Should promotion depend on how workers use AI?

Duncan Trevithick, a marketing professional at an AI training data company, believes that using artificial intelligence (AI) at work should not be the basis for promotions, bonuses, or even firings. He argues that employees are being assessed on how effectively they can participate in their own redundancy. If Trevithick uses AI to complete two days' worth of work each week, he does not receive two days off or a 40% pay rise. Instead, his increased output becomes the new standard.

This trend of linking AI proficiency to employee performance is becoming more common, according to Accenture CEO Julie Sweet. Many other companies, such as Disney, Meta, JP Morgan, and KPMG, have introduced AI leaderboards to track and rank employees' usage of large language models and platforms.

Employees feel pressured to adopt AI, especially due to the current state of the job market. In the UK, job vacancies have hit a five-year low, and 94% of companies have yet to see significant value from AI, according to a McKinsey report. Despite this, 75% of 1,881 UK jobseekers polled in July by recruiter Gi Group said they would not be deterred by an organization's use of AI in individual performance reviews.

Pamela, a US-based senior executive, observes that while there isn't a formal mandate for AI use, it determines who is rewarded and who is left behind. She notes that AI capabilities are now considered as important as actual experience, leading to a two-tier workforce. Pamela believes that AI fluency beats credentials, and those with less AI fluency may be passed over for promotion, regardless of their years of experience.

However, the legality of this practice is unclear. Tina Chander, a partner and employment lawyer at Weightmans, confirms that bosses are generally in the clear, but it raises questions about fairness and performance expectations. Chander advises businesses to establish clear policies, training, and boundaries to avoid disputes about fairness, job security, and productivity.

HR consultant Tina Rahman argues that employers are not being transparent enough about their reasons for incorporating AI into employees' jobs. She suggests that this lack of clarity causes discontent and may lead to a performative approach, where employees log their AI interactions to meet a metric without genuinely benefiting from the technology.

Some experts, like Kamila Miller, an applied AI researcher and lecturer at Henley Business School, warn that mandating AI use at work can become purely performative and fail to have any real positive impact. She recommends that AI usage be made a KPI, but employees should log their interactions to genuinely benefit from the technology, rather than simply meeting a metric.