Rise of the digital workforce: rethinking work in the age of agentic AI
What is perceived as science fiction today becomes mainstream tomorrow – and transformative the day after. Such is the progression of generative AI, and now, agentic AI.
We may not have all the answers yet. But the questions are becoming clearer. And the organisations that ask them early – and act boldly – will shape the future of work for the better. As Professor Ethan Mollick said recently, 'The time to begin isn't when everything becomes clear – it's now, while everything is still messy and uncertain. The advantage goes to those willing to learn fastest.'
The pace at which AI is evolving is staggering. Agentic AI – autonomous systems capable of reasoning, learning, and acting independently – are no longer a theoretical concept. Agents are already executing human tasks, orchestrating workflows, and adapting through interactions with both humans and other agents. It's only getting faster as enterprise software players, hyperscalers, platform providers, frontier labs and new agentic product start-ups are innovating and releasing capabilities into market at a blistering pace.
The short of it really is that we've well and truly entered a new era of transformation – and what we're witnessing is the rise of a digital workforce.
To harness its full potential, we must move beyond outdated paradigms – especially the one-to-one thinking that equates digital labour to human labour in direct substitution. Human capacity is finite. Digital labour is not. It's a limitless, scalable, always-on capacity that can multiply effort, insight, and creativity at a scale and speed that previously was not possible. When we break this outdated paradigm, and rethink how we work, the opportunities look very different.
Stu Scotis, National GenAI Lead at Deloitte Australia
Picture a marketing team empowered by AI agents capable of simulating hundreds of thousands of campaigns, then surfacing the top-performing strategies for a human to evaluate. Or a sales force supported by thousands of virtual assistants, each tailoring offers to individual customer profiles based on real-time analysis of preferences, history, and behaviour. Or a finance team where CFOs have thousands of digital finance analysts. These examples are just a starting point, and exciting as they are, even these are constrained by today's thinking of structure and work. We're not just talking about automation for productivity – it's a reinvention of how we work. It demands a wholesale redesign of how we think about workflows, roles, and even how value is created.
This is happening now and if you're following this space closely, you'll have seen headlines with high-profile CEOs setting directives on AI usage by employees with AI first strategies. We're also seeing examples of even bolder moves with some organisations merging HR and IT departments as the line between managing technology and managing people becomes increasingly blurred with agents.
These organisations are going beyond surface-level integration and not just bolting AI onto existing systems – they are reimagining those systems entirely. They are looking at core functions such as customer service, product development, HR, and operations to be restructured and redesigned to take full advantage of AI's capabilities.
Looking ahead, leadership roles also need to be redesigned as we consider the digital workforce. To date, leadership has been built around managing people, now we need managers who orchestrate fleets of AI agents as well as human teams. Setting clear expectations, evaluating outputs, and defining what 'good' looks like are quickly becoming core competencies for leaders as they take on accountability to transform their organisations with AI.
Another essential question for every organisation is this: how far will you allow automation to proliferate? The capability is here – but are your systems, culture and people prepared? Agentic AI can perform complex tasks end-to-end, but without clear governance and ethical guidelines, it can introduce real risk. The path forward involves deliberate decisions about where to retain human oversight, where to build in safeguards, and how to ensure transparency in automated processes.
What the end state looks like when functions, organisations or even sectors are redesigned around AI is not yet clear. But waiting isn't an option. Those who progress the fastest will gain significant, if not impassable, competitive advantage.
We might not want to be in a race with AI – but we are. It's a global race, and the stakes are high. Productivity, competitiveness and economic growth are all on the line. And as the pace of technological change accelerates, so must our ability to act with clarity and intent.
The race leaders will be those who are already laying the groundwork to rebuild, rethink and reinvent around AI. We've got a lot more to say about how organisations should be planning to shape the future of work with a sustained focus on delivering scale and value. Watch this space!
Stu Scotis is National GenAI Lead at Deloitte Australia.
-
Disclaimer
This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor.
Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication.
About Deloitte
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee ('DTTL'), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. Please see www.deloitte.com/au to learn more.
Copyright © 2025 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
-
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Breakdown': Kelly Clarkson left tormented over huge personal decision
Kelly Clarkson has allegedly had a 'breakdown' on the set of her variety talk show, The Kelly Clarkson Show, as she grapples with a huge decision behind the scenes. Clarkson has recently been at the centre of rumours that she's planning to quit the show when her contract with NBC ends next year. The Since U Been Gone singer has reportedly been struggling with the idea that quitting the show would leave hundreds of her employees without a job in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Two staffers on the show told Daily Mail that Clarkson has been 'tormented' by the decision she has to make and it's impacting her behaviour on set. 'She's made it very clear that she doesn't want her decisions to affect all of our livelihoods … but it's a bit late for that now,' said the anonymous staffers. 'I get that she's conflicted, but when she says things publicly, it makes the public feel like she doesn't want to be here. And if she doesn't want to be here, why should they tune in?' They claimed that Clarkson has been sat down with show bosses in a bid to hash out a plan for the show's future, but that the meeting ended with the singer melting down. 'She was emotional. She was worried about the staff and had a bit of a breakdown about it,' they said. The latest reports come weeks after it emerged the show bosses were scrambling to try and keep Clarkson on the show. 'Kelly's number one priority is her children, and they always will be,' one industry insider told Page Six of the Texas native. 'The show is gruelling. It's a whole lot of work and I hear that Kelly would like to spend more time down South.' It's thought Clarkson is hoping to get back to focusing on her family as well as her music career, which has had to take a back seat due to her demanding schedule on the show. While singing at an arena in Atlantic City recently, Clarkson told the audience: 'We haven't done a show in a while, y'all, 'cause I have a talk show. It's like a whole other job.' 'We are bummed 'cause we love doing shows, and it's hard to fit it in, so it's cool when it does work out with the schedule,' she added, 'and it's cool to get to see your faces and feed off y'all. Thank you so much for having so much energy.'
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Elon Musk lashes out as he digests his ‘betrayal' at the hands of Donald Trump's circle
Amid a flurry of furious tweets from Elon Musk, denouncing the current centrepiece of Donald Trump's agenda, came one with particularly telling language. 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' Mr Musk posted, referring to the congressional elections of 2026. Betrayed. There's a loaded word. One that says more about Mr Musk's sorely bruised ego, I suspect, than the American government's long-complacent tax and spending policies. The man is neither talking nor acting like someone offended, on an intellectual level, by the betrayal of faceless voters he doesn't know. Rather he sounds like someone who feels he has been betrayed on a personal level. And you know what? For good reason. As perverse as it feels to offer sympathy for a guy who's never had a jot of it to spare for anyone else, you must concede that Elon's sense of grievance here is understandable. Trump gladly took hundreds of millions of dollars from Elon last year. Gave him a few shoutouts on stage. Threw him a token job in the government. Shoved him out the door after less than five months. And is now spitting on everything he was trying, however clumsily, to achieve in that job. You don't need to be a ten-year-old trapped in the ketamine-addled body of a 53-year-old tech billionaire to empathise with his frustration. At issue here is a piece of legislation called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Yes, that is its real, formal name. And yes, adults with long and, in some cases, even quite serious careers in politics signed off on it. The Trump family's branding instincts remain as subtle as ever. The moniker is at least two-thirds fitting though, because this thing is huge and near all-encompassing. The third element, beauty, remains in the eye of the beholder. It runs to more than a thousand pages, some of which some members of Congress did actually bother to read before passing it through the House of Representatives. It still needs to survive the Republican-controlled Senate before it can be sent to Mr Trump's desk for a final signature which, presumably, shall not be affixed via autopen. What of the contents? There are many. At the topline level: an extension of the sweeping tax cuts from Mr Trump's first term; big cuts to initiatives like Medicaid, the government program that funds health insurance for low-income Americans; and a humungous chunk of funding for immigration enforcement initiatives, like the border wall Mr Trump has been promising to build, quickly, since 2015. Some of us are old enough to remember when Mexico was going to pay for the thing, which would negate the need for any US government funding. Ah well. Empty promises. Elon is not the only person becoming acquainted with them. I digress. The problem with Mr Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, Mr Musk argues, is the effect on America's already drowning federal budget. According to newly released costings from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the equivalent of our Parliamentary Budget Office in Australia – the legislation as written will add nearly $US2.5 trillion to the country's debt over the next decade. Not million. Not billion. Trillion. It blows a gaping hole in the nation's budget, which already looked a bit like off Swiss cheese. Another cost, which admittedly concerns Mr Musk far less, is an estimated 10.9 million people being left without health insurance. Not exactly something to celebrate in a country where common injuries and ailments often bankrupt entire families. Now, as you would expect of a mature government, the White House and senior Republicans have offered a thoughtful response to the CBO's analysis: 'Nuh-uh.' They claim the CBO is biased against them, you see, like every other institution in the country. Hence, the assertions we are hearing, from those Republicans that this bill actually won't add a single dollar to America's deficit. Not one! Not a dime. The argument is that Mr Trump's extended tax cuts will spur a sudden, miraculous explosion of economic growth that wipes out any lost revenue. And that, when said growth is combined with the money raised by Mr Trump's on again, off again, on again, off again, on again (but at a lower rate), off again, on again tariffs, the budget will be fine. In politispeak, we might call this position tenuous. In real world speak, we call it obvious, utter crap. The Trump administration is building its tax and spending plans atop a house of cards, atop another house of cards, atop a house of tissue paper, all of it underpinned by assumptions that insult the Trump officials' own intelligence, never mind ours. Which means the Trump administration is, essentially, just continuing business as usual in Washington. Talk a humungous game about the importance of fiscal rectitude while out of office. Wag a finger at the profligate left. Then, once you've gained power yourself, run the nation's finances even more recklessly. It's a proud Republican tradition at this point. Deficit spending on a social safety net? Grossly irresponsible. Ballooning the deficit to provide lower taxes for the wealthy? Something something good economic management. No wonder someone like Elon Musk, the living embodiment of 'move fast and break things', is so frustrated. The poor guy believed he was part of something revolutionary. When Mr Trump tapped him to head the Department of Government Efficiency, he thought he was there to actually achieve something. Putting aside the chaos and stupidity of DOGE's methods – firing people only to rehire them in a scramble, repeatedly revising its savings down after being caught using false numbers, etc – Mr Musk's commitment to the vision, the ultimate end goal of a more fiscally balanced federal government, was at least genuine. Then he showed up for work in the White House, and swiftly learned none of the other acolytes hanging around the place cared about it. On one level, he was preposterously naive. Donald Trump ranted about the federal deficit during his first run for president almost a decade ago, and repeatedly claimed he would fix it easily. He went on to run massive deficits throughout his first term. How on earth did Mr Musk come to believe that guy would actually commit to balancing the budget? His own social media platform's juiced algorithm may have been a contributor. But the rest of Washington must have shocked Mr Musk as well. Consider: even the more principled members of the Republican caucus, the fiscal hawks, the libertarian small government types, are hardly standing athwart history shouting 'no' here. 'While I oppose increasing the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, I enthusiastically support making the tax cuts permanent and could vote for the Big not-yet-Beautiful Bill if the debt ceiling were voted on separately,' Senator Rand Paul, a quasi-libertarian, said today. A position as substantive as one's stool after a night of booze and curry. He's opposed to swelling the debt too much at some point in the future. Think of the carte blanche you might give the Democrats, if the ceiling of potential debt is raised! But at the same time, he's just fine with the tax cuts that are forecast to supersize said debt by trillions right now. Mr Paul probably would have been part of a Senate majority without any intervention, in last year's campaign, from Mr Musk. But you can mount a plausible argument that none of the jokers currently running America's executive branch would have attained this level of power without Elon Musk's money, or his cultural influence, or his platform. And what did he get for it? Barely four months inside the administration, running an ineffective quasi-department, whose work has been undone by a single bill. The implicit mockery of people who pretended to think he was a genius when it suited them, only to consciously uncouple at the first opportunity. So much time was spent, in these early months of the Trump administration, worrying about Mr Musk using the White House to further his own business interests. Not without reason. It turns out the Trump team was using him all along.
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Zero deaths': new tech to change cars forever
Some 66 years and a more than million lives saved since engineer Volvo's Nils Bohlin invented the three-point safety belt, the Swedish brand has once again reinvented the humble seat belt with an adaptive restraint system that adjusts to your body shape to lower risk of injury. Primed to be introduced on next-year's mid-size all-electric Volvo EX60 SUV, the next-gen multi-adaptive belt was developed following real-world accidents saw a higher risk of injury for those unfortunates among us not built like mister or misses average. Painstakingly analysing data from over 80,000 people involved in real-life accidents globally over the last five decades, Volvo found that tall occupants were particularly exposed to head injuries, while smaller drivers and passengers were prone to painful fractured ribs. A rethink was needed, that prompted Volvo engineers to introduce an advanced adaptive safety belt. This belt tailors its responses to those onboard to minimise injury following an impact and the clever pioneering tech works even before you've placed your bum on seat. SNEAKY SAFETY Sneakily using a combination of interior and exterior sensors, the Volvo accurately sizes you up by measuring your height, weight, body shape and then takes account of your seating position and posture. While modern safety belts already use load limiters to control forces applied on the human body, the new tech broadens the profile of responses from three- to a Spinal Tap-sounding 11, matching each setting to the individual on board. The belts are now so clever that they even act differently depending on the direction or speed of the vehicle. The result is a restraint system that dishes out higher belt loads for larger occupants that reduces the chance of a head injury, while lighter passengers receive lower belt loads to slash the risk of painful cracked ribs. It's not just weight or height Volvo boffins have catered to. A broad spectrum of load-limiting profiles for whatever shape you are, even includes the heavily pregnant and (thanks to nifty over-the-air software updates) the tech will only get more sophisticated as it matures. Forever at the forefront of safety, the beauty of the original three-point safety belt was not just how effective it was in the Volvo Amazon sedan back in 1959 but how the Swede firm effectively gave the patent away for free, with neither its inventor nor carmaker earning a cent from its use in other brands. DEMOCRATISATION OF SAFETY Further innovations over the years that have democratised safety include the rear-facing child seat (1972), that mimicked how astronauts were positioned for takeoff, the booster cushion (1978) that literally boosted comfort and safety for seat-belt-wearing kids and advanced driver assist tech that includes blind-spot detection (2003) and an early collision avoiding form of autonomous emergency braking that dates back to 2008. Volvo declared that it remains committed to its goal that by 2030 it aims to prevent any fatal or serious injury in its cars, with the ultimate aim of no collision in any of its vehicles. While the world's first mandatory seat belt laws were introduced back in 1970 in Victoria, the rest of the world was much slower to recognise the benefits of the lifesaving tech. In the United States, even up until the mid-1980s, seat belt laws triggered protests over claims they violated civil rights. Today, only the small state of New Hampshire does not require occupants to wear seat belts while driving a vehicle.
