, you’ve got to come correct. The initiative may have some unique and exciting parts, but I’m not saying anything new here: the team didn’t explain the project correctly.

Also, there are some legitimate questions about the viability of all this and some problematic pieces that need to be resolved.

What’s wonky about documenting digital workers?

• Regulatory and Legal Uncertainties: The unclear legal status of AI workers complicates Lattice’s dreams. Unanswered questions about liability and labor laws remain.
• Complex Human-AI Dynamics: Managing interactions between humans and humans already sucks. Digital workers present nuanced challenges, especially when AI hallucinates and gets it wrong.
• High Costs and Resource Allocation: Adding digital workers will require a lot of resources, which might deplete the support of human employees and worsen existing resource constraints.
• Cultural and Engagement Issues: Low employee engagement has already threatened our workplaces. These levels might worsen, as integrating digital workers could further dehumanize the workplace.
• Dependence and Vulnerability: Over-reliance on digital workers could lead to operational vulnerabilities, particularly with tech failures or cybersecurity risks.
• The Ethics of It All: Digital workers can and will displace human jobs, raising significant ethical, economic, and social concerns.
• Quality and Efficiency Concerns: A digital worker’s inability to handle complex human interactions could lead to inefficiencies, impacting customer and vendor relationships.
• Short-term Innovation vs. Long-term Viability: The focus on advanced technology might overlook more critical, immediate needs, risking unsustainable practices over the long term.

We also have a hard time documenting human workers who come to America and contribute to our economy. How will we get this digital worker thing right? Digital workers don’t have an assigned race, class, or gender. Or will they?

Yet, Here’s Why It Could Have Been Groundbreaking

Honestly, we have digital workers already. We’ve had them since Clippy. So, here’s why a better version of Lattice’s plan could have been cool:

• Innovative Leadership: By treating digital workers as documented team members, Lattice aimed to set new industry standards in HR technology. That’s important and responsible. It can and should still happen.
• Boosted Productivity: Creating formalized digital workers to automate more routine tasks with AI has already freed human employees for higher-level problem-solving and innovation. I hope it allows us to take more PTO at some point.
• Education on AI Management: The Lattice integration could have served as a live educational tool for businesses to learn how to manage digital workers effectively and ethically. The next company that takes this on (and gets it right) should combine a solid educational component with the rollout and a push toward industry standards on what’s inbounds and outbounds for digital workers.
• Promoting Ethical AI Use: Lattice’s commitment to responsible digital worker practices could have inspired similar responses across the #HRTech and #WorkTech industries. After all, everybody copies everybody.

The Majority Is Always Wrong

It’s simple to bash Lattice’s announcement because it deserved the heat. Yet, we’re missing a more extensive conversation here. This misstep isn’t just a stumble for Lattice. It’s a crucial moment for the entire tech industry to rethink digital workers. They’re not futuristic concepts—they’re part of our now.

HR needs to step up—this isn’t about categorizing workers by hours or tax forms. It’s about leading the charge, setting ethical guidelines, and figuring out how digital and human workers can enrich each other’s contributions.

With this Lattice fiasco, we’ve got a golden opportunity to ignite a serious, meaningful conversation about the future of work. Let’s not squander it. We need to dive deep, challenge our assumptions, and explore how integrating AI can genuinely enhance our workplaces and our lives.

So, let’s cut the cynicism and get down to business. We might uncover something revolutionary if we can move past the knee-jerk reactions and dig into the real issues. Let’s make this count.