Despite 96% of C-suite executives expecting AI to boost productivity, employees say it has increased their workload, hampered productivity and caused job burnout, research shows.

The new global study, in partnership with The Upwork Research Institute, interviewed 2,500 global C-suite executives, full-time employees and freelancers. Results show that the optimistic expectations about AI’s impact are not aligning with the reality faced by many employees. The study identifies a disconnect between the high expectations of managers and the actual experiences of employees using AI.

Despite 96% of C-suite executives expecting AI to boost productivity, the study reveals that, 77% of employees using AI say it has added to their workload and created challenges in achieving the expected productivity gains. Not only is AI increasing the workloads of full-time employees, it’s hampering productivity and contributing to employee burnout.

  • cheddar@programming.devEnglish
    571·
    4 months ago

    Me: no way, AI is very helpful, and if it isn’t then don’t use it

    created challenges in achieving the expected productivity gains

    achieving the expected productivity gains

    Me: oh, that explains the issue.

    • BakkodaEnglish
      23·
      4 months ago

      It’s hilarious to watch it used well and then human nature just kick in

      We started using some “smart tools” for scheduling manufacturing and it’s honestly been really really great and highlighted some shortcomings that we could easily attack and get easy high reward/low risk CAPAs out of.

      Company decided to continue using the scheduling setup but not invest in a single opportunity we discovered which includes simple people processes. Took exactly 0 wins. Fuckin amazing.

      • CroquetteEnglish
        7·
        4 months ago

        Yeah but they didn’t have a line for that in their excel sheet, so how are they supposed to find that money?

        Bean counters hate nothing more than imprecise cost saving. Are they gonna save 100k in the next year? 200k? We can’t have that imprecision now can we?

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        4 months ago

        Honestly, this sounds like the analysis uncovered some managerial failings and so they buried the results; a cover-up.

        Also, and I have yet to understand this, but selling “people space” solutions to very technically/engineering-inclined management is incredibly hard to do. Almost like there’s a typical blind spot for solving problems outside their area of expertise. I hate generalizing like this but I’ve seen this happen many times, at many workplaces, over many years.

        • BakkodaEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          No I would think you are spot on. I’m constantly told I’m a type [insert fotm managerial class they just took term] and my conversations intimidate or emasculate people. They are probably usually correct but i find it’s usually just an attempt to cover their asses. I’m a contract worker, i was hired for a purpose with a limited time window and i fuckin deliver results even when they ignore 90% of the analysis. It’s gotta piss them off.

          • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            It’s gotta piss them off.

            That’s not unusual, sadly. Sometimes, someone brings in a contractor in attempt to foist change, as they’re not tainted by loyalties or the culture when it comes to saying ugly things. So anger and disruption is the product you’ve actually been hired to deliver; surprise! What pains me the most here is when I see my fellow contractors walk into just such a situation and they wind up worse for wear as a result.

            Edit: the key here is to see this coming and devise a communication plan to temper your client’s desire to stir the pot, and get yourself out of the line of fire, so to speak.