Tag: Employers

Featured Article : Employers Choose AI Over Gen Z

Posted on by Paul Stradling

A new British Standards Institution report says managers are increasingly substituting AI for junior roles, reshaping early careers and raising concerns for the UK labour market.

The Study and Report

The analysis comes from the British Standards Institution’s new insight report, ‘Evolving Together: AI, Automation and Building the Skilled Workforce of the Future’. It surveyed more than 850 business leaders across eight countries, including the UK, and used AI tools to review 123 company annual reports to see how often themes such as automation, upskilling, and training appeared. The study set out to understand how employers are using AI, which roles are being affected, and what this means for workforce development and future talent pipelines.

What Employers Are Doing

The key finding of the report appears to be that employers are now actively testing AI before employing people. The report says that nearly a third of business leaders said their organisation explores an AI solution before considering a human hire. Two in five said AI is already helping them reduce their headcount, while a similar number reported that entry-level roles had already been reduced or cut as AI took on research and administrative work. Looking ahead, 43 per cent said they expect further reductions in junior roles over the next year. In the UK, 38 per cent of leaders expect to cut junior positions, and three quarters said AI is already helping reduce headcount.

The language appearing in company reports appears to tell a similar story. For example, the term “automation” appeared nearly seven times more often than “upskilling”, “training”, or “education”, suggesting that businesses are now prioritising cost reduction and efficiency over long-term workforce investment. Over half of those surveyed also said the benefits of implementing AI outweigh the disruption to jobs.

Why?

It seems that employers are framing AI as a route to productivity and competitiveness. For example, 61 per cent cited productivity and efficiency as a main reason for investing in AI, 49 per cent pointed to cost reduction, and 43 per cent said AI helps fill skills gaps. However, the BSI report notes that competitive pressure may be driving these decisions as much as actual evidence of success. Many businesses are keen not to appear behind their rivals, even if financial results are uncertain.

What It Means For Gen Z And Early Careers

For younger workers entering the job market, it looks as though the picture is becoming more challenging. Adzuna data shows that UK entry-level vacancies have fallen by about a third since late 2022, with such roles now representing a smaller share of all job postings. Also, Indeed has reported a one-third year-on-year fall in graduate listings, marking the toughest market since 2018. The BSI study captures the employer side of this trend, where a quarter of bosses believe all or most entry-level tasks could now be handled by AI.

BSI’s leaders warn about the long-term cost of this approach. “AI represents an enormous opportunity for businesses globally, but as they chase greater productivity and efficiency, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is ultimately people who power progress,” said Susan Taylor Martin, chief executive of BSI. She called for long-term workforce investment alongside AI spending. Kate Field, BSI’s global head of human and social sustainability, added that prioritising short-term productivity over early-career development risks weakening the skills pipeline and deepening generational inequality.

Signals From The Labour Market

The UK labour market itself has cooled through the summer. Official figures show unemployment at 4.7 per cent between May and July, a four-year high. Economists caution against linking this entirely to AI adoption, although the technology is clearly reshaping entry-level hiring.

International bodies are also monitoring exposure. For example, the International Monetary Fund estimates around 60 per cent of jobs in advanced economies could be affected by AI, with roughly half of these potentially seeing lower demand for human labour. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has also found that about a third of vacancies are in occupations highly exposed to AI, with the UK near the top of that range. These findings support the idea that early-career, white-collar roles are among the most vulnerable to rapid automation.

Implications For Employers And Businesses

For companies, the short-term benefits are obvious. For example, AI can automate repetitive tasks, consolidate workflows, and reduce costs in areas such as administration, research, and reporting. However, the medium-term risk is quite significant. If firms eliminate entry-level positions faster than they develop new skills, they could face shortages of experienced managers and specialists later on. BSI’s analysis shows that larger companies are moving faster on headcount reduction than small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), but they are also more likely to have a formal AI learning and development programme. That leaves SMEs in a difficult position, potentially expected to train the next generation of workers while competing for scarce talent.

What About ROI?

Return on investment is another area of uncertainty. For example, IBM’s 2025 CEO Study reported that only a quarter of AI initiatives had actually delivered expected results in recent years, and an MIT-linked study this summer found that most enterprise generative AI projects produced no measurable effect on profit or efficiency. An EY survey of nearly a thousand large companies reached similar conclusions, finding that many experienced early financial losses due to compliance issues, inaccurate outputs, and operational disruption. These findings suggest that while firms are enthusiastic about AI, many are still learning how to achieve any real value from it.

Employees And The Economy

For workers, especially Gen Z, the decline in entry-level roles reduces opportunities to gain essential experience. That has implications for career progression, pay growth, and social mobility. The BSI findings also highlight sentiment among managers, more than half of whom said they feel lucky to have started their careers before AI became widespread. This fuels perceptions among younger people that they face a more precarious employment landscape. The Trades Union Congress has also reported that half of UK adults worry AI could alter or take their job, underlining growing anxiety around the technology’s impact on employment.

At the wider economic level, a balanced transition is crucial. For example, international studies suggest that AI can raise productivity if it’s paired with investment in human skills. The OECD links high AI exposure with rising demand for management, social, and digital capabilities, while the IMF stresses that policy and employer choices will determine whether AI adoption produces better jobs or simply less work. It should be noted that the direction is not inevitable, but depends on how businesses and governments respond.

Other Stakeholders

For AI providers, the BSI data signals strong short-term demand for automation tools, especially those aimed at streamlining office-based and knowledge roles. It also points to increasing scrutiny. Employers are demanding clearer evidence of ROI, and policymakers are watching workforce impacts closely. Some commentators, for example, are warning about inflated AI valuations, and the IMF has highlighted the risk of market concentration among a few large AI firms. For educators and training providers, the opportunity is equally clear. If businesses are automating junior roles, then building AI literacy and human-centred skills such as creativity, empathy, and collaboration into education and early careers becomes increasingly essential.

Challenges And Criticisms

Taking a step back, three key issues appear to stand out from all this:

1. An over-reliance on automation without parallel investment in upskilling risks hollowing out future leadership pipelines. The imbalance in corporate language, where automation dominates over training, suggests short-termism.

2. ROI from AI remains inconsistent. For example, surveys from IBM, MIT, and EY show that many organisations either struggle to capture financial gains or face early project losses, raising doubts about the business case for replacing human development with automation.

3. There is now a widening gap between large and small employers in their ability to offer AI-related training. That leaves SMEs carrying much of the responsibility for developing Gen Z talent while lacking the same resources as bigger corporations.

BSI’s leaders emphasise that an AI-enabled workforce still needs to be developed. The report concludes that “the future belongs to skills that machines can’t replicate—for example, creativity, empathy, and collaboration.” Businesses, it says, must evolve to nurture these human strengths alongside technical literacy if they want to remain competitive and sustainable.

Looking Ahead

Looking ahead, hiring trends at the entry level are likely to be the key measure. Job-board data through 2025 already shows fewer openings in several professional fields even as AI-related roles expand. Policy direction will also be crucial. The British Standards Institution and other regulators are expected to continue shaping frameworks for responsible AI adoption. Measuring productivity outcomes and workforce investment side by side will determine whether this phase of AI-driven restructuring delivers lasting value, or leaves a generation behind.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The findings in the report suggest that the next stage of AI adoption will test how well businesses balance efficiency with long-term workforce stability. Employers that continue cutting entry-level positions without replacing them with structured learning or graduate pathways could soon face internal skills gaps that limit growth. For UK businesses, this raises a strategic question about sustainability. For example, automation can reduce costs, but without a consistent flow of skilled recruits, firms may find themselves competing for an ever-smaller pool of experienced professionals, pushing up wages and weakening future competitiveness.

There are also wider economic implications to consider. A reduction in entry-level hiring may suppress social mobility and delay young workers’ transition into full employment, which in turn affects consumer spending and tax revenues. Economists have warned that productivity gains from AI will only materialise if human capital keeps pace with technology. For policymakers, the challenge will be encouraging responsible innovation while safeguarding the foundations of the labour market. The BSI’s call for long-term thinking reflects growing concern that the UK’s current AI strategy must be paired with investment in training and skills if the benefits are to be shared across society.

For AI companies, the trend creates both opportunity and risk. Demand for automation is strong, but expectations are rising. Businesses are beginning to scrutinise outcomes more closely and may demand clearer, measurable returns. Providers that can demonstrate reliability, data security, and real efficiency improvements will be best placed to maintain momentum once early enthusiasm fades. Education and training providers also stand to gain if they can help bridge the gap between technical capability and human development, ensuring that younger workers can work effectively with, rather than against, AI systems.

Beyond the headline story here, the more rounded message emerging from the BSI’s report, is that the path forward cannot rely solely on automation. Businesses, governments, and educators will need to work together to build a future workforce that complements AI rather than competes with it. Without that alignment, the short-term pursuit of productivity could come at the long-term expense of capability, resilience, and opportunity.

Security Stop-Press: A Third Of Staff Hide AI Usage From Employers

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Nearly a third of office staff are secretly using AI tools at work, risking data breaches, compliance failures, and loss of intellectual property.

Ivanti’s latest Technology at Work report reveals that 42 per cent of employees now use AI daily, but many do so without approval. For example, 36 per cent believe it gives them a hidden edge, while others worry about job security or fear judgement from colleagues. Crucially, even 38 per cent of IT professionals admit to using unauthorised tools, despite knowing the risks.

This covert use of AI, dubbed ‘shadow AI’, is raising red flags across the industry. As Ivanti’s legal chief Brooke Johnson warns: “Employees adopting this technology without proper guidelines or approval could be fuelling threat actors”. Also, a separate study by Veritas found over a third of UK staff had fed sensitive data into chatbots, often unaware of the potential consequences.

Several major firms, including Apple, Samsung and JP Morgan, have already restricted workplace AI use following accidental leaks, but Ivanti warns that policy alone isn’t enough i.e., businesses must assume shadow AI is already happening and act accordingly.

To reduce the risk, companies should enforce clear AI policies, educate staff, and monitor real-world usage. Without visibility and oversight, AI could turn from productivity tool to security liability.

Tech Insight : UK Employers Ramp Up Workplace Surveillance

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Workplace surveillance is becoming an inescapable reality for employees across the UK, with new research showing that 85 per cent of employers now monitor their staff’s online activity.

What’s Going On?

While businesses argue that these measures are essential for productivity and security, research indicates that employees are increasingly feeling the strain, leading to stress, distrust, and even resignations. So, just how widespread is workplace surveillance, what methods are being used, and what does it mean for the future of work?

The Scale of Workplace Surveillance

Workplace surveillance refers to the various ways employers track, record, and analyse their employees’ activities during work hours. While some monitoring practices, such as logging clock-in times, have been around for decades (going as far back as the nineteenth century), the digital era has significantly expanded what’s possible. Employers are now using sophisticated tools to track emails, internet usage, keystrokes, and even employees’ locations. In some cases, surveillance goes even further, with real-time screen monitoring and video surveillance becoming increasingly common.

The latest findings from an ExpressVPN survey have highlighted just how pervasive this practice has become. Their research shows that 85 per cent of UK employers admit to monitoring their staff in some way, with 54 per cent tracking active work hours, 36 per cent keeping an eye on website visits, and 27 per cent using software to observe employees’ screens in real-time. More intrusive measures, such as keystroke logging and location tracking, are also on the rise.

Employers Prefer In-Office Work

It appears that this shift has been accelerated by remote and hybrid work models which, since the pandemic years, have left many employers feeling out of control. The ExpressVPN study found that 72 per cent of employers prefer in-office work because it reduces the need for surveillance, while 51 per cent openly admit that they do not trust employees to work unsupervised.

Who’s Watching – Large Corporations or Small Businesses?

It seems that workplace surveillance isn’t just confined to large corporations and both small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are known to be engaging in these practices. However, larger firms tend to have more sophisticated monitoring tools and policies in place.

For example, tech giants such as Amazon have long been criticised for using surveillance technology to track warehouse workers and delivery drivers. Employees have reported feeling intense pressure due to constant monitoring, with some even being penalised for taking bathroom breaks. Similarly, financial institutions such as Barclays and PwC have been reported to track employees’ computer activity, logging how long they are active on their devices.

Also, companies like Microsoft have faced backlash over their “Productivity Score” tool, which was criticised for allowing managers to monitor individual workers’ performance at an almost microscopic level. In response to concerns about privacy, Microsoft eventually scaled back the tool’s capabilities, but the fact remains that workplace surveillance is no longer just about keeping track of attendance but is more about watching employees’ every digital move.

Why is Workplace Surveillance Increasing?

The rise of workplace surveillance is closely tied to the growing number of employees working remotely or in hybrid arrangements. Many businesses feel that without physical oversight, they cannot ensure that staff are working productively.

Employers also cite security concerns as a major reason for surveillance. With more employees accessing company data from home, businesses worry about sensitive information being leaked, stolen, or misused. Surveillance is seen as a way to safeguard against these risks, ensuring that employees are not engaging in unauthorised activities.

However, there is also a less talked-about reason behind the rise in monitoring, i.e. control. Many businesses simply feel uneasy about not being able to see what their staff are doing at all times. This has led to an increasing reliance on tracking tools to maintain a sense of authority, even when employees are working from home.

The Most Common Forms of Workplace Surveillance

Workplace monitoring can take many forms, ranging from relatively standard practices to highly invasive measures. The main forms highlighted by the ExpressVPN research include:

– Email and Chat Monitoring – 36 per cent of companies track employees’ emails, while 28 per cent monitor internal chat logs. This means that even private conversations between colleagues on work devices may not be as private as employees think.

– Keystroke Logging – 15 per cent of businesses record keystrokes, capturing exactly what employees type, including passwords and personal messages.

– Real-Time Screen Monitoring – More than a quarter (27 per cent) of employers actively view employees’ screens, allowing them to see what is being worked on in real time.

– Location Tracking – 21 per cent of businesses use GPS to monitor where employees are working from, raising concerns about whether staff members are being tracked outside of work hours.

The Ethical and Legal Debate

Workplace surveillance is actually a bit of a legal grey area in the UK. For example, although employers are permitted to monitor employees, there are rules about how they must go about it. The Data Protection Act 2018 and the European Convention on Human Rights provide some safeguards, stating that surveillance must be proportionate, transparent, and conducted for a legitimate business purpose.

However, many employees remain unaware of their rights. For example, ExpressVPN’s research found that 38 per cent of UK workers did not realise their employers were legally allowed to monitor their digital activity. Also, 79 per cent of Brits believe that workplace surveillance needs stricter government regulation to protect employee privacy.

The ethical concerns are even more pressing. Many employees feel that excessive monitoring creates a culture of distrust, reducing morale and increasing stress. If workers constantly feel watched, they are less likely to feel comfortable in their roles, which can lead to lower productivity and higher staff turnover.

How Workplace Surveillance Affects Employees

The impact of surveillance on employees is profound. Nearly half (46 per cent) of UK workers report feeling increased stress due to monitoring, with many saying they are constantly worried about how their actions might be perceived.

ExpressVPN’s research revealed that some employees have even altered their behaviour in response to surveillance. For example, 27 per cent say they take fewer breaks to avoid appearing unproductive.

It seems that workplace surveillance can also take its toll on employees mentally and emotionally. For example, according to the research:

– 23 per cent feel pressured to work longer hours.

– 32 per cent constantly wonder whether they are being watched.

– 14 per cent report feeling dehumanised by the extent of monitoring.

Young Employees Affected The Most

Young employees are particularly affected, with workers aged 18-24 feeling the highest levels of stress over being monitored.

Employees’ Reactions

As revealed by the survey, in response to surveillance, some employees have begun using creative, if questionable, tactics to avoid being flagged for inactivity. For example:

– 18 per cent admit to keeping unnecessary applications open to appear busy.

– 15 per cent schedule emails to send at certain times to give the impression of constant engagement.

– 11 per cent use ‘mouse jigglers’ or keyboard simulation software to avoid being marked as inactive.

These workarounds suggest that rather than boosting productivity, excessive surveillance may actually be encouraging employees to focus more on appearing busy rather than doing meaningful work.

It should be noted that employers are increasingly deploying advanced monitoring tools capable of detecting deceptive behaviours used by employees to get around surveillance. For example, companies like Wells Fargo have identified (and dismissed) employees for simulating keyboard activity to appear productive.

Is Workplace Surveillance Actually Effective?

Employers argue that monitoring increases productivity, but much of the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. While some studies indicate that limited monitoring can help prevent misconduct, excessive surveillance tends to have the opposite effect. Employees who feel watched are more likely to experience burnout, decreased engagement, and ultimately lower performance.

For example, a study by the Austrian research group Cracked Labs found that overly aggressive surveillance can lead to a toxic work environment, where employees feel like they are constantly being scrutinised. This, in turn, leads to lower morale and higher staff turnover, which can cost businesses more in the long run.

The Future of Workplace Surveillance

With AI and advanced analytics becoming more sophisticated, workplace monitoring is only set to expand. Some companies are already using AI-powered surveillance to track everything from facial expressions during video calls to time spent away from a keyboard.

However, the backlash is growing. Employees are increasingly demanding transparency and greater legal protection. If businesses fail to strike a balance between oversight and trust, they risk creating a workforce that feels resentful, stressed, and ultimately disengaged.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

While workplace surveillance is often justified by employers as a necessary tool for maintaining productivity and security, the reality may be more complex. The evidence suggests that while some level of monitoring may help prevent misconduct, excessive surveillance can backfire, leading to stress, disengagement, and resentment among employees. Instead of fostering a culture of productivity, it can create an environment of fear and mistrust, where workers are more focused on appearing active rather than doing meaningful work.

The increasing reliance on monitoring technology, particularly in remote and hybrid work settings, appears to reveal a fundamental lack of trust between employers and employees. This lack of trust, rather than improving performance, is more likely to damage morale and increase staff turnover. The findings from ExpressVPN’s research make it clear that many employees feel dehumanised and pressured under constant scrutiny, with younger workers being the most affected. When employees feel like they are being watched at every moment, the psychological toll can be significant, affecting their well-being and ultimately their performance.

While UK law does allow workplace monitoring for legitimate business purposes, the rules surrounding transparency and proportionality are not always strictly enforced. The fact that nearly four in ten employees are unaware of their rights in this regard suggests a concerning lack of clarity and communication. This is why there is growing demand for stronger regulations to ensure that workplace surveillance is conducted fairly and with clear boundaries.

For businesses, the challenge lies in striking the right balance. Employers should really weigh the benefits of monitoring against the potential negative consequences. Surveillance should ideally be used as a tool to support productivity, not as a mechanism of control that erodes trust and morale. Transparency is key. When employees understand why monitoring is in place, how data is being used, and what safeguards exist, they are more likely to accept it as a legitimate part of their working environment rather than as an invasive overreach.

The future of workplace surveillance is likely to be shaped by advancements in AI and monitoring technology, but also by the growing pushback from employees and privacy advocates. If businesses fail to recognise the risks of excessive surveillance, they may find themselves facing higher attrition rates, lower engagement, and potential legal challenges. The key takeaway from all of this is really that trust and productivity go hand in hand. If employers truly want a motivated and efficient workforce, they may wish to focus less on surveillance and more on creating a workplace culture built on transparency, fairness, and mutual respect.