In the Age of AI, Those Who Can Unite and Cement Become Valuable Staff

Photo: Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

Financial Times columnist Sarah O’Connor reflects on the fundamental shift in priorities in the labor market.

Are you the kind of person who takes the time to explain to new colleagues who is responsible for what on the team? Or the one who first notices that a project is going off track because different departments understand the task differently? Perhaps you know the name of the person on another floor capable of solving a lingering problem in five minutes, a problem your colleague has been struggling with for weeks?

If you answered "yes" to most of these questions, it means you are performing so-called "glue work": establishing connections between people, seeing the big picture, filling organizational gaps, and helping to hold projects together.

The term glue work was proposed in 2019 by engineer Tanya Reilly. She drew attention to a paradox: this work is essential for the team's functioning but is considered secondary compared to "core" skills — for example, writing code.

Moreover, for rank-and-file specialists, it can even be dangerous: while they are engaged in coordination and helping others, they devote less time to technical work, which usually leads to promotion. As a result, those who were best at uniting the team either stalled in their career growth or left the industry entirely.

This attitude had another negative consequence: managerial positions were filled by people promoted solely for their technical genius. As a result, they ended up in roles requiring leadership and communication skills — things they had neither interest nor experience in. As a rule, this boded ill for both subordinates and the organization as a whole.

This logic is not limited to the IT sphere. Similar mechanisms operate in science, law, and other fields where there are clearly defined "key" competencies. Meanwhile, studies show that women are more likely than men to voluntarily (or at the request of management) engage in this career-unfavorable glue work.

However, with the development of artificial intelligence, the situation is starting to change — and quite quickly. In programming, for example, machines are already capable of generating code, performing routine tasks, and even proposing ready-made solutions. This means that what was considered a main skill yesterday is partly automated today.

What remains for a person? Managing these tools, understanding context, setting tasks, coordinating among different process participants, and considering client needs. In other words — that very "glue" role.

As engineers themselves note, these are now the most important competencies. People who already possessed coordination skills now feel confident: it is easier for them to adapt to the new reality. However, those who defined their professional value solely through the ability to write impeccable code are having a much harder time.

According to the author, this is an important reminder that new technologies do not just destroy or create jobs. They change the very hierarchy of skills: something that was ignored for a long time becomes the most valuable. In the case of software, this is happening at astonishing speed.

In other areas, perhaps, changes will be slower. And where key skills are not yet amenable to automation, they may not happen at all.

In any case, Sarah O’Connor is convinced, now is the most opportune moment for leaders everywhere to ask simple but important questions: Who is uniting and cementing your team? Are these people receiving due recognition and a chance for growth? And is the rest of the team learning to take on at least part of this role?

Because in the technological sphere, artificial intelligence did not suddenly make these skills valuable — they always were. It only made this fact so obvious that it is no longer possible to ignore it.

• 5
• 0
• 0
• 2
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0