ProfBoost - Doradztwo biznesowe, mentoring kadry zarządzającej, CEO sparing.

Many managers can see that the world of work no longer operates as it once did. An instruction that used to be sufficient now requires further explanation. Silence during a meeting does not always mean agreement. The question “Why are we doing this?” is not necessarily a sign of resistance. Experience still has enormous value, but it no longer grants authority automatically.

Despite this, some managers continue to lead their teams as though the change were merely a temporary disruption. This is not usually a result of arrogance. More often, it comes from habit, pressure to deliver results and the need to rely on approaches that have worked for many years. It is particularly visible in manufacturing, operations and logistics, where success has been built by resilient, pragmatic people with deep technical expertise. Their achievements must not be underestimated. The problem begins when experience stops helping people understand the new reality and starts protecting them from accepting it.

Demographics Are Ending the Luxury of Choice

The Polish Economic Institute estimates that by 2035 the number of people in employment in Poland may fall by almost 2.1 million, equivalent to 12.6 percent of current employment. This is not a temporary recruitment problem. It is a structural change in the supply of labour.

At the same time, the economy will not stop needing people. The OECD forecasts Polish GDP growth of 3.4 percent in 2026 and 2.7 percent in 2027. Companies will therefore be expected to achieve their growth objectives while access to employees becomes increasingly difficult.

For years, some managers may have operated, even unconsciously, on the assumption that if someone did not fit the team, another person could be found. That comfort is disappearing. Managers will no longer be able to expect to work primarily with people who are similar to them.

The Polish labour market has already changed. At the end of 2025, more than one million foreign nationals were registered with the Polish Social Insurance Institution, including almost 800,000 people from Ukraine. In many companies, international employees are no longer an addition to the team. They are its foundation.

The Team of 2035 Is Already Emerging

A photograph of a ten person team in 2035 will not show ten similar people of different ages. It will include someone with vast experience who knows the customer better than any system ever could. It will include a young person who uses AI with remarkable speed but is still learning to understand the consequences of business decisions. It will include someone from another country who works reliably but has a different understanding of hierarchy, initiative and the relationship with a manager.

Every one of these people can bring significant value. The problem begins when a manager treats their differences as a disruption rather than as the new normal.

For one person, professionalism means remaining calm and not bringing emotions into the workplace. For another, it means having the right to ask questions, even after a decision has already been made. For one person, silence after a meeting means agreement. For another, it may mean a lack of confidence in the language or a belief that expressing doubt in front of the manager is inappropriate.

In a world of similar people, managers could more often rely on their first interpretation. In a diverse world, that first interpretation will increasingly be wrong.

This is where a new managerial competence begins: making fewer assumptions and asking more questions in order to understand. This is not softness. It is better diagnosis.

Migration as an Opportunity and a Lesson

The presence of people from different cultures does not automatically create integration. A person may join an organisation solely as a much needed pair of hands rather than as a fully recognised participant in a shared system of work. When this happens, parallel worlds emerge. People may be employed by the same company, but mentally they function alongside one another rather than together.

In a company, this can look very ordinary. Employees from the same country stay within their own group. People who feel less confident about the language do not raise risks. The most outspoken individuals dominate meetings. Some people are formally part of the team but do not genuinely participate in its thinking. Diversity then exists only on the payroll. It does not become a competitive advantage.

This is an important lesson for managers. It is not enough to employ people from different backgrounds. You must also create a shared code for working together.

It is not enough to employ people from different backgrounds. You must also create a shared code for working together.

AI Has Already Arrived, Even Though Companies Often Pretend It Is Still the Future

During my training programmes, I ask managers directly whether artificial intelligence has already become a genuine part of their everyday work. I rarely hear an unequivocal “yes.” More often, the answer lies somewhere in between. Individual employees are using it, someone is experimenting with it and someone else is using the tools quietly. At an organisational level, many companies still treat AI as “a topic for the future.” There are no clear rules, standards or shared language.

Technology is entering organisations faster than organisations are becoming ready to adopt it.

McKinsey estimates that by 2030 around 27 percent of current working hours in Europe could be automated. The World Economic Forum indicates that 39 percent of the key skills required in the labour market may change.

For managers, however, something more practical will be crucial. AI will change relationships within teams. Some people will use it naturally and rapidly increase their productivity. Others will feel that the experience they have accumulated is losing its value. Younger employees may adapt to the tools more quickly. Older employees will continue to possess organisational memory and an understanding of risks that cannot be generated with a single prompt.

Managers will need to combine the speed of technology with the wisdom of experience. Without this, teams will divide into those who “are already living in the future” and those who “have been left behind.” Such a division will affect not only efficiency but also people’s sense of personal value.

AI will not build trust. It will not explain to an employee how to find their place in a redesigned role. It will not lead a conversation with someone who feels that their competences are no longer appreciated. AI will therefore not reduce the importance of managerial competences. It will expose their absence.

Diversity Requires a Stronger Shared Code, Not a Weaker One

The greatest misunderstanding would be to assume that because people are different, everyone should be allowed to operate according to their own rules. That is not diversity management. It is an abandonment of management.

The more diverse a team becomes in terms of age, culture, language and attitudes towards technology, the more clearly the common ground must be defined. What does responsibility mean? How do we report risks? How do we discuss mistakes? How do we use AI? How do we communicate when we disagree?

This cannot be a poster displaying corporate values. It must become a practical code and the backbone of the team.

When a team claims that respect matters, it must explain what respect means in everyday behaviour. Does it mean that we do not interrupt one another during meetings? That we do not comment on someone’s accent? That we separate an assessment of someone’s work from an assessment of them as a person? That we honour our commitments because we take other people’s time seriously?

The manager’s new role is not only to understand differences but also to establish a shared understanding of what things mean.

Recruiting for Values, Not Only Expertise

In conversations with managers, particularly in manufacturing and operational environments, I very often hear: “We are looking for people who know how to do the job.” This is understandable. People are in short supply, deadlines are tight and customers do not want to hear about staffing problems.

Expertise is essential. In technical environments, it cannot simply be replaced by the right attitude. The problem begins when it becomes the only criterion used to make a decision.

A candidate knows the industry, performs well in the interview and appears to be a good match on paper. The manager breathes a sigh of relief. After a few weeks, however, warning signs begin to appear. The team does not want to work with this person. They are technically excellent, but behave as though the result of their own area matters more than the performance of the entire process. They speak very directly and regard it as professionalism, while the team experiences it as arrogance. They understand the technology but disregard the experience of people who have ensured for years that the team delivers its results.

Formally, the recruitment was successful. Culturally, it was a failure.

In some of the companies I speak with, employee turnover reaches 30 percent. This is not caused solely by recruitment mistakes. However, it often reveals an uncomfortable truth: the company recruits people faster than it can genuinely integrate them. It hires competences but does not examine values. It then incurs a cost that nobody wants to name openly, whether in HR, the management board or among the managers responsible for the recruitment decision.

As a manager, I was sometimes a demanding internal client for HR. Not because I was searching for the best specialist on the market, but because I was interested not only in whether someone achieved results, but also in how they achieved them. In a difficult situation, would that person strengthen the team or begin to destabilise it from within?

A person may differ in age, language, nationality or temperament. This can bring enormous value. However, people should not differ in their understanding of honesty, responsibility, respect and quality of work. Diversity of perspectives strengthens a team. Diversity of standards in fundamental areas begins to tear it apart.

Recruitment therefore cannot be based solely on the question: “Does this person know how to do the job?” We must also ask: “Will the way this person works strengthen the team or gradually weaken it?”

Diversity of perspectives strengthens a team. Diversity of standards in fundamental areas begins to tear it apart.

Soft Skills Are Becoming the Hard Infrastructure of Performance

For years, soft skills were treated as an optional addition. It was useful when a manager knew how to listen and provide feedback. Real management, however, was associated with decisions, results and control.

This distinction is becoming meaningless.

There will be fewer employees, so every unnecessary conflict will become more expensive. Teams will include more people from different cultures, so every misunderstanding will create additional risk. Younger employees will not tolerate inconsistency, so a manager’s leadership style will directly affect employee retention. AI will redesign roles, while trust will become a prerequisite for learning.

Soft skills will no longer be soft because they will directly influence turnover, the speed of work, the quality of decisions and the ability to retain people. Difficult conversations will need to take place earlier. Setting high expectations must not mean humiliating people, just as empathy must not mean abandoning standards. This is not a gentler version of management. It is a significantly more demanding one.

Soft skills will no longer be soft because they will directly influence turnover, the speed of work, the quality of decisions and the ability to retain people.

Do Not Try to Wait It Out

During one of my training programmes, an experienced manager said openly that he could already see the finish line on the horizon: his retirement. There were too many changes for him. Somehow, he would make it through.

I understand this way of thinking. It does, however, raise an uncomfortable question. Managers are paid to lead people. When a manager consciously chooses not to update the way they work, the people they lead receive less than they deserve. This is not only a strategic problem for the company. It is also an ethical question.

The most tempting and, at the same time, the most dangerous strategy available to a manager is to wait the changes out. Some older managers believe they can simply hold on until the end of their careers. Some younger managers believe that technological proficiency will be enough. Both are mistaken.

The world of work will change more quickly than many leaders expect. Demographic change will restrict access to employees. Migration will increase the diversity of teams. AI will redesign roles. Younger generations will not accept old rules simply because those rules once worked.

Managers can no longer afford the comfort of closing their eyes.

This is the choice facing every manager today. It is not a choice between soft and hard management. That distinction is too simplistic. It is a choice between holding on to old habits and consciously stepping into a new managerial role. A role in which experience continues to matter but does not remove the need to learn. A role in which authority does not come from a position but from clarity, maturity and the ability to lead different people in a common direction.

The manager of the future will need to be able to say: “I want to understand you, but I will not accept everything. I am listening carefully, but I remain responsible for the direction. I respect what makes you different, but we share a common standard.”

This will be the manager’s new maturity. It will not be based on the power of a position, but on the courage to accept reality as it is.

Change will not disappear simply because you do not want to see it.

Manager 2035: The End of a World of People Like Us