Human enhancements and competitiveness

Citation

Ali, A.J. (2013), "Human enhancements and competitiveness", Competitiveness Review, Vol. 23 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/cr.2013.34723baa.001

Human enhancements and competitiveness

Article Type: Editorial From: Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Volume 23, Issue 2

The quest for shaping market competition and competitive positioning has forced companies and research institutions to come up with new discoveries and techniques to ensure superior performance and domination of particular industries or markets. This quest, at individual and group levels, is not new. For example, the Babylonian and Greek elite yearned and searched for ways to expand their lives or enhance their physical strength and capabilities. These aspirations were and still are of great interest to certain influential elements of many societies. But whether these are improbable dreams or very real possibilities, in a situation where the desire for enhancement of one’s life is a target goal, they become a motivational factor for exploring the unknown.

This exploration of the unknown can enable humanity to move forward on many fronts, economically, socially, and technologically. However, for years, the attempt to significantly expand life expectancy or discover panaceas to cure all types of disease has been met with failure and disappointment. Centuries ago, before the rise of modern corporations, the search for discoveries was primarily carried out by individuals and with limited resources. In today’s markets, though entrepreneurs play a significant role in research, corporations utilize their resources to attract creative people from all fields and localities and to engage in a variety of research.

The rise of modern corporations and the spread of the market economy, however, influence market competition and the role of discovery in enhancing competitive advantage. That is, there is a dramatic emphasis on corporate benefits resulting from innovative engagement instead of just satisfying personal curiosity. More importantly is the trend, though not yet on a large-scale, of moving away from understanding and meeting the psychological, social and or economic needs of employees (e.g. Hawthorne studies) to focusing on human physical or cognitive enhancements to boost productivity.

On November 2012, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society issued a report on Human Enhancement and the Future of Work. The report elaborated on technological advancements that could dramatically change how people work over the next decade. These technologies, such as cognitive enhancement drugs, bionic limbs, and retinal implants, could affect various human capacities such as memory, hearing, productivity, and mobility.

The report defines “human enhancement” as:

[…] a range of approaches that may be used to improve aspects of human function (e.g. memory, hearing, mobility). This may either be for the purpose of restoring an impaired function to previous or average levels, or to raise function to a level considered to be “beyond the norm” for humans.

The report gave three examples that could directly shape the work environment and the state of those who might be subject to human enhancements.

These are:

1. 1.

   Using cognitive enhancing drugs to improve memory and concentration.

2. 2.

   Utilizing hearing aids and retinal implants to improve sensory perception.

3. 3.

   Using bionic limbs to restore mobility.

In terms of changing the nature of work, the report observed six trends: the rise of a multigenerational workforce, due to more people working at an older age; employees have increasing expectations of, and access to, flexible work; different skills expected from employees, which effect health and safety related issues; intensity of international competition and evolution of the form and structure of organizations; individuals working while in ill health or with disabilities; and employers assuming a greater degree of responsibility for the welfare of their employees who are well placed to promote a healthy lifestyle among workers.

These changes, according to the report, make applying human enhancements a necessity for many businesses. Though the report points out some negative consequences of applying these technologies, it does not provide adequate coverage of the possibility of abuse and misuse of such enhancements. Besides health concerns and stress, there are several consequences that could lead to the creation of an Orwellian work environment. Some unpleasant consequences could become tolerated:

• •

  In their quest to improve productivity through drugs, employers could transform employees into Pavlovian entities. In this regard, employees would be treated as instruments for improving return on investment, primarily to serve the interests of shareholders.

• •

  Drugs could increase employees’ dependency, thus curtailing their ability to think and take initiative without receiving their daily allotment of human enhancements.

• •

  Employees could be exploited without being conscious of their situation.

• •

  Employees could “intellectually surrender” to the will and desires of employers. Their independent thinking and pride in their profession and what they are doing could be compromised.

• •

  Employers could utilize new technologies and drugs to focus the attention and possibly the loyalty of employees primarily on work, at the expense of their responsibility toward family and society.

Though the above items may not necessarily materialize and, in fact, many positive outcomes might be generated, the chances are that new technologies and medical advancements are more likely to empower employers rather than employees. Indeed, the possibility that employers will dictate what drugs to take and when to improve employees’ memory, productivity, and alertness may degenerate into a new form of control. This form would be driven by ensuring conformity and compliance with work instruction. Worse, employees may be convinced into believing that their employers are right and that drugs are provided for the sake of advancing their welfare.

Fierce competition and the quest to shape market competition have changed strategic priorities for most corporations. The goal for survival and maintaining market share is no longer a sure possibility. Today’s competitors are not only unforgiving, but they seek to reshape market competition and the competition game to their advantage. It is within this culture that human enhancements may become a tool for winning market competition and changing the landscape of competition. Those who are not party to this game will be doomed to failure. Furthermore, both competition and competitors have increasingly emerged from unexpected industries and in different places (e.g. Apple shaped competition in the entertainment business; China’s Xiaomi Technology emerged in just four years after it was found to be a serious rival for Apple in producing and marketing high-end smartphones). Thus, companies could resort to human enhancements as a new instrument for competing effectively in these marketplaces. Within this form of competition, the workforce might no longer be viewed as a vital resource, but become a mere instrument in the service of greed and market rivalry.

Without doubt, it is impossible to stop human discovery or overlook the aspirations of corporations to be competitive. Scientific advances and progress are essential for broadening, rather than diminishing, the range of options available in the workplace and in society. The issue is not whether scientific progress is important. Rather, it is how to handle scientific discoveries, how to apply them, and how to identify the purpose of their applications. In the course of their application many things can go wrong, leading to unintended outcomes. Progress should be guided by ensuring that the well-being of mankind is not compromised.

To make sure that human dignity is not violated, ethical standards are set and damages to society, competitors, and employees are minimized or avoided, guidelines must be developed for medical and scientific advances. This will require determined efforts to move beyond immediate interests and create mechanisms for optimally dealing with new and emerging scientific advances. Therefore, fruitful cooperation among companies, civic organizations, professional institutions, universities, and governments becomes a necessity.

Abbas J. Ali