Most leaders view L&D as the primary lever for AI adoption.
A recent PwC survey of 50,000 workers found a widening divide between the front runners who use AI daily and the engine room which makes up 56% of the workforce.
While the front runners have the tools and the training, the engine room is being left behind.
I have seen this play out in almost every transformation initiative I have undertaken because the lack of digital literacy in core staff acts as a massive drag on every high ROI tool you try to deploy.
It is not a software problem.
When your engine room, which makes up 56% of your staff, cannot navigate even basic digital workflows, the issue is more than a simple training gap.
It is a question of structural incompatibility.
You are effectively subsidizing the training of people for roles that the technology will render obsolete within 24 months.
Some will argue that maintaining a stable, non AI dependent core is essential for operational resilience.
They believe you cannot just discard your most reliable workers.
I agree that stability is vital, but there is a difference between stability and subsidizing obsolescence.
If the tool requires a level of digital fluency that the majority of your staff cannot reach in a reasonable timeframe, that role is already gone.
1. Audit your L&D spend to see how much goes to roles that won't exist in 24 months.
2. Map digital literacy requirements against your engine room's current baseline.
3. Redesign roles to be AI native rather than trying to force fit legacy processes into new tools.
Are you investing in your people or are you just paying for a slow transition to a smaller workforce?
#AIStrategy #WorkforceTransformation #Leadership #FutureOfWork