Tech workers who don’t embrace AI face triple the layoff risk, Gallup finds

SAN FRANCISCO – For tech workers, artificial intelligence may be delivering a benefit that goes beyond efficiency: a lower risk of being laid off.

New research from Gallup finds that tech workers who aren’t regular AI users are three times more likely to lose their jobs than their peers.

Among US tech workers who use AI at least monthly, the predicted probability of being laid off is about 6 per cent, compared with 18 per cent for workers who use the technology less often.

The estimates are based on a survey data in February involving more than 23,000 US workers, including 660 respondents who reported being unemployed after their jobs were eliminated.

Gallup collected data on how often employed and displaced workers used AI – from daily to not at all – and then used a statistical model to estimate how factors such as AI-use frequency and industry were associated with the likelihood of job loss.

Outside the tech industry, infrequent AI users also face a higher layoff risk than their peers, Gallup said, though the gap is smaller.

The link between AI use and job security held even after accounting for factors such as age, education and the sector in which one works, according to the researchers, suggesting that employees who don’t use AI are “more vulnerable in the job market.”

The findings also indicate that AI adoption is becoming a fault line inside companies, one that’s increasingly affecting individual careers.

Employers are already screening candidates for a certain level of AI fluency, and the Gallup report suggests the technology may also be influencing which workers companies choose to retain when they downsize.

Meanwhile, executives continue to press employees to use AI, even as public perceptions of the technology have soured and concerns about job losses have intensified.

Even so, only about 1 per cent of laid-off workers attributed their job loss directly to AI.

The most commonly cited reasons were more general, including organisational restructuring, cost-cutting and economic conditions.

The data point may “understate AI’s indirect influence” in companies’ layoff decisions, the researchers said.

“That surprised me the most,” said Jim Harter, chief scientist for Gallup’s workplace management and wellbeing practices. “They didn’t just blame AI.”

That leaves a disconnect between how workers and executives explain layoffs.

AI was the top reason companies cited for job cuts in May, accounting for about 40 per cent of such announcements, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.

How AI factors into job cut deliberations remains an open question, Harter said.

It’s possible that workers who use the technology more frequently are simply able to get more done than their peers.

Or employers may be paying attention to how often workers use AI – for example, how many times they prompt a chatbot in a given week.

“I don’t think that’s the right direction,” Harter said.

Tying performance evaluations to AI usage could encourage employees to overuse the tools in an effort to game the system.

“The real bottom line is: Are they more productive?” BLOOMBERG