The New Employment Contract: Redefining Job Security in Automated Environments

Listen to this article:

Abstract: The proliferation of automation technologies—including artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithmic management systems—has fundamentally altered the psychological and structural foundations of employment relationships. This article examines how automation reshapes traditional notions of job security and explores evidence-based organizational responses that balance technological adoption with workforce stability. Drawing on empirical research and practitioner cases across manufacturing, healthcare, and financial services, the analysis identifies key interventions: transparent transition planning, skills-based redeployment frameworks, participatory automation design, and hybrid work models that emphasize human-machine complementarity. The article argues that sustainable automation strategies require moving beyond zero-sum displacement narratives toward mutual investment frameworks where technological capability building becomes a shared responsibility. Organizations that proactively recalibrate their employment value propositions demonstrate superior retention, innovation outcomes, and stakeholder trust in technology-intensive environments.

We're living through what researchers call a "critical juncture" in the employment relationship (Cappelli & Keller, 2013). The traditional employment contract—offering loyalty and effort in exchange for job security and career progression—is being rewritten in real time as automation technologies penetrate virtually every sector. Unlike previous waves of mechanization that primarily affected manual labor, today's intelligent systems challenge knowledge work itself, creating uncertainty for accountants, radiologists, customer service professionals, and software developers alike.

The stakes are both economic and social. McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by 2030, activities accounting for up to 30% of current work hours could be automated, affecting hundreds of millions of workers worldwide (Manyika et al., 2017). Yet the discourse often polarizes into techno-optimism—automation as liberator from drudgery—versus displacement anxiety—robots as job destroyers. Neither extreme captures the nuanced reality organizations face: how to pursue legitimate efficiency gains while maintaining workforce trust, organizational knowledge, and the human capabilities that automation cannot replicate.

This article examines how leading organizations are redefining job security in automated environments, moving from guaranteed employment toward guaranteed employability, from task protection toward capability development, and from unilateral management decisions toward co-designed technological transitions. The evidence suggests that this transformation, when done well, can strengthen rather than weaken the employment relationship.

The Automation and Employment Landscape

Defining Job Security in Technology-Intensive Contexts

Traditional job security meant continuity in a specific role, often with a single employer, protected by tenure, union contracts, or organizational loyalty norms (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). This conception assumed relatively stable job content and linear career paths. Automation disrupts these assumptions by fundamentally altering what work consists of, who performs it, and where value creation occurs.

In automated environments, job security increasingly means role adaptability—the capacity to evolve with changing task configurations as machines assume routine elements while humans take on exception handling, judgment calls, and relationship-intensive work (Autor, 2015). It also encompasses portfolio security: maintaining employability across roles rather than within a single job category, supported by continuous skill development and internal mobility infrastructures (Barley et al., 2017).

Research distinguishes between objective security (actual employment stability, contractual protections) and subjective security (workers' perceptions of their future prospects). Automation often creates a gap between these dimensions—organizations may genuinely intend to redeploy workers, but fear and uncertainty undermine psychological security long before any actual displacement occurs (Shoss, 2017).

Prevalence, Drivers, and Distribution of Workplace Automation

Automation adoption has accelerated dramatically. A 2023 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 40% of organizations had implemented AI-based automation in at least one business function, up from 25% in 2020. Manufacturing remains the most automated sector, but the fastest growth appears in administrative support, financial services, and healthcare diagnostics (Acemoglu & Restrepo, 2020).

Several drivers propel this acceleration. First, technological maturity: machine learning models now handle unstructured data—images, natural language, sensor streams—that previously required human cognition. Second, economic pressure: labor cost arbitrage opportunities have diminished globally, making automation comparatively more attractive (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Third, the COVID-19 pandemic created an inflection point, forcing rapid digitization and demonstrating that many processes could function with minimal human intervention (Chernoff & Warman, 2022).

The impact distributes unevenly. Routine cognitive work faces higher automation risk than non-routine tasks requiring creativity, complex problem-solving, or emotional intelligence (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). Workers with bachelor's degrees or higher generally face task transformation rather than wholesale displacement, while those with high school education or less encounter direct substitution risks. Geographically, automation concentrates in metropolitan areas with advanced manufacturing or technology sectors, though customer service automation affects distributed workforces (Muro et al., 2019).

Importantly, automation doesn't simply eliminate jobs—it restructures them. Research on German manufacturing found that for every robot per thousand workers, employment declined by 0.16-0.20%, but remaining jobs shifted toward technical maintenance, programming, and quality oversight roles requiring different competencies (Dauth et al., 2021).

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Automation-Driven Job Insecurity

Organizational Performance Impacts

When automation proceeds without adequate attention to employment security, organizations experience several negative outcomes. Employee engagement declines significantly—Gallup research indicates that workers who perceive job insecurity show 23% lower engagement scores, translating directly to productivity losses (Harter et al., 2020). Institutional knowledge erodes as experienced workers exit voluntarily, taking tacit expertise that automated systems cannot capture. A study of banking sector automation found that branches losing senior employees during technology transitions experienced 15-18% higher error rates in complex transactions that systems couldn't fully automate (Bessen et al., 2019).

Innovation suffers paradoxically. While automation promises to free workers for higher-value activities, fear-driven environments suppress the experimentation and risk-taking innovation requires. Research on manufacturing firms implementing collaborative robots found that sites with high job insecurity experienced 28% fewer employee-generated process improvements compared to facilities with strong employment stability guarantees (Lorenz et al., 2016).

Customer experience degrades when automation eliminates human judgment at critical interaction points. Studies of automated customer service systems show that while routine inquiries resolve efficiently, complex or emotional situations handled poorly damage customer satisfaction and loyalty disproportionately (Huang & Rust, 2018). The cost of these failures often exceeds the labor savings.

Conversely, organizations that successfully navigate automation while maintaining employment security report measurable gains. They achieve faster technology adoption rates—workers don't resist what they don't fear—and higher return on automation investments because employees actively optimize human-machine collaboration rather than working around systems they perceive as threats (Raisch & Krakowski, 2021).

Individual Wellbeing and Stakeholder Impacts

At the individual level, automation-related job insecurity creates documented health consequences. Longitudinal research links perceived job insecurity to elevated cortisol levels, sleep disruption, cardiovascular stress, and depression symptoms (Lewchuk et al., 2015). These effects appear even when actual displacement hasn't occurred—the uncertainty itself generates harm.

Career identity destabilizes when core tasks migrate to machines. Professionals who invested years developing expertise experience what researchers call "deskilling anxiety"—the fear that their human capital will become obsolete (Spencer, 2018). This particularly affects mid-career workers who face the steepest reskilling challenges and the longest time horizons over which automation might render their capabilities irrelevant.

Family and community effects ripple outward. Workers experiencing automation-driven insecurity report higher marital conflict, reduced civic participation, and diminished future orientation in career planning and major purchases (Brand, 2015). Communities dependent on industries undergoing rapid automation—automotive manufacturing towns, call center regions—face collective psychological impacts alongside economic disruption.

For customers and end-users, poorly managed automation creates frustration and disengagement. Healthcare patients report lower satisfaction when automated triage systems replace human nursing judgment at initial contact points, even when clinical outcomes remain equivalent (Topol, 2019). Banking customers express reduced trust when algorithmic decisions lack human review options, particularly for consequential matters like loan denials or fraud investigations.

Yet positive impacts emerge when automation genuinely enhances work quality. Surgeons using robotic assistance report greater professional satisfaction from improved precision and reduced physical strain (Alemzadeh et al., 2016). Customer service representatives freed from repetitive queries to focus on complex problem-solving experience higher job meaning and engagement.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Transparent Transition Planning and Communication

Research consistently shows that uncertainty generates more anxiety than even unfavorable known outcomes (Shoss, 2017). Organizations that proactively communicate automation plans—timelines, affected roles, redeployment intentions, and decision criteria—significantly reduce psychological stress and resistance behaviors.

Effective approaches include:

• Automation impact assessments shared with affected teams 12-18 months before implementation, detailing task-level changes rather than vague "transformation" language

• Town hall forums where technology teams explain system capabilities and limitations, demystifying automation and inviting questions

• Individual consultations helping each worker understand how their specific role will evolve, what new skills they'll need, and what support they'll receive

• Regular progress updates as implementations proceed, acknowledging setbacks and celebrating successful transitions

Siemens approached its German manufacturing automation by creating "transparency councils" that included union representatives, line workers, and engineers. Before deploying collaborative robots, councils reviewed detailed workflow diagrams showing which tasks would automate and which would remain human. Workers participated in pilot testing, providing feedback that modified deployment plans. The result: implementation timelines 40% faster than industry benchmarks and zero involuntary separations (Lorenz et al., 2016).

Skills-Based Redeployment and Internal Mobility Frameworks

Rather than laying off workers whose tasks automate, leading organizations invest in reskilling and create internal pathways to emerging roles. This approach preserves institutional knowledge while demonstrating commitment to employee futures.

Proven strategies include:

• Skills inventories mapping both current capabilities and learning agility indicators, identifying redeployment candidates with highest success probability

• Structured learning pathways offering paid training time (typically 3-6 months) with guaranteed employment upon completion

• Rotational assignments that preview new roles before permanent transitions, reducing mismatch risk

• Credential stackability allowing workers to build qualifications progressively rather than requiring complete retraining before any mobility

• Economic support during transitions, including maintained compensation while learning and relocation assistance for geographic moves

AT&T's Workforce 2020 initiative exemplifies this model. Facing massive technology shifts in telecommunications infrastructure, the company identified 100,000 employees in roles vulnerable to automation or obsolescence. Rather than external hiring for emerging positions, AT&T invested $1 billion in online education platforms, partnered with universities for degree programs, and created an internal talent marketplace matching workers to opportunities. Over five years, more than 50% of participants moved into new roles internally, with voluntary turnover in technology positions dropping below industry averages despite intensive change (Benko & Donovan, 2016).

Participatory Automation Design and Implementation

When workers help design the automation that affects them, both system quality and acceptance improve. Participatory approaches leverage frontline expertise while building psychological ownership of technological change.

Implementation methods include:

• Co-design workshops bringing together IT specialists, affected workers, and supervisors to map current workflows, identify pain points, and specify automation requirements

• User testing protocols where workers trial automated systems before full deployment, providing usability feedback and identifying edge cases developers missed

• Continuous improvement teams that monitor human-machine collaboration post-deployment, adjusting algorithms and workflows based on operational experience

• Worker councils with formal input rights on automation decisions, similar to European works council models

In Sweden's healthcare system, Karolinska University Hospital introduced AI-based radiology screening through participatory design. Radiologists, technicians, and administrators formed design committees that defined which cases algorithms should prioritize, what confidence thresholds would trigger human review, and how to integrate AI outputs into existing workflows. Radiologists remained responsible for all diagnostic decisions but received AI-flagged priorities for efficient triage. The participatory process resulted in 95% clinician adoption rates—far exceeding typical healthcare technology acceptance—and documented time savings that allowed expanded screening programs without additional staffing (Larson et al., 2020).

Hybrid Work Models Emphasizing Human-Machine Complementarity

Rather than viewing automation as human replacement, sophisticated organizations design hybrid models that leverage distinct strengths: machine consistency, speed, and data processing combined with human judgment, empathy, and contextual adaptation.

Effective hybrid configurations include:

• Human-in-the-loop systems where algorithms handle routine processing but flag exceptions for human decision-making, preserving worker agency

• Augmentation rather than substitution providing workers with AI assistants that enhance their capabilities rather than competing with them

• Escalation pathways that customers can easily access when automated systems prove inadequate, ensuring human backstops for relationship-critical interactions

• Role evolution planning that proactively defines new human contributions as automation capabilities expand

Stitch Fix, the online styling service, built its business model on human-AI complementarity. Algorithms process customer data to predict preferences and suggest items, but human stylists make final selections, write personalized notes, and build client relationships. Stylists receive AI recommendations as inputs to their judgment rather than directives. This model creates jobs emphasizing emotional intelligence and taste curation—capabilities that both leverage technology and remain distinctly human. The company has scaled to thousands of stylist positions while achieving profitability through efficient hybrid workflows (Brynjolfsson et al., 2018).

Investment in Continuous Learning Infrastructure

Organizations building long-term automation capability recognize that technological change will accelerate rather than stabilize. Continuous learning infrastructures make adaptability the norm rather than crisis-driven responses.

Infrastructure components include:

• Learning time allocations (typically 5-10% of work hours) dedicated to skill development, treated as core job responsibility rather than extra effort

• Micro-credential systems recognizing smaller learning increments that accumulate toward major capability shifts

• Peer learning networks connecting workers across functions to share automation experiences and problem-solving approaches

• Technology preview programs exposing workers to emerging tools before deployment decisions, building familiarity and reducing anxiety

• Tuition support and educational partnerships extending beyond job-specific training to broad capability building

Amazon's Career Choice program, despite the company's controversial labor practices in other areas, demonstrates scale investment in continuous learning. The company prepays 95% of tuition for courses in high-demand fields, whether or not related to Amazon roles, after just one year of employment. The explicit message: we'll invest in your future employability even if that future is elsewhere. Over 50,000 employees have participated, with measurable increases in internal promotion rates and reduced turnover among participants (Fuller & Raman, 2017).

Economic Safety Nets and Transition Support

Even with best efforts, some displacement is inevitable. Organizations with strongest employment relationships provide economic bridges that ease transitions while maintaining worker dignity.

Support mechanisms include:

• Severance packages scaled to tenure (typically 2-4 weeks per year of service), extending beyond minimum legal requirements

• Extended benefits continuation maintaining healthcare and other benefits during job searches or retraining

• Outplacement services providing career counseling, resume development, and job search support

• Priority rehire agreements guaranteeing interviews or preferential consideration when new positions emerge

• Alumni networks maintaining connections with departed workers who may return with enhanced skills or serve as external partners

General Motors, facing automation-driven workforce reductions in traditional manufacturing, created the GM Transition Assistance Program. Beyond standard severance, the program offered up to two years of educational support for workers pursuing degrees or certifications, maintained healthcare coverage during retraining, and created placement partnerships with growing local employers. Workers could choose severance or transition packages based on individual circumstances. Follow-up studies showed 68% of participants found employment at comparable or higher wages within 18 months—significantly above regional averages for displaced manufacturing workers (Helper et al., 2016).

Building Long-Term Organizational Capability for Automated Environments

Psychological Contract Recalibration: From Job Security to Employability Security

The foundational shift requires explicitly redefining what organizations and workers owe each other. The old psychological contract—loyalty for security—no longer holds in rapidly changing technological environments. The emerging contract centers on mutual investment in capability development (Rousseau, 1995).

Organizations commit to three pillars. First, transparency: honest communication about technological trajectories and their workforce implications, even when uncertain. Second, investment: substantial, sustained funding for learning and development that builds transferable skills, not just firm-specific competencies. Third, opportunity: genuine internal mobility pathways where developed capabilities lead to meaningful roles.

Workers, in turn, accept continuous learning as core job responsibility, flexibility to evolve beyond original role definitions, and agency for their own career navigation rather than passive expectation of employer-directed paths.

Companies like Microsoft have formalized this recalibration. CEO Satya Nadella's emphasis on "learn-it-all" culture over "know-it-all" mindsets permeates performance management, with learning goals weighted equally to outcome goals. The company tracks "learning hours" as a key HR metric and ties manager evaluations partly to their teams' skill development. This explicit reframing—the organization's responsibility is creating learning conditions, the individual's responsibility is leveraging them—provides psychological stability in the absence of traditional job security (Nadella, 2017).

Distributed Decision Rights and Worker Voice in Technology Governance

Sustainable automation requires governance structures that give affected workers meaningful input into technological decisions. This goes beyond consultation to actual decision-making authority over implementation details, timing, and design parameters.

Progressive organizations are experimenting with distributed governance models. Technology councils with rotating worker membership review automation proposals, approving or requesting modifications. Some companies grant teams collective rights to reject automation if alternatives exist that preserve employment while meeting business objectives. Others create "automation budgets" where teams control when and how to automate their own workflows, shifting agency from imposed change to self-directed evolution.

The logic is both ethical and practical. Workers possess frontline knowledge essential for effective automation—they understand nuances, exceptions, and contextual factors that distant technology planners miss. Participatory governance captures this knowledge while building psychological ownership that smooths implementation (Atzeni & Salento, 2018).

German manufacturing provides the most developed models. Works councils, mandatory in larger companies, possess statutory co-determination rights over technological changes affecting workers. Automation plans require council approval, creating structural voice rather than discretionary consultation. Research shows this system produces better-designed automation (fewer implementation failures) and stronger employment stability without sacrificing competitiveness (Jäger et al., 2022).

Purpose Alignment and Human Contribution Visibility

As automation handles increasing task volume, workers need clear understanding of why their human contributions matter—what unique value they provide that machines cannot replicate. Organizations that successfully maintain engagement in automated environments make human contributions highly visible and tied to meaningful outcomes.

Healthcare organizations exemplify this approach. As diagnostic algorithms proliferate, leading institutions reframe clinician roles around patient relationships, care coordination, and ethical decision-making—dimensions where human judgment and empathy remain central. Mayo Clinic explicitly positions automation as enabling more face time with patients by eliminating documentation burden, making human contribution the point rather than the byproduct (Topol, 2019).

Similarly, financial services firms that automate trading or underwriting emphasize human roles in client advisory, portfolio strategy, and market insight synthesis—work that leverages analytical tools but centers on relationship and judgment. Making these contributions visible through recognition systems, client feedback loops, and career advancement criteria reinforces their organizational value.

Purpose connection matters particularly for younger workers. Research shows that Millennial and Gen Z employees prioritize work meaning and development opportunities over traditional security (Twenge et al., 2010). Organizations that frame automation as enabling meaningful contribution rather than threatening employment often find stronger engagement among cohorts most affected by technological change.

Conclusion

The employment contract is being rewritten whether organizations acknowledge it or not. Automation has made traditional job security—continuity in fixed roles—increasingly untenable across industries. Yet this transformation need not mean instability or exploitation. The evidence points toward a viable alternative: mutual investment contracts where organizations commit to employability development and workers embrace continuous adaptation.

The most effective responses share common elements. Transparency about technological trajectories reduces fear even when change is inevitable. Participatory design leverages worker knowledge while building psychological ownership. Skills-based redeployment preserves institutional memory and demonstrates reciprocal loyalty. Hybrid models that augment rather than replace human capabilities create complementary value that benefits organizations and workers alike.

Three actionable principles emerge for practitioners navigating this transition:

First, communicate relentlessly and specifically. Vague reassurances breed cynicism. Workers want detailed information about which tasks will automate, what new skills they'll need, and what support they'll receive. Organizations that share automation roadmaps early, update frequently, and acknowledge uncertainties build trust that survives implementation challenges.

Second, make capability investment tangible and universal. Learning opportunities must be accessible, relevant, and resourced with real time and funding—not relegated to optional after-hours efforts. When development becomes core job responsibility with clear pathways to advancement, workers perceive it as genuine investment rather than empty rhetoric.

Third, design for human-machine complementarity from the start. Technology decisions that begin with "what can we automate?" often optimize for short-term cost reduction while creating long-term capability gaps. Starting instead with "how can we enhance human contribution?" yields hybrid systems that leverage both machine efficiency and human judgment, creating sustainable competitive advantage.

The new employment contract won't resemble the old. But it can provide what workers fundamentally need: agency over their futures, investment in their capabilities, and meaningful contribution to organizational success. Organizations that embrace this recalibration rather than resisting it will build the adaptive capacity and workforce trust essential for navigating technological acceleration. Those clinging to outdated security models—or abandoning security entirely—will struggle with both talent retention and innovation as automation reshapes every industry. The choice isn't whether to automate, but how to automate in ways that strengthen rather than sever the human bonds on which organizational performance ultimately depends.

References

1. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188-2244.

2. Alemzadeh, H., Raman, J., Leveson, N., Kalbarczyk, Z., & Iyer, R. K. (2016). Adverse events in robotic surgery: A retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0151470.

3. Atzeni, M., & Salento, A. (2018). Italy: The continuing relevance of direct workers' participation. In P. J. Dundon & A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Case studies in work, employment and human resource management (pp. 45-59). Edward Elgar Publishing.

4. Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30.

5. Barley, S. R., Bechky, B. A., & Milliken, F. J. (2017). The changing nature of work: Careers, identities, and work lives in the 21st century. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(2), 111-115.

6. Benko, C., & Donovan, M. (2016). AT&T's talent overhaul. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 68-73.

7. Bessen, J. E., Goos, M., Salomons, A., & Van den Berge, W. (2019). Automatic reaction: What happens to workers at firms that automate? Boston University School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper, 19-2.

8. Brand, J. E. (2015). The far-reaching impact of job loss and unemployment. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 359-375.

9. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.

10. Brynjolfsson, E., Mitchell, T., & Rock, D. (2018). What can machines learn and what does it mean for occupations and the economy? AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108, 43-47.

11. Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. R. (2013). Classifying work in the new economy. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 575-596.

12. Chernoff, A. W., & Warman, C. (2022). COVID-19 and implications for automation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 104(2), 290-302.

13. Dauth, W., Findeisen, S., Südekum, J., & Woessner, N. (2021). The adjustment of labor markets to robots. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(6), 3104-3153.

14. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280.

15. Fuller, J. B., & Raman, M. (2017). Dismissed by degrees: How degree inflation is undermining U.S. competitiveness and hurting America's middle class. Accenture, Grads of Life, Harvard Business School.

16. Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438-448.

17. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S. K., & Blue, A. (2020). Increased business value for positive job attitudes during economic recessions: A meta-analysis and SEM analysis. Human Performance, 33(4), 307-330.

18. Helper, S., Krueger, T., & Wial, H. (2016). Locating American manufacturing: Trends in the geography of production. Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings.

19. Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 155-172.

20. Jäger, S., Schoefer, B., & Heining, J. (2022). Labor in the boardroom. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(2), 669-725.

21. Larson, D. B., Harvey, H., Rubin, D. L., Irani, N., Tse, J. R., & Langlotz, C. P. (2020). Regulatory frameworks for development and evaluation of artificial intelligence–based diagnostic imaging algorithms: Summary and recommendations. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 17(3), 413-424.

22. Lewchuk, W., Clarke, M., & de Wolff, A. (2015). Working without commitments: The health effects of precarious employment. McGill-Queen's University Press.

23. Lorenz, M., Rüßmann, M., Strack, R., Lueth, K. L., & Bolle, M. (2016). Man and machine in Industry 4.0: How will technology transform the industrial workforce through 2025? Boston Consulting Group.

24. Manyika, J., Lund, S., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Woetzel, J., Batra, P., Ko, R., & Sanghvi, S. (2017). Jobs lost, jobs gained: Workforce transitions in a time of automation. McKinsey Global Institute.

25. Muro, M., Maxim, R., & Whiton, J. (2019). Automation and artificial intelligence: How machines are affecting people and places. Brookings Institution.

26. Nadella, S. (2017). Hit refresh: The quest to rediscover Microsoft's soul and imagine a better future for everyone. Harper Business.

27. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210.

28. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage Publications.

29. Shoss, M. K. (2017). Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1911-1939.

30. Spencer, D. A. (2018). Fear and hope in an age of mass automation: Debating the future of work. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(1), 1-12.

31. Topol, E. (2019). Deep medicine: How artificial intelligence can make healthcare human again. Basic Books.

32. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117-1142.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). The New Employment Contract: Redefining Job Security in Automated Environments. Human Capital Leadership Review, 27(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.27.3.4