Feature
White Paper
Why AI Rarely Improves How Work Actually Gets Done
How do you lead AI adoption when you're not sure whether adopting it protects your role or accelerates your obsolescence?
Many CHROs are deciding to simply punt on tough decisions. You stall, hedge and hope someone else goes before you do.
That calculation seems to show up everywhere. There are many failed AI pilots that never scale in the workplace. When an expensive platform does get licensed, it might never be fully deployed across HR functions. When HR leaders are asked about AI, they may appear excited, but their behavior suggests otherwise.
Stalling can look like prudence. After all, who is going to fault waiting for best practices to emerge, building consensus or slowing rollouts as change management catches up?
But beneath the surface, a different dynamic is at work.
When the people responsible for driving AI adoption are also the people most uncertain about where they'll land when it's over, conviction can give way to caution.
CHROs Are the Most Pro-AI (and the Most Worried About Their Jobs)
AMS surveyed 300 CHROs and HR leaders in January 2026 and found that 80% of them said AI is essential to keeping their talent pools competitive.
That number is higher than CEOs, higher than other C-suite roles and higher than any other group surveyed. CHROs believe AI will define the next era of talent strategy more than anyone else in the room. It’s a bold take for a profession that hasn’t always been on the cutting edge of new innovations.
They're also the group most worried about their own jobs disappearing as automation scales.
The combination matters because strategic conviction paired with personal anxiety doesn't produce bold leadership. Leaders look for ways to support AI in principle while avoiding commitments that can't be reversed if the politics shift or the technology disappoints.
In short, the gap between stated beliefs and behaviors increases, and it shows up elsewhere.
The AMS study also found that 47% of organizations say HR and the C-suite aren't aligned on what AI should accomplish in hiring. This isn't about miscommunication, more meetings or meetings that should’ve been an email.
Leaders know the direction. They won't commit because committing means owning consequences they're not sure they can manage, whether it’s for their teams, their budgets or, eventually, their own roles.
The numbers show what happens when nobody pulls the trigger. Eighty-nine percent of companies say AI isn't deployed across major recruiting functions, even though 71% say they should be investing more.
Making the first irreversible call feels too risky, but stalling feels even worse to the people who don’t have a say in the matter. Everyone can agree that AI will play a role in the future. Nobody agrees on what to do about it this quarter.
When Leaders Stay Quiet, Employees Fill the Silence With Worst-Case Scenarios
Fear produces another problem: leaders stop communicating with employees.
They avoid team conversations about what's changing because they don't have the answers yet, or because the real answers feel too dangerous to say out loud. Mercer's 2025 HR Tech report found that fewer than 20% of employees heard from their direct managers about how AI would affect their jobs. Only 13% heard anything from HR.
Silence doesn't reassure people, though. Instead, it lets them assume the worst. Trust drops, and people stop investing time in learning new skills or staying fully engaged. They're not bad employees; they’re just not sure the investment will matter. They start looking around for companies where someone seems to have a plan.
Meanwhile, 78% of knowledge workers are already using AI tools at work, bringing their own without any official guidance. HR is debating policy while employees have moved on out of necessity and self-preservation.
Without bold HR leadership, the skills gaps and governance problems everyone worries about get worse, not better. That’s because the function that should be leading the people side of transformation is instead reacting to decisions made by IT, procurement, operations or individual employees.
How Bolting AI Onto Old Workflows Turns Productivity Gains Into Rework
When AI adoption does happen, it is often haphazard. Roles don't get redesigned, processes don't get rethought and nobody adjusts how the work actually flows or trains people on how to work well with the new tools.
Productivity gains disappear into the most frustrating rework imaginable. People spend their "saved" time fixing what the AI got wrong or redoing tasks that should have been eliminated entirely.
Webinar
Mar
26
Do Learning Programs Really Work? How to Turn Education Into Engagement In Healthcare
See how leaders are using learning programs to build trust with healthcare professionals and create measurable engagement.
Register
Webinar
On demand
Fuel Your Front Line: Workforce Trends Shaping 2026
Get expert insight into the tools and tactics top frontline teams will need in 2026.
Watch Now
Webinar
On demand
Fix the Disconnect Between Projects and Profit
Your margins are hiding in disconnected data. Let's find them.
Watch Now
Webinar
On demand
AI in Customer Service: Faster Resolutions, Happier Customers
Don’t let rising demand burn out your team. See how to build a smarter, more resilient support org.
Watch Now
Who gets the blame? Unfortunately, it’s sometimes workforce leadership — including HR.
The team behind flashy AI investments gets burned for missing ROI projections, even though they often don’t control the deployment, couldn’t drive workflow redesign or had no say in whether the organization reinvested time savings into developing people or just bought more software.
The function that should be shaping how people and technology work together ends up managing the fallout from bad decisions made elsewhere.
That's a leadership failure dressed up as a technology problem.
What CHROs Can Actually Control Right Now
None of this means AI adoption should stop or that the concerns driving CHRO anxiety aren't real. Roles will change, and some functions will shrink. The technology isn't waiting for anyone to feel ready.
But waiting for certainty before acting guarantees irrelevance.
The CHROs who navigate this will be the ones who separate what they can control from what they can't, and move decisively on the former. Here are a few ways to reflect.
- Get honest about what's changing, including for yourself. Your role is shifting no matter what you do. Pretending otherwise just makes you less credible when the pressure arrives and you're still hedging. Separate your personal anxiety from what the organization needs.
- Talk to people before you have all the answers. Employees don't need a perfect plan. They need honesty about what you know, what you're testing, and what you're still figuring out. Silence reads as evasion, and evasion kills trust faster than bad news delivered straight.
- Build basic governance before you scale anything. Start with an inventory: who's using what AI tools, for what purpose, with what results and who owns the outcome when something breaks. Without that baseline, you're managing by rumor.
- Redesign roles, not just tools. Real productivity requires rethinking what the job is now that some tasks take seconds instead of hours. If you skip that step, you're just automating broken processes faster and calling it innovation.
These moves won't eliminate the anxiety or resolve every question about where CHROs land when AI adoption accelerates. What they will give you is something to control when most of what's happening feels out of your hands. They turn fear into action instead of letting it calcify into paralysis.
What Separates Leaders Who Survive From Those Who Don't
The CHROs who come out of this period in stronger positions will be the ones who got honest about the gaps, communicated openly through the uncertainty and redefined what HR leadership means when the tools change but the human problems stay the same.
Most importantly, they realize that taking imperfect action today is the safer bet, even if it feels risky.
The ones who wait for clarity before making irreversible calls won't get a second chance to catch up, though. By the time the path forward becomes obvious, someone else will already own it. The window for shaping how AI gets deployed in your organization is open now. It won't stay open while you wait for consensus that never arrives or certainty about your own future that nobody can provide.
Related Articles:
- Your AI Workflows Will Outlast the Leaders Who Approved Them — AI agents don't create accountability problems, they inherit them. When autonomous systems outlast the teams that built them, ownership disappears.
- From Tool to Teammate: How AI Is Rewiring People Strategy and What HR Can Do to Adjust — HR leaders see AI transforming work beyond automation — reshaping teams, culture and people strategy. The future is “human-engaged” work, not human-replaced.
- If We Want AI to Help HR, HR Has to Join the Conversation — Engineers are designing AI systems to address problems that are rooted in the very systems HR understands best.