What Are We Missing about “Skills of the Future”?

A lot has been said these days about the skills needed in the era of AI, from the ability to work with AI, to adaptability, judgment, and taste. The list of in-demand skills keeps morphing, incorporating new additions from leading AI experts, labor market economists, or ultra-rich CEOs. But as we sit down to examine it for actionable next steps, several unanswered questions quickly emerge.

First, what exactly are these skills? For professionals seeking to become change-ready, for parents advising children coming of age, or for leaders investing in workforce and economic development, how do we develop skills as abstract as curiosity, resilience, and judgment? If these criteria were to become the basis for selection, a standard definition would be essential to assess skills to ensure a transparent selection process.

Even the skills that seem straightforward are secretly ambiguous. For example, the World Economic Forum predicts “technology literacy” to become increasingly important. But what is it? Is it the willingness and skills to integrate AI into our workflow? Is it the technical expertise of large language models to improve and troubleshoot them? Or is it a working understanding of the security and ethical issues related to AI?

That brings us to the second set of questions. How many job opportunities are in each of these fields? What are the rewards? As of March 2026, a growing list of companies in both tech and non-tech industries have announced AI-driven layoffs. If technology-driven automation is a long-term trend, and to the extent that AI replaces, not complements, human workers, what skills will most likely help secure our future?

Predictions about future labor market demand and compensation depend on many factors. One of them is how we define “important” work. Currently, importance tends to be defined by employers, which reflects capital owners’ ideas of work needed for maximized profit. But this narrow focus on the market leaves out the important role of the government in creating jobs, which can be influenced by public opinions and community needs. With that understanding, we can also define importance based on unmet societal needs.

With this alternative definition of importance, competing in the tight job market ceases to be the only way out for professionals. Limited work opportunities offered by capital owners do not mean limited opportunities to do important work. Neither does it mean limited opportunities to support one’s basic needs. We have the power to influence job creation through collective action; we can support our basic needs by fostering community self-reliance. As long as the gap between market demand and societal needs exists, there are work opportunities.

A final question remains: how are we going to obtain these skills? Is it really as self-explanatory and accessible as a free one-week crash course, like what some of the tech companies are offering? Or does it require years of sustained, personalized support? If both, then what support is required to ensure equal outcomes?

In the coming months, The Future Professional Initiative will release several more blog posts discussing these big questions. The goals of these posts are twofold. The first is to turn the list of ambiguous, abstract skills into actionable next steps for professionals seeking to upskill. The second goal is to explore a pathway to skill acquisition and the support required to ensure all who want to obtain these skills can and will.

Looking forward to seeing what the future holds.