Flexibility is a defining feature of the modern workforce. But, according to the MIT Sloan School of Management’s Paul Osterman,
that flexibility can come at a cost.
In his forthcoming book, “Disposable Workers: The Transformation of Employment,” Osterman, an emeritus professor of human resources and management, argues that a profound shift is reshaping employment culture at the expense of a large swath of the U.S. workforce.
Drawing on original survey data from more than 6,000 civilian, nonagricultural working adults, Osterman found that employers increasingly depend on what he categorizes as “disposable” workers: freelancers, contractors, part-timers, and others with contingent labor arrangements that provide leeway for companies but leave most such workers with fewer benefits and protections.
In a conversation ahead of his book’s August 2026 release, Osterman explained why the trend has accelerated, what it means for workers and employers, and how policymakers should respond.
Many types of workers can be considered disposable — including white-collar professionals
According to Osterman’s calculations, roughly 35% of workers are disposable. These are not merely gig workers, such as Uber drivers. This group includes contractors, freelancers, adjunct faculty members, and other well-credentialed professionals on the fringes of traditional employment.
Companies have normally expected people to be with them long term. Now there’s a desire for disposability.
Paul OstermanProfessor Emeritus, MIT Sloan School of ManagementShare
It also includes what he calls “marginal workers”: people who are employees from a narrow legal standpoint but are held at arm’s length by their firms — left without job security, skills training, or opportunities for promotion. Examples include adjunct faculty members, staff attorneys, many part-time workers, and others who have high turnover built into their employment arrangements.
All types of disposable workers tend to receive limited training, fewer opportunities for advancement, less job security, fewer benefits, and minimal opportunity to invest in long-term career development. This holds true across industries and skill sets, Osterman said.
This lack of investment in employees is at odds with the traditional post-World War II worker contract shaped by the American dream that was defined by mutual loyalty.
“Companies have normally expected people to be with them long term and make an investment in them. Now, there’s a desire for disposability,” Osterman said.
“Expectations about good employer behavior have changed,” he said. “Barriers around what employers can and can’t do have weakened, and the union movement has weakened. Financial markets are putting a lot more pressure on firms to simply maximize profits and reduce workforce.”
Employers increasingly value flexibility over loyalty — at their own expense
In his book, Osterman makes the case that the growth of disposable workers is being driven by business incentives. Financial markets, technological tools such as artificial intelligence, shifting workplace norms, and pressure to maximize efficiency have moved employers toward labor arrangements that allow them to scale work up or down while minimizing long-term obligations.Work smart with our Thinking Forward newsletterInsights from MIT experts, delivered every Tuesday morning.Yes, I’d also like to subscribe to the AI at Work newsletterEmail:
“I argue that firms consciously create part-time jobs because part-timers have higher turnover and lower expectations about their employment future. Firms create part-time jobs in order to tap into a workforce that’s willing to be disposable,” he said.
While this trend predates AI, Osterman said that AI could accelerate it by creating greater uncertainty about future workforce needs.
“Given that uncertainty, employers are going to be more reluctant to hire people with regular employee status. They’re going to be more eager to hedge their risks by using disposable workers. AI doesn’t explain disposability, because this is a trend that preceded AI. But it pushes companies in that direction,” Osterman said.
But disposable work comes at a cost to employers, too. The same strategy that makes firms more flexible may also make them weaker. Disposable workers, who typically have lower pay, fewer benefits, and low job stability, are significantly less likely to go the extra mile.
“In my survey, contractors and marginal workers said they are very much less likely to care about their organization’s success and very much less likely to be willing to put in extra work. There are absolutely consequences for businesses,” Osterman said. Decades of research on high-performance work systems suggest that quality rises and turnover falls when workers feel committed to their organization, he said.
