The question isn't whether AI will change work – it's whether we'll use this moment to finally build workplaces that enhance rather than diminish our humanity. Photo via Getty Images

When OpenAI's GPT-4 made headlines by passing the bar exam and scoring in the top 10 percent on medical licensing tests, I noticed something fascinating: everyone focused on AI replacing professionals, but they missed the deeper story. AI isn't just disrupting work – it's exposing fundamental flaws in how we've built our entire workplace ecosystem. It's holding up a mirror to our organizations, revealing just how far we've strayed from what makes us uniquely human.

The World Economic Forum tells us 44 percent of workers' skills will need updating by 2027, but that statistic only scratches the surface. In my conversations with business leaders, I'm watching a transformation unfold in real-time. Take the accounting industry, where I've observed forward-thinking firms like Deloitte and PwC turning their accountants into strategic business advisors while other firms continue training junior staff for tasks that AI will soon handle. This isn't just a skills mismatch – it's a fundamental misunderstanding of human potential.

The challenge runs deeper than individual industries. McKinsey predicts 30 percent of hours worked globally could be automated by 2030, but I believe they're missing a crucial point. We've spent decades designing jobs around industrial-era ideals of efficiency and standardization – the very qualities that make them perfect targets for AI automation. In our obsession with measuring, standardizing, and streamlining everything, we've created workplaces that treat humans like machines rather than the complex, creative beings we are.

What's emerging is a striking paradox: as work becomes more automated, our workplace cultures are growing more disconnected. Microsoft researchers identified a "collaboration deficit" in remote work environments, with 56 percent of employees reporting a decline in workplace friendships. This cultural shift is occurring precisely when we need human connection most. During the Great Resignation of 2021, 47 million Americans quit their jobs, they weren't leaving because of salary considerations or technological inadequacies. The most common reasons cited were lack of human connection, purpose, and authentic leadership.

Yet instead of heeding this wake-up call, the rise of AI is pushing us further apart. A decade ago, the concept of "workplace family" was commonplace – now it's often dismissed as manipulative corporate rhetoric. This shift reveals a troubling blindspot in our thinking about work. Consider this: we spend more than 90,000 hours at work over our lifetime – more time than we spend with our own families – yet we're increasingly treating these relationships as purely transactional. In our rush to establish boundaries and protect ourselves from corporate exploitation, we've overcorrected, creating sterile workplaces stripped of human connection.

This timing couldn't be worse. As someone who studies the intersection of technology and workplace culture, I've observed a clear pattern: the more we automate routine tasks, the more our success depends on distinctly human qualities like trust, emotional sensitivity, and the ability to navigate complex interpersonal dynamics. Yet we're systematically dismantling the very cultural foundations that enable these qualities to flourish. It's as if we're entering a boxing match by tying one hand behind our back – at precisely the moment we need every advantage we can get.

The real crisis isn't that AI might replace jobs – it's that we're creating workplace environments that suppress the very qualities that make us irreplaceable. When we treat our colleagues as mere interfaces rather than complex human beings, we don't just damage relationships – we damage our capacity for innovation, creativity, and the kind of deep collaboration that complex problem-solving requires.

Some companies are starting to get it right. When I look at examples like IKEA, who chose to retrain their call center workers as interior design advisors rather than simply replacing them with chatbots, I see a glimpse of what's possible. They recognized something profound: you can't automate the human ability to understand what a frustrated customer really needs, or the intuition to read between the lines of what they're saying.

This is what I call the "human edge" – and it's far more nuanced than most leadership teams realize. It's the marketing manager who can sense team tension during a video call and address it before it derails a project. It's the sales representative who builds such strong relationships that clients stay loyal through market upheavals. It's the team leader who knows exactly when to push for more and when to show compassion. These aren't just nice-to-have soft skills – they're becoming our most valuable business assets.

But here's the challenge: we're still trying to measure workplace success like it's 1990. We track productivity metrics, sales numbers, and project timelines, but how do we quantify someone's ability to defuse a tense client situation? How do we measure the value of a team leader who creates an environment where people feel safe to innovate? These human capabilities – empathy, emotional intelligence, relationship building, creative problem-solving – are increasingly what separate successful companies from failing ones, yet they're nearly impossible to capture in a performance review.

When I talk to business leaders, I tell them bluntly: if a job can be reduced to a process, AI will eventually do it better. Our value lies in all the messy, human things that happen between the bullet points of a job description. Instead of asking "How many tasks did you complete?" we should be asking "How did you help your team navigate that difficult change?" Instead of training people to follow processes, we should be developing their ability to build relationships and navigate complexity.

It's time we started treating these human capabilities not as soft skills, but as core business competencies. The question isn't whether AI will change work – it's whether we'll use this moment to finally build workplaces that enhance rather than diminish our humanity.

-----

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus and author of Amazon Bestseller “Determined to Lead- The Disruptive Woman's Guide to Stop Playing Small and Transform your Career through Agile Leadership.”

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

ExxonMobil, Rice launch sustainability initiative with first project underway

power partners

Houston-based ExxonMobil and Rice University announced a master research agreement this week to collaborate on research initiatives on sustainable energy efforts and solutions. The agreement includes one project that’s underway and more that are expected to launch this year.

“Our commitment to science and engineering, combined with Rice’s exceptional resources for research and innovation, will drive solutions to help meet growing energy demand,” Mike Zamora, president of ExxonMobil Technology and Engineering Co., said in a news release. “We’re thrilled to work together with Rice.”

Rice and Exxon will aim to develop “systematic and comprehensive solutions” to support the global energy transition, according to Rice. The university will pull from the university’s prowess in materials science, polymers and catalysts, high-performance computing and applied mathematics.

“Our agreement with ExxonMobil highlights Rice’s ability to bring together diverse expertise to create lasting solutions,” Ramamoorthy Ramesh, executive vice president for research at Rice, said in the release. “This collaboration allows us to tackle key challenges in energy, water and resource sustainability by harnessing the power of an interdisciplinary systems approach.”

The first research project under the agreement focuses on developing advanced technologies to treat desalinated produced water from oil and gas operations for potential reuse. It's being led by Qilin Li, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice and co-director of the Nanosystems Engineering Research Center for Nanotechnology-Enabled Water Treatment (NEWT) Center.

Li’s research employs electrochemical advanced oxidation processes to remove harmful organic compounds and ammonia-nitrogen, aiming to make the water safe for applications such as agriculture, wildlife and industrial processes. Additionally, the project explores recovering ammonia and producing hydrogen, contributing to sustainable resource management.

Additional projects under the agreement with Exxon are set to launch in the coming months and years, according to Rice.

Houston geothermal company secures major power purchase agreement with Shell

under contract

Beginning in 2026, Shell will be able to apply 31 megawatts of 24/7 carbon-free geothermal power to its customers thanks to a new 15-year power purchase agreement with Houston next-gen geothermal development company Fervo Energy.

“This agreement demonstrates that Fervo is stepping up to meet the moment,” Dawn Owens, VP, Head of Development & Commercial Markets at Fervo, said in a news release.

Shell will become the first offtaker to receive electrons from Fervo's flagship geothermal development in Beaver County, Utah’s Phase I of Cape Station. Cape Station is currently one of the world’s largest enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) developments, and the station will begin to deliver electricity to the grid in 2026.

Cape Station will increase from 400 MW to 500 MW, which is considered by the company a major accomplishment due to recent breakthroughs in Fervo’s field development strategy and well design. Fervo is now able to generate more megawatts per well by optimizing well spacing using fiber optic sensing, increasing casing diameter and implementing staggered bench development. This can allow for a 100 MW capacity increase without the need for additional drilling, according to the company.

With the addition of the new Shell deal, all 500 MW of capacity from Fervo’s Cape Station are now fully contracted. The deal also includes existing agreements, like Fervo’s PPAs with Southern California Edison and an expanded deal with Clean Power Alliance that adds 18 MW of carbon-free geothermal energy to the company’s existing PPA with Fervo.

“As customers seek out 24/7 carbon-free energy, geothermal is clearly an essential part of the solution,” Owens said in the release.

Houston expert: From EVs to F-35s — materials that power our future are in short supply

guest column

If you’re reading this on a phone, driving an EV, flying in a plane, or relying on the power grid to keep your lights on, you’re benefiting from critical minerals. These are the building blocks of modern life. Things like copper, lithium, nickel, rare earth elements, and titanium, they’re found in everything from smartphones to solar panels to F-35 fighter jets.

In short: no critical minerals, no modern economy.

These minerals aren’t just useful, they’re essential. And in the U.S., we don’t produce enough of them. Worse, we’re heavily dependent on countries that don’t always have our best interests at heart. That’s a serious vulnerability, and we’ve done far too little to fix it.

Where We Use Them and Why We’re Behind

Let’s start with where these minerals show up in daily American life:

  • Electric vehicles need lithium, cobalt, and nickel for batteries.
  • Wind turbines and solar panels rely on rare earths and specialty metals.
  • Defense systems require titanium, beryllium, and rare earths.
  • Basic infrastructure like power lines and buildings depend on copper and aluminum.

You’d think that something so central to the economy, and to national security, would be treated as a top priority. But we’ve let production and processing capabilities fall behind at home, and now we’re playing catch-up.

The Reality Check: We’re Not in Control

Right now, the U.S. is deeply reliant on foreign sources for critical minerals, especially China. And it’s not just about mining. China dominates processing and refining too, which means they control critical links in the supply chain.

Gabriel Collins and Michelle Michot Foss from the Baker Institute lay all this out in a recent report that every policymaker should read. Their argument is blunt: if we don’t get a handle on this, we’re in trouble, both economically and militarily.

China has already imposed export controls on key rare earth elements like dysprosium and terbium which are critical for magnets, batteries, and defense technologies, in direct response to new U.S. tariffs. This kind of tit-for-tat escalation exposes just how much leverage we’ve handed over. If this continues, American manufacturers could face serious material shortages, higher costs, and stalled projects.

We’ve seen this movie before, in the pandemic, when supply chains broke and countries scrambled for basics like PPE and semiconductors. We should’ve learned our lesson.

We Do Have a Stockpile, But We Need a Strategy

Unlike during the Cold War, the U.S. no longer maintains comprehensive strategic reserves across the board, but we do have stockpiles managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The real issue isn’t absence, it’s strategy: what to stockpile, how much, and under what assumptions.

Collins and Michot Foss argue for a more robust and better-targeted approach. That could mean aiming for 12 to 18 months worth of demand for both civilian and defense applications. Achieving that will require:

  • Smarter government purchasing and long-term contracts
  • Strategic deals with allies (e.g., swapping titanium for artillery shells with Ukraine)
  • Financing mechanisms to help companies hold critical inventory for emergency use

It’s not cheap, but it’s cheaper than scrambling mid-crisis when supplies are suddenly cut off.

The Case for Advanced Materials: Substitutes That Work Today

One powerful but often overlooked solution is advanced materials, which can reduce our dependence on vulnerable mineral supply chains altogether.

Take carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers, a cutting-edge material invented at Rice University. CNTs are lighter, stronger, and more conductive than copper. And unlike some future tech, this isn’t hypothetical: we could substitute CNTs for copper wire harnesses in electrical systems today.

As Michot Foss explained on the Energy Forum podcast:

“You can substitute copper and steel and aluminum with carbon nanotube fibers and help offset some of those trade-offs and get performance enhancements as well… If you take carbon nanotube fibers and you put those into a wire harness… you're going to be reducing the weight of that wire harness versus a metal wire harness like we already use. And you're going to be getting the same benefit in terms of electrical conductivity, but more strength to allow the vehicle, the application, the aircraft, to perform better.”

By accelerating R&D and deployment of CNTs and similar substitutes, we can reduce pressure on strained mineral supply chains, lower emissions, and open the door to more secure and sustainable manufacturing.

We Have Tools. We Need to Use Them.

The report offers a long list of solutions. Some are familiar, like tax incentives, public-private partnerships, and fast-tracked permits. Others draw on historical precedent, like “preclusive purchasing,” a WWII tactic where the U.S. bought up materials just so enemies couldn’t.

We also need to get creative:

  • Repurpose existing industrial sites into mineral hubs
  • Speed up R&D for substitutes and recycling
  • Buy out risky foreign-owned assets in friendlier countries

Permitting remains one of the biggest hurdles. In the U.S., it can take 7 to 10 years to approve a new critical minerals project, a timeline that doesn’t match the urgency of our strategic needs. As Collins said on the Energy Forum podcast:

“Time kills deals... That’s why it’s more attractive generally to do these projects elsewhere.”

That’s the reality we’re up against. Long approval windows discourage investment and drive developers to friendlier jurisdictions abroad. One encouraging step is the use of the Defense Production Act to fast-track permitting under national security grounds. That kind of shift, treating permitting as a strategic imperative, must become the norm, not the exception.

It’s Time to Redefine Sustainability

Sustainability has traditionally focused on cutting carbon emissions. That’s still crucial, but we need a broader definition. Today, energy and materials security are just as important.

Countries are now weighing cost and reliability alongside emissions goals. We're also seeing renewed attention to recycling, biodiversity, and supply chain resilience.

Net-zero by 2050 is still a target. But reality is forcing a more nuanced discussion:

  • What level of warming is politically and economically sustainable?
  • What tradeoffs are we willing to make to ensure energy access and affordability?

The bottom line: we can’t build a clean energy future without secure access to materials. Recycling helps, but it’s not enough. We'll need new mines, new tech, and a more flexible definition of sustainability.

My Take: We’re Running Out of Time

This isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a test of whether we’ve learned anything from the past few years of disruption. We’re not facing an open war, but the risks are real and growing.

We need to treat critical minerals like what they are: a strategic necessity. That means rebuilding stockpiles, reshoring processing, tightening alliances, and accelerating permitting across the board.

It won’t be easy. But if we wait until a real crisis hits, it’ll be too late.

———

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn on April 11, 2025.