BLOG
OTHER ARTICLES
AI in the Workplace: How Are Businesses Adapting?
Survey findings on AI governance, the future of entry-level positions, and the skills of tomorrow.
The idea for this survey came to me after reading comments about the impact of artificial intelligence on entry-level positions in the workplace, with some suggesting that AI could gradually replace some of these jobs.
Since I am in contact with a good number of human resources professionals, I decided to ask them about it. In fact, I asked them nine questions!
Participation exceeded my expectations. Although the number of respondents does not allow us to draw statistically representative conclusions, the results highlight several interesting findings and provide food for thought that organizations may find useful as they develop their own approaches to AI adoption.
Introduction
Artificial intelligence is gradually becoming part of the workplace. It can be used to write content, summarize information, generate ideas, automate certain tasks, and support decision-making.
But beyond the technological possibilities, one question remains: Are organizations sufficiently prepared to integrate these tools responsibly and productively? And what impact will this integration have on their workforce needs?
AI Is Widely Accepted, but Its Use Remains Uneven
The first finding concerns how organizations view the use of AI in the workplace.
Among our respondents, 45.5% indicated that AI use is encouraged in their organization. Another 27.3% said it is permitted but not officially encouraged, while 13.6% reported that it is allowed only in certain situations.
Overall, 86.4% of respondents described an environment in which AI use is either permitted or encouraged. Only one organization represented in the survey prohibits its use.
These findings suggest that an outright ban is not the primary approach among the organizations represented in this survey.
However, acceptance of the technology does not necessarily mean that its use is widespread.
When asked how extensively employees currently use AI tools, half of the respondents indicated that only a few employees use them. Approximately 41% reported regular or widespread use, while 9.1% said that use remains very limited.
This reveals a gap between allowing employees to use AI and actually integrating it into their day-to-day work.
Simply authorizing a technology is not enough to make the most of it. Employees must also know which tools are available, understand their limitations, and recognize when they can provide genuine value.
For organizations, the challenge is to move beyond simply allowing AI and toward thoughtful use that meets their needs and becomes part of their everyday practices.
Governance: Who Is Responsible for Overseeing AI Use?
Integrating artificial intelligence also raises questions about accountability.
Among respondents, 36.36% indicated that a person or team had been designated to oversee AI use. The same percentage (36.36%) reported that their organization had not yet appointed anyone to this role. Meanwhile, 22.73% said that responsibility was still being defined. Another 4.55% did not know whether such responsibility had been assigned within their organization.
These findings highlight a potential issue: in several of the organizations represented, responsibility for overseeing AI use has not yet been clearly established.
AI use is not solely an IT concern. It also affects data management, professional practices, compliance, training, and decisions based on AI-generated results.
The survey comments reflect this range of concerns. Some respondents emphasized data privacy and security. Others highlighted the need to coordinate efforts across departments, share best practices, and ensure compliance with an ethical and responsible AI-use policy, while also verifying the accuracy of the information generated.
Effective governance must therefore go beyond selecting tools. It should also define acceptable uses, employee responsibilities, verification procedures, and situations in which human intervention remains essential.
The goal is not necessarily to create a complex governance structure in every organization. Rather, it is to ensure that responsibilities are clearly assigned and that employees know how to use these tools appropriately.
Privacy and Reliability: Two Major Concerns
When respondents were asked which issues needed to be addressed, data privacy and protection ranked first among the available choices, accounting for 44.44% of responses.
This concern is understandable. Depending on the tool, its settings, and the applicable rules, sharing confidential information with an AI system can expose an organization to risks. It is therefore essential to determine what data may be used, which tools are authorized, and what precautions must be taken before information is submitted to an AI system.
Other concerns included:
Employee use of AI (11.11%)
Employee training (11.11%)
The reliability of AI-generated information (5.56%)
Regarding reliability, generative AI tools can produce polished and convincing answers that are not necessarily accurate or complete. Validating information, checking sources, and critically assessing results therefore remain essential.
One respondent summed up this challenge by emphasizing the need to "tell the difference between what is true and what is false."
This raises a fundamental question: as AI tools become increasingly effective at generating content, users must become better at evaluating its quality.
AI Use Across Different Departments
The areas in which AI is used vary across the organizations surveyed.
Human resources and recruitment (19.05%), along with operations (19.05%), were the areas most frequently selected by participants as having the highest levels of AI use. They were followed by administration (14.29%), marketing and communications (9.52%), sales (9.52%), and IT and software development (9.52%). Legal services were selected by 4.76% of respondents.
Open-ended comments also mentioned uses related to email management, estimating, validation, and programming. Some respondents indicated that their organizations were already using several AI tools, while others described more limited use or plans for gradual implementation.
One respondent mentioned wanting to better understand the available tools to optimize and automate operations management, allowing employees to devote more time to activities where their human contribution adds genuine value.
Another respondent indicated that their organization eventually hopes to introduce AI into estimating, certain production departments, and later, human resources.
These responses illustrate different stages of adoption. Some organizations are looking to improve existing processes, while others are still exploring the possibilities.
Entry-Level Positions: Will They Disappear?
This is the question that prompted the survey in the first place.
Among respondents, 47.62% believe that the need for entry-level positions will remain essentially unchanged, while 9.52% expect these positions to evolve rather than disappear.
In other words, 57.14% of respondents anticipate that entry-level positions will continue to exist within their organizations, even if the nature of the work changes.
For the remaining respondents, the answer is less clear. Some 28.57% believe it is too early to tell, while 14.29% do not yet know what impact AI will have.
Interestingly, no respondent indicated that their organization was reducing entry-level hiring or that entry-level positions had already disappeared or would disappear as a result of AI.
These findings do not settle the question of the future of entry-level employment. However, they suggest that, among the professionals surveyed, the disappearance of these positions is not yet a reported reality within the organizations represented.
Critical Thinking: A Key Skill for the Future
Whether AI is already being used in your organization or not, it will have an impact on the skills employees need in the future.
When respondents were asked which skills would need further development, critical thinking ranked first, selected by 42.86% of respondents. Judgment and decision-making ranked second (19.05%), followed by problem-solving (9.52%).
One respondent emphasized the importance of making AI "a driver of creativity rather than a substitute for human thinking." This distinction is important.
AI can support thinking, suggest ideas, summarize documents, and speed up certain stages of a task. However, to use its output effectively, employees must apply critical thinking, question the answers they receive, identify errors, and consider the context in which they work.
The same applies to judgment, decision-making, and problem-solving.
For organizations, this finding points to a training priority: developing these capabilities among employees while also teaching them how to use AI tools effectively.
Conclusion: The Real Challenge Is Finding the Right Balance
The survey responses reveal a tension that goes beyond the choice of technological tools.
On the one hand, organizations want to improve productivity, automate certain tasks, and take advantage of the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence. On the other hand, they must protect their data, verify AI-generated results, and preserve the skills employees need to exercise sound judgment.
Integrating AI cannot be reduced to a technology issue. It also requires organizational decisions, clear guidelines, and investment in human skills.
The challenge is not simply to do more with AI. It is to do better with it, without losing what makes human work valuable.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate.