'Put together a group of people who are curious about the technology and how it could be used': academic on how to implement AI successfully
In the tech world, AI-driven changes to job roles are increasingly sparking debate, even backlash.
That was seen recently when Perplexity AI offered to support The New York Times during its tech workers’ strike, a move that drew fierce criticism.
The striking workers have been in negotiations with the paper since 2022, and the offer was seen by some as crossing the picket line.
“To be clear, the offer was *not* to ‘replace’ journalists or engineers with AI but to provide technical infra support on a high-traffic day,” the company’s CEO Aravind Srinivas said on X.
The situation speaks to a broader issue: employees can feel uneasy, even threatened, by the ways AI can alter traditional roles.
Catherine Connelly, professor of human resources and research chair at McMaster University, sheds light on how HR leaders can help manage these challenges.
Employees and AI: the stakes for HR leaders
For many workers, there is pride and satisfaction in seeing a project through from start to finish, and AI’s encroachment on these core elements of their jobs can lead to feelings of disconnection, she says.
“A lot of people are motivated by this idea of seeing a project through from beginning to end, or knowing that it was they themselves that came up with this idea, and they enjoy it.”
When AI takes over these core tasks, employees can feel they’re losing ownership of their work, which can dampen their motivation and engagement.
This sense of loss is particularly strong when AI takes over creative or specialized tasks that once defined a person’s role. As Connelly observes, “If they are suddenly being told, ‘No, AI is going to write that jingle or will design the graphic to go with this, and you’re just going to touch it up and make sure it’s okay,’— that’s a fundamentally different job.”
This shift, Connelly notes, can make employees feel they’re “just fixing the little obvious mistakes” instead of engaging in meaningful, fulfilling work.
“So the job itself could start to feel very different, and the intrinsic motivators might disappear, and if that's the case, people are going to expect to be compensated more,” she says.
“The company may not see that value, though, because if they can just rely on AI and somebody more entry level, without the years of experience, then they might be satisfied with that.”
Fostering AI acceptance with employee inclusion
To foster employee acceptance, Connelly recommends that companies involve employees directly in the selection and adoption of AI tools, helping to ensure that throughout the process, employees will be able to retain the most satisfying parts of their jobs.
“Rather than just having someone else decide and then imposing it on everybody, put together a team of people who are curious about the technology and how it could be used,” Connelly says, emphasizing that employees who are involved early on in AI implementation will be more likely to view AI as a valuable resource rather than an unwanted replacement.
Beyond concerns about job satisfaction, some employees may have ethical objections to certain uses of AI – issues around data privacy, intellectual property, and transparency in AI-driven decisions are becoming more prominent as the technology evolves.
“It's separate from workload, right? And it's separate from ability … they know how to use it, they could use it, but they don’t believe that it’s an ethical thing for them to use,” she says.
“I think professional associations are going to have a big role to play here in terms of setting standards, and if a profession agrees as a whole, ‘Okay, we don't do this,’ then that's a lot easier for employees to navigate with that assistance of their professional association and professional guidelines.”
AI tools can create risk of constructive dismissal
As the situation between Perplexity AI and The New York Times suggests, these changes can spark discontent and even controversy, especially when employees feel that their autonomy and expertise are being undermined; for HR leaders, this means paying close attention to the nature and extent of AI’s impact on job responsibilities.
There can also be legal consequences, Connelly adds, as when AI alters job roles significantly, constructive dismissal could be triggered.
“A little bit of that would be for the eye of the beholder and the courts to decide,” she points out, however.
“It could be that some people will see the change and welcome it, and they think, ‘What a great new tool. I can now generate the boring parts of my task with the AI, and I can do so much more work, and I can focus the parts of my role that I enjoy the most’ … so they might welcome it and not see it as a fundamental change.”
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee’s job is altered so dramatically that they can argue their employment contract has been breached. For employees who view their work as a craft, a sudden – or gradual – shift to a more AI-dependent role can feel like a fundamental change to their job.
As Connelly advises, companies should avoid automating tasks that employees find fulfilling.
“If there’s a task that in general, people find kind of unpleasant, or it’s overly time consuming, but they don’t enjoy it, then find a way to automate that,” she says.
