10 Break-Out Sessions

  • Time: 3:30 pm - 4:30 pm

1
1
A Demographic Revolution: Young India Takes Charge (with All India Management Association)
Speaker
Ritesh Agarwal, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, OYO Rooms
Pranjal Sharma (Topic Leader), Economic Analyst, Advisor and Author, India

India is undergoing its economic, technological and demographic transition simultaneously. An old country is becoming youthful and adventurous with the passage of time. Young Indians like OYO founder Ritesh Agarwal are quietly taking charge of Indian ethos by becoming icons of audacious aspirations and tangible proofs of its potential, spawning startups that are becoming most valuable and famous than many legacy companies. How can young revolutionaries find ways to carry the older generation of investors, regulators, workers and consumers with them and what can other economies and founders learn from India’s momentous transition?

Collaborative Advantage Across Generations: Reflecting on the SGS Experience (ISC Alumni)
Speaker
Former Members of the International Students' Comittee
Christoph Loos (Topic Leader), Chief ­Executive ­Offi­cer, Hilti AG
Vivian Bernet (Topic Leader), Head of the Organising Committe, International Students' Comittee
Watch Here

For over 50 years teams of student have volunteered to organise the St. Gallen Symposium. They have written countless invitations, met thousands of partners, and welcomed some of the most important personalities of their time on stage. Together with former members of the ISC we will reflect on the St. Gallen Symposium experience of cross-generational dialogue and collaboration, the lessons they have learned for their lives and on how the symposium has evolved. This session is organised together with ISC Alumni.

Collective Genius? Cultivating Creativity in the Arts and Beyond
Speaker
Susan Goldsworthy, Affiliate Professor of Leadership, Communications and Organizational Change, IMD Business School
Gerry Hofstetter, Light Artist & Film Producer Hofstetter Marketing
Javiera Estrada, Artist
Tatjana Rupp (Topic Leader), Member of the International Students' Committee

As the need for innovation is growing, the routinisation of well-structured creative processes within organizations is key for concurrent value creation. Prof. Susan Goldsworthy of IMD, this year's St. Gallen Symposium artist Javiera Estrada and Light Artist Gerry Hofstetter will discuss the role of collaboration in the creative process. Together, and in conversation with the audience, they’ll explore the way collaboration can drive creativity in various organisational contexts, and, on the other hand, the role of introversion and lone contemplation in creating something new.

Connecting Business with Purpose: The Potential of Skills-Based Volunteering
Speaker
Curdin Duschletta, Head Community Impact Switzerland & Foundations, UBS
Christopher Jarvis, Executive Director, RWInstitute
Prof. Amanda Shantz (Topic Leader), MBA Director and Professor of Management, University of St.Gallen

Many employee volunteering and giving programs are presented as an employee perk, similar to casual Fridays or a team-building event. But treating workplace giving and volunteering this way fails to fully capitalise on the great potential of such programs: to foster employee personal growth, and address key societal challenges. The panel will particularly explore the potential of skills-based volunteering, its benefits, and the unique challenges that arise when moving from merely transactional volunteering to something far more transformative.

Financing the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs
Speaker
Patrick Zhong, Founding Managing Partner, M31 Capital
Makram Azar, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Full Circle Capital
Prof. Julia Binder (Topic Leader), Professor of Sustainable Innovation and Business Transformation, IMD Business School

The investment landscape over the next twenty years will be radically different from previous generations. While there appears to be greater access to capital, there also appears to be much more volatility and debt with no clear dominant financing mechanism. Entrepreneurs, VC, Private Equity, and banks will have to find new ways to work together to create growth and stimulate innovation. How can investors and entrepreneurs better collaborate and find mutually beneficial agreements that balance risk and return?

Hacking the Fashion & Luxury Watchmaking Industry towards more Sustainability (with Condé Nast College)
Speaker
Martina Bonnier, Editor-In-Chief, Vogue Scandinavia
Raynald Aeschlimann, President and CEO, Omega S.A
Carmen Jenny, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, CLOTHESfriends AG
Johannes Reponen (Topic Leader), Director of Post-Graduate Programmes; Academic Affairs; Research & Knowledge Exchange, Condé Nast College

The fashion industry accounts for 10% of humanity’s annual carbon emissions – more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. For long, the fashion and luxury watchmaking industry drove, together with the fashion media industry, unsustainable dynamics in the sector: generating more and more demand through an artificial cycle of new collections and seasonal trends. Businesses’ marketing, media as well as influencers thereby create a constant longing and demand for their products. How can designers, fashion houses and publishers exit this vicious cycle and, collaboratively, drive the transition towards more sustainable and ethical fashion and luxury watchmaking?

M100 Sanssouci [email protected] Gallen: Media’s New Power: More Impact Through Collaborative Journalism
Speaker
Mathias Müller von Blumencron, Journalist, Member of the Board, Tagesanzeiger and Advisory Board Member M100 Sanssouci Colloquium
Joanna Krawczyk, Chairwoman, Leading European Newspaper Alliance
Paul Radu, Investigative Journalist, Co-Founder OCCRP
Astrid Frohloff (Topic Leader), TV Presenter and Journalist, Advisory Board Member M100 Sanssouci Colloquium

Media diversity, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Europe are currently under threat. Journalists and independent media companies are increasingly joining forces across borders to respond to such challenges as well as to be able to continue to offer independent quality journalism in the future. This session will identify learnings from new media partnerships such as the Leading European Newspaper Alliance (LENA) and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to identify how media can most effectively work together.

Democratizing Access to the next Generation of Technology and Innovation: Communities and Radical Transformation
Speaker
Gina Loften, Member of the Board of Trustees, TIAA
Luzius Meisser, Chairman, Bitcoin Suisse
Tycho Onnasch, General Manager, Trust Machines
Shuo Chen (Topic Leader), General Partner, IOVC

Technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship are key drivers of the modern economy and social mobility. Given their importance, we should strive to improve accessibility to tech, education and entrepreneurship across all backgrounds. Creating open and inclusive communities, especially with tech is important to accomplishing this goal, but it is easier said that done. Simultaneously, a third iteration of the internet – Web3 – has the potential to radically transform the internet of things and reduce barriers to access. How can these forces be effectively harnessed and directed for the benefit of all people and move the world forward?

Varieties of Tech Capitalism: Europe's Approach to Innovation and Regulation in a Global Context
Speaker
Julian Teicke, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, wefox
Lisa-Marie Fassl, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Female Founders
Christoph Keese (Topic Leader), Managing Partner and Chief Executive Officer, hy

Over the past decades, the tech sector, especially the internet of things, has become a central component of modern economies. Trying to catch up with the exponential pace of technological development, the US, China, and Europe are crafting rules of the game on digital markets. What are the emerging characteristic differences between regulatory regimes of digital markets, in the US, Europe and beyond, and how do they balance innovation and regulation? In light of strategic competition over tech dominance between the US and China, what are the opportunities and challenges for Europe in particular?

Changed for Good? Engaging with the New World of Work
Speaker
Petra von Strombeck, Chief Executive Officer, New Work SE
Jean-Christophe Deslarzes, Chair of the Board, Adecco Group
Nat Ware, Founder & CEO Forte
Prof. Heike Bruch (Topic Leader), Director, Institute for Leadership and Human Resources Management, University of St. Gallen
Watch Here

The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the world of work forever. The fast and widespread adoption of remote work and an ever-increasing concern of employees with purpose and meaning on their job have intensified the war for talents. Reaching out to and concurrently engaging employees is key for businesses across sectors and regions. What learnings can be drawn from the pandemic as regards our approach to work? Has the world of work changed for the better? And what role does leadership culture and a new approach to hiring play going forward?

Sign up for our Newsletter

Sign up for our Newsletter

End Work As We Know It?

1. Abolition by automation

An old acronym introduced by the Clinton administration in the U.S. read EWAKI: “End Welfare As We Know It.” This acronym stemming from the 1990s can be adapted to „End Work As We Know It.” We are told that this new kind of EWAKI will be a by-product of digitalization and the rise of the robots. Accordingly, “work” in the traditional sense is doomed to be the task of natural-born losers. Self-appointed experts say that many industries and service providers are targets already shot and wounded by the weapons of new technologies. Who will suffer? Carmakers, insurance companies, logistics and transportation, asset management, parts of the health sector, etc. etc.

Some of these economic players are supposed to rise from the ashes. They will look different then. Most of the workers formerly employed in these sectors will be gone. Barely anyone will possibly miss the human factor as humans are famously flawed, fragile, slow, and suboptimal. But what will all those humans replaced by robots and digital devices do all day long? Maybe they will become philosophers or drunkards. This sounds really scary.

Many commentators are obsessed with the new EWAKI – with the idea of the end of work. Yet we do not know whether a development with such a large-scale impact will actually take place. Let me remind you of the fact that the old EWAKI – “End Welfare As We Know It” – was a prime example of political rhetoric. It came with great expectations and had little effect. As of yet, the prognostic value and reliability of the new EWAKI is up in the air. It shares this uncertainty with a long list of other bold scenarios predicting the future. Handling them with caution is highly recommended. Most of those scenarios that were the talk of the town once turned out to be plainly wrong. Predictions, megatrends, utopian or dystopian scenarios are conspicuously unreliable. In retrospect, most of them appear ridiculously narrow-minded.

(Just to give an example from a different context: I am still flabbergasted by the career of Germany’s most successful futurologist who once predicted a so-called megatrend: the ultimate rise to power of a new class of professional overachievers called NEGOs [“Nice Egocentrics”]. The futurologist himself was a proud member of this new class, boasted about living in the inner city, being happily childless, working hard and playing hard. A couple of years later, the same guy came up with a new megatrend. It aimed at living in an eco-friendly environment, slowing down, doing home office, caring for the partner and the kids. He was once again taking himself as a role model. Meanwhile, he had moved to the outskirts, built a house, and founded a family. How come people still take him seriously?)

The scenario of the abolition of work by automation and digitalization is based on far-reaching speculations about future developments. Have we learnt the lesson that most such prognoses go astray? Yes and no.

Yes, we have learnt a lesson. It concerns all those prognoses that predict a change for the better. They have suffered from a steep decline of credibility. We have grown suspicious when it comes to scenarios of progress, liberation, and the “bettering of mankind.” The business of bashing utopias is thriving. Disillusionment is the mind-set of the hour.

No, we haven’t properly learnt the lesson of being wary of futurology. Optimistic scenarios have a hard time, but negative scenarios still thrive. Cassandra’s devoted followers find acclaim. The play on fear works well. We are strangely perceptive and credulous when somebody makes us believe that things get worse. Yet it is irrational to limit scepticism to favourable prognoses only. It should be all over the place. Nobody knows whether automation and digitalization will lead to mass unemployment.

Here is my humble suggestion: Instead of being obsessed with an uncanny future, we should use our judgment for analysing the present. The hype about automation deflects our attention from what’s going on at the moment. Two developments already seriously affect our attitude towards work or what we may call our working definition of work. They truly deserve our attention. Work is currently threatened by what I perceive as a deadly embrace and attempted murder.

2. A deadly embrace

Technically speaking, we should not talk about the end of work, but about the end of labour. Work is not limited to professional, contractually defined activities. We talk about garden work, housework, community work, volunteer work, even family work, and we may consider a workout as a particular kind of work as well. These kinds of work are altogether unconcerned by the new EWAKI. Those arguing for an unconditional basic income, for instance, do not mean to imply that those benefitting from such an allowance would be lazy all day long. They could get involved in those other kinds of work.

The threat of the new EWAKI is directed at a particular set of jobs and specific kinds of labour. Labour in this sense is under siege anyway – but in a sense not discussed so far. Instead of further musing about its future abolition, we should account for the ideological devaluation of work or labour which is already underway.

Work as labour, as an activity securing our self-preservation, takes place under certain constraints: We count the hours, deal with more or less agreeable superiors and colleagues, meet ends, etc. The classical counter image to this kind of work is “play.” Ever since German poet Friedrich Schiller coined the phrase “Man is only quite a man when he plays,” playing has been hailed as the homestead of human freedom and well-being. Now it is quite improbable that we could turn play into a full-time activity. What we could do instead though, is alter the character of work or labour in such a way that it resembles play or becomes a playful activity itself. The old saying “Work hard, play hard” would then obtain a new meaning: Working hard would become a hard play in its own right. This is exactly what’s going on right now. The clichés taken as an endorsement for this revaluation are easy at hand. Digital influencers are busy while having a drink or taking a sunbath, Google employees can’t tell the difference between work and leisure, members of the “creative class” are expected to think out of the box. Management consultants learn from their gurus that rule no. 1 reads, “There are no rules.” When you are asked how you feel at work, the designated answer is, “It’s fun!” All these findings speak the same language. Work becomes playful, play becomes lucrative. You work always or never. You embrace work, love what you do, are obsessed with it, indulge in it. This is what I call the deadly embrace of work. In the course of this embrace, work gets distorted. It is mistaken as an altogether playful, creative activity.

Don’t get me wrong. I am fond of playing. (My grown-up kids actually say that I’m not a grown-up but a kid myself, always in for playing a game or being foolish.) However, there is a difference between looking for opportunities to brighten up the grey zone of life and mistaking work for a game. When we do this, we commit the crime of a deadly embrace. Not only does this playful deformation conceal the constraints of work, it also gives a distorted picture of its potential and its particular value. Work is marked by circumstances constricting, regulating, and framing our behaviour. This is still true for contexts in which work is marketed as playtime. Yet work is different from play for another good reason as well. By working – not by playing! –, we change things and have an impact on others. If we are lucky, we do something that makes the world a better place. We are proudly serious about what we are doing. This dimension of purpose gets lost when people identify work and play, or even life and play. 

 “End work as we know it:” According to version one of the new EWAKI, work is transformed into play. Whether this attempt is guided by good or cruel intentions, it leads to a deadly embrace either way. It is guilty of distorting and flattening our understanding of work. Moreover, when you hear the call for creativity over and over again, it loses much of its appeal. The whole idea of having fun all day long turns into a chore.

3. Attempted murder

Version two of EWAKI today does not consist in a deadly embrace but in attempted murder. It chooses a path altogether different from version one – a path equally damaging for our understanding work. The battle cry for this second version of EWAKI is the mantra of self-appointed humanists and champions of self-help: “work-life balance.” This slogan is popular – and poisoned. It is based on a misleading presupposition.

“Work-life balance” – what does it mean? When taking this phrase seriously, we are invited to handle a balance – one of those old-fashioned balances with two trays. On the one side, we have a tray loaded with “life”, on the other, a tray loaded with “work.” The idea is that we try to balance the two, which under the given circumstances means: Don’t forget life over work.

This seemingly benevolent recommendation is based on a malicious assumption. By balancing with two trays, we are forced to think that work is the opposite of life and that life begins when you are done with work. This setting is obviously altogether different from the one put forward by version one of EWAKI. Now we don’t deal with a seemingly friendly embrace taking a deadly twist at the very end. We deal with a straightforward case of attempted murder.

The image of work faces another serious blow. Its potential of providing opportunities for self-assertion, its energizing effect is wiped out. We are forced to think of work as the counterpart of life, as belonging to the kingdom of death. We are invited to escape from this premature death or from being dead while still alive by leaving work behind and starting to live. This is an altogether misleading, hapless and hopeless idea – not just for a workaholic like me.

You are alive when working, and you are alive when not working. Creating an opposition between life and work is a dangerous, ideological move. It may appeal to some brainchildren of the consumer society, but “work-life balance” is just the wrong word for renewing and reimagining our self-image in late modernity. While version one of the new EWAKI damages the idea of work by transforming it into a fun fact, version two of the new EWAKI destroys the idea of work by burying it.

***

The future of work does not just depend on our ability to come to grips with upcoming challenges like automation and digitalization. First and foremost, the future of work depends on our ability to fight the all-too present ideological developments described above: the two threats labelled as a deadly embrace and attempted murder. These threats are about to destroy our self-image as self-reliant, active, and accountable human beings. If we don’t face those threats, the “end of work” possibly induced by automation and digitalization will, at best, be the killing of a dead body.

Author

Share the article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.