The trend among major employers is to tie employee assessments, promotions, and job stability to their ability to leverage artificial intelligence tools — an approach that is fueling debate about fairness and long-term effects on the workforce.
Today, organizations from global consulting firms to large technology corporations are not only monitoring but also incentivizing employees who demonstrate strong AI skills, while those lacking such proficiency may find themselves bypassed for advancement or even at risk of termination, according to both executive statements and recent articles.
AI Expertise as a Promotion Requirement
The impact of this shift is clear for professionals like Duncan Trevithick, a 34-year-old marketing specialist at an AI training data company in Spain, who now sees his AI expertise directly linked to his annual bonus. Despite the apparent rewards, Trevithick cautions about the unintended consequences: “The uncomfortable interpretation is that employees are being assessed on how effectively they can participate in their own redundancy,” he remarked, noting that rising productivity expectations do not always lead to improved compensation or lighter workloads.
For Trevithick, automating two days of weekly tasks does not earn him extra rest or proportional pay increases. Instead, it redefines the baseline for output and raises concerns that more aspects of his work could ultimately be automated.
This reality is spreading globally. Companies across industries are making AI skills essential for decisions on promotions and rewards. Julie Sweet, CEO of Accenture, stated on the Rapid Response podcast in March that advancing at the firm now requires mastery of AI tools. Other companies such as Disney, Meta, JP Morgan, and KPMG have reportedly set up “AI leaderboards” to rank employees based on how much they use language models and digital platforms, as reported in the media.
Some employers have adopted even tougher approaches. On the crypto trading platform Coinbase, for instance, engineers who failed to finish mandatory AI training — directed by chief executive Brian Armstrong — have been dismissed.
Legal, Emotional, and Practical Concerns for Workers
While companies turn to AI to boost their returns — 94% of businesses have yet to generate significant value from AI, based on a McKinsey report — the outcome for workers is less straightforward. With a shrinking job market in the UK and vacancies hitting a five-year low, many employees feel forced to adapt.
According to a July poll by recruiter Gi Group, 75% of 1,881 UK jobseekers would still consider roles where AI skills are measured in performance evaluations, while only 22% would be dissuaded by such criteria.
Trevithick likened the pressure to a natural force: “It’s like being in the sea and you see a giant wave coming… you can’t stop the wave,” he said, illustrating how adapting to AI is now unavoidable for career survival.
Inside companies, this new emphasis is creating divisions. A senior executive at a major US consultancy, using the pseudonym Pamela, shared with reporters that AI abilities now overshadow experience in promotion discussions. She revealed, “AI fluency beats credentials every day,” and described how even veteran staff risk being overlooked for advancement or job retention if they don’t actively use emerging technologies, resulting in a growing “two tier workforce.”
Addressing whether employers may legally impose these criteria, Tina Chander, a partner at law firm Weightmans, explained that such requirements are within legal norms. Nevertheless, she expressed concerns about equity, especially if heightened expectations with AI are not matched with fairer pay or job protection. Chander recommended that employers outline clear expectations and provide adequate training to anyone affected, so disputes about redundancy and standards can be avoided.
From January 2027, changes to UK employment rules will make it easier for workers to challenge unfair dismissal, lowering the minimum service period for claims from two years to just six months, and lengthening the time allowed to submit a claim from three months to six, as detailed in new regulations.
Challenges in Enforcing AI Performance Metrics
Experts argue that mandating AI adoption can sometimes backfire. Kamila Miller, an AI researcher and Henley Business School lecturer, warned that using AI usage as a performance metric could prompt staff to artificially inflate their interaction stats, undermining genuine productivity, growth, or decision-making improvements.
Some leading corporations have recognized such drawbacks. In April, Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn stated on the “Silicon Valley Girl” podcast that AI was dropped as a performance measure following employee feedback that it prioritized tracking over outcomes. Likewise, Amazon disbanded its internal AI leaderboard after employees began to game the system by generating unnecessary AI activity, according to a Financial Times article published in May.
Still, the drive for demonstrated AI aptitude remains strong among workers. Pamela, for example, is in her fifties and planning for retirement but continues to harness AI in her daily work to stay visible and secure advancement.
In this environment, AI competency has become a deciding factor not only for organizational efficiency but also for personal job security. As Trevithick summarized, “If AI can do a job better than you, it makes sense for the business to replace you… so it’s about moving into roles where you can leverage AI to your own benefit.”