The High Stakes of AI Literacy: When “Fluency” Trumps Experience

In recent months, a trend has emerged in the world of work: companies are increasingly using AI literacy as a benchmark for employee promotion and performance evaluation. According to Accenture’s Julie Sweet, employees who want to get ahead must be proficient in AI – it’s how her company operates.

This emphasis on AI is causing concern among workers like Duncan Trevithick, who sees it as a form of self-redundancy: by automating his tasks, he’s making himself obsolete. “I’m just trying to view myself as a manager,” he says wryly, “and I’m managing some people, and I’m also managing AI agents.”

The reality is that many employees are caught between two extremes: either they master the latest AI tools or resist and potentially fall behind in their careers. This has created a “two-tier workforce” where those who demonstrate AI fluency are rewarded with faster promotion and higher pay, while others lag behind.

Research suggests that this trend may not be driving business results. According to McKinsey, 94% of companies have yet to see significant value from their AI investments. The focus on AI literacy appears to be more about saving costs and time than achieving tangible gains.

Employers are within the law, but as employment lawyer Tina Chander notes, this development raises important questions about fairness and pay. If employees are doing more work thanks to AI, should they be rewarded differently? Or are they effectively making themselves redundant?

The consequences of this trend could be far-reaching. As HR consultant Tina Rahman points out, companies are not being transparent enough about their goals for AI adoption – or the implications for employees. This lack of clarity is already causing discontent among workers.

Companies risk turning AI adoption into a performative exercise if they make AI usage a key performance indicator, as applied AI researcher and lecturer Kamila Miller warns: “People will log their interactions without necessarily improving anything.” In other words, companies may be more interested in appearances than actual innovation.

As the UK introduces new laws allowing employees to submit unfair dismissal claims after just six months of service, it’s clear that workers are increasingly asserting their rights. But will companies respond by being more transparent about their goals for AI adoption – or will they continue to push the boundaries of what’s acceptable in pursuit of productivity gains?

Trevithick aptly describes the situation: “It’s like being in the sea and you see a giant wave coming. You can get out a surfboard and try to ride it as long as possible, or you can just let it take you under.” The choice is clear – but what will companies choose to do next?