Is it such bad news?

First of all, we have amply demonstrated our capacity for adaptation, agility and multidisciplinarity. In contrast to the previous generation, linear, ready-made careers have become extremely rare.

Besides, all introspection is positive. It's an opportunity to ask ourselves what we like to do. As we embark on our career paths, we have too little opportunity to ask ourselves this question. The fact that today's professions are under threat is an opportunity to ask ourselves. "If I had to keep only one or two facets of my job, which would I choose? Which of my skills will be of value on the job market? Which will represent a competitive advantage over other candidates, over the machine?

The hypotheses and projections we have put forward will help to guide our thinking. New skills are taking shape around three axes: skills linked to the mastery of new technologies; 100% human skills complementing AI skills (and for the moment not substitutable); and an intermediate path with professions to be reinvented by injecting IS or data analysis skills.

Take journalism, for example. Computers have proven their ability to write articles that may be false, but are nonetheless frighteningly credible. This is a real danger for our democracies, and shows just how much the profession of journalist will have to reinvent itself. In fact, this could be the opportunity for the profession to rediscover its original vocation: guaranteeing unmanipulated information. In L'AI va-t-elle aussi tuer la démocratie (Is AI also going to kill democracy?), Dr. Laurent Alexandre predicts data-crunching journalists whose essential role will be to verify the veracity of information. While the love of the pen will become secondary, the roles of investigator and guarantor of "true information" will become sacralized. We are already seeing journalists specializing in fact-checking. There's no doubt they'll be consolidating their skills to be able to analyze a mountain of data.

Marketing professions, already well on the way to integrating AI to understand consumers, should, for their part, reinforce the specialization between pros at analyzing behavior and anticipating it, and highly creative profiles that can't be substituted.

In the field of medicine, ophthalmology and radiology, machines are already providing more reliable diagnoses than humans, even from a distance. When you consider how long it takes to get an appointment in certain specialties, this is a real opportunity for patients. This should not, however, threaten the legitimacy of doctors. They will see their role reinforced in terms of therapeutic strategy, surgery, research and, of course, in the human accompaniment of patients.

As a result, in addition to their "traditional" know-how, a large number of professionals will need to acquire a solid command of robotics or AI technologies, sometimes going as far as to parameterize these machines. They will also need to develop global analysis skills, so as to be able to articulate and make sense of both data and more traditional information. Thus, the leader or project manager of the not-too-distant future will have to move between real and virtual environments, between data indicators (cold) and human indicators (hot), between human collaborators and machines or bots. He or she will become a conductor capable of harmonizing this "man-machine teamwork", as much as a compass for decision-making.

What's the impact on HR?

In a world prone to fake profiles, like journalists, recruiters will have to adopt an approach based on maximum analysis and verification of the robustness of career paths. Of course, there will still be room for intuition, but within a range of tools, both classic and innovative, designed to objectify career paths and personalities as much as possible: reference checks (the basis), case studies, questionnaires, serious games...

What role will LinkedIn play in this quest for veracity? Will it be an essential partner, a false friend or a competitor? As with all social networks, LinkedIn encourages false profiles. While it has the advantage of providing information on a professional lifeline, it does not offer a "Verified" certificate.

LinkedIn can also be seen as a threat, with its voracious appetite for taking market share from recruitment agencies. After all, LinkedIn has the advantage of knowing everything about candidates, as well as what recruiters are looking for. It is precisely this indispensable reprocessing of information through verification and human sensitivity that will protect recruitment agencies from such competition. Not to mention the fact that not the entire job market can be found on the platform (70 - 80% of profiles "only"). For companies, entrusting recruitment to LinkedIn alone would mean cutting themselves off from 20-30% of potential candidates.

Our added value as recruiters will consist in fine-tuning our analysis of raw data (CVs, online profiles, tests, simulations...), combined with what our experience, our perception of the professional and our intuition tell us.

While we already know that robots can rate individuals (social, professional, civic, environmental), as they do in China, and tomorrow will be able to read facial expressions even more finely, the strength of recruitment agencies lies in their ability to combine an objective assessment of the candidate with more subjective criteria, such as the match between the candidate and the employer, the work environment, and the personalities of the N+1 and the CEO.