The Mirage of Job Security in the AI Age

What SHRM’s Data Misses, and Why It Matters for Leadership

According to SHRM, only 12% of jobs are at a high or very high risk of disruption as a result of AI. So, what’s with all the apocalyptic news, crazy layoffs, and economic uncertainty?

I hadn’t even seen the report until

Dylan Macinerney

tagged me in a note this week with some questions related to it. However, despite already having a lineup of updates I planned on covering this week, I knew I needed to pivot and decided to dig into SHRM’s latest data brief. Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it, and the headlines quoting the stats started popping up everywhere. What bugged me was that while the number might technically be accurate, it paints a dangerously incomplete picture of what’s actually happening inside organizations right now.

Per usual, I recorded my off-the-cuff YouTube video to unpack some of my early reactions, but the more time I’ve spent digging through the report and in conversations with senior leaders behind closed doors, the more confident I am in saying SHRM’s framing of AI job risk misses some critical perspective. And, the value of that perspective isn’t just for the people worried about their roles. It’s relevant for the leaders making decisions that will shape what work looks like this year and in the years ahead.

Now, to be clear, this won’t be a detailed breakdown of who will be getting replaced and who’s safe. Hopefully, it helps anyone who reads this define value in spite of how fast the ground is shifting and provides a greater understanding of why “job security” might be the wrong thing to be chasing altogether.

With that, let’s get to it.

Key Reflections

“Most people won’t lose their jobs to AI. They’ll lose their value in the job they still have.”

It’s easy to either accept or reject SHRM’s 12% stat based on how personally at-risk you feel. If your job currently feels stable, it’s tempting to breathe a sigh of relief. If you’re feeling vulnerable, it’s easy to let it fuel your anxiety. However, the binary thinking that you’re either safe or not safe is exactly where the real risk lives. It’s not about determining whether AI will take your job or not. We’d be wise to focus our attention on the spectrum between those two outcomes. In practice, most people won’t wake up and find their job is gone, despite what headlines indicate. Most will slowly discover their job is no longer what it used to be.

This spectrum is rarely discussed in headlines and reports. Despite all the hype, many of the roles we see today will still exist. Heck, the titles probably won’t even change, but the activity will. If you get distracted by the polar ends, you won’t notice the quiet shift in responsibilities, loss of autonomy, or contributions mattering less than they used to. If overlooked, many will be left clinging to a version of a role that no longer fits or completely sitting on the sidelines and excluded from the changes reshaping the work around them. Those are the ones whose jobs are technically “safe,” but who feel miserable, disconnected, and left behind.

So, the sooner we stop asking whether our jobs will change and start asking how we’ll participate in that change, the more power we have to shape it.

“Data gives us a snapshot but great leadership requires you to see the entire film reel.”

One of the most understandable traps leaders fall into is assuming that having data is the same as having insight. Reports like SHRM’s make it easy to skim the headlines, glance at the numbers, and look for red flags in familiar places. You might scan for your industry or department and then move on. However, surface-level thinking is exactly what leads to short-sighted decisions. It’s how you end up getting handed a percentage to cut with no time to push back or evaluate how cuts will affect the work. When leaders don’t stop and consider what the data isn’t showing, they surrender the right to proactively lead with discernment.

This is compounded by one of the other biggest blind spots I see in leadership conversations, which is most leaders don’t actually understand the work their teams do. I’m not talking about knowing in a micromanagy way but in having a sense of how the different functions, people, and skills all fit together to deliver value. Combine these two, and it’s only a matter of time before you’re cutting to hit a budget without realizing what will happen. So, while reports like SHRM’s aren’t inherently bad, you have to slow down long enough to pair the numbers with some strategic understanding.

Now, if that has you stressed, don’t worry. You don’t need to be an expert in every role or every report. Just make sure you’re not leading with half the picture and putting you and your team at risk.

If your AI plan doesn’t include your people, it’s not a strategy; it’s a gamble.”

Almost every company I encounter is sprinting toward AI transformation, piloting tools, upgrading systems, and transforming workflows. Tragically, amidst all that momentum, one critical element is often left behind: the people who will ultimately be responsible for making it all work. Leaders wrongly assume workforce readiness is included. Or worse, that it’ll happen naturally. However, you can’t plop AI into a system and expect results, and the data conclusively proves it. Tech may launch on time, but then it goes downhill. Confusion spreads and morale dips. Before you know it, the strategy stalls, not necessarily because the AI was bad, but because no one slowed down long enough to prepare the people.

This is especially problematic since most leaders don’t just lack a clear picture of how ready their teams are. There is often not a clear picture of what they’re actually trying to accomplish. People rush to “do something,” but no one knows whether their people can adapt when the something finally arrives. Subtle plug warning: I created the AI Effectiveness Rating™ to help leaders mitigate this risk. So, if you’re navigating this shift, you can check out a sample report here. Oh, and feel free to reach out if you’d like help thinking through how this might look inside your org.

All that to say, you don’t need to solve all the problems, but you do need to know which problems need solving and whether your people are ready to solve them.

“It’s not the loud resistance that derails transformation. It’s the quiet compliance that hides real fear.”

There’s no denying reports like SHRM’s add to all the noise around AI and job risk. And, in a noisy environment where you’re juggling constantly shifting priorities, it’s easy as a leader to try and tune out the noise by assuming things are fine. However, when you put in those earplugs, you end up missing the noise that matters. I frequently hear from teams that they’re uncertain, disengaged, and afraid. Unfortunately, many say they don’t feel their leaders have space to hear it, so they stay quiet, waiting for the leader to notice or someone else to break the silence. And in that quiet, things fester, misunderstandings widen, and alignment drifts.

Now, that silence is dangerous, but it’s also avoidable. For leaders, you need to create space to ask the hard questions, even if you don’t yet have the answers. Don’t wait for the hull to crack; invite your team into the unknown with you. Because the greatest risk isn’t that people push back. It’s that they disengage entirely. Now, this isn’t just about leaders. Employees, this is your moment too. You don’t need to have a five-point plan, but staying silent doesn’t serve you or anyone else. You need to speak up, offer insight, and raise the questions no one else is asking. Now is the time to shape the future of work together.

AI may be reshaping the way we work, but we shape how we move forward. United we adapt; divided we stall.

Concluding Thoughts

I know there’s a lot of uncertainty right now. AI and automation are just one piece of a much bigger storm everyone is trying to weather. It’s not just your job that feels unstable; it’s the entire ground beneath it. And, can I be honest? Just because I talk about these things and sit in rooms where the conversations are happening doesn’t mean I’m immune to the weight of it. I feel the fatigue, uncertainty, and frustration of watching decisions get made without clear direction or care for the people involved.

However, I want to offer a little bit of light in a dark room. Despite the noise and the fear, the stories aren’t all bad. The chaos isn’t inevitable. I’ve had the privilege of walking alongside many organizations that are doing this well. They’re asking the hard questions and using inputs like the AI Effectiveness Rating™ not just to check a box, but to understand how to lead better. They’re building thoughtful strategies that make work more meaningful, not more mechanical. They’re integrating AI not to replace people, but to elevate them. And, guess what? It’s working.

So, if you’re tired, I see you. But please don’t lose heart. This too shall pass, and when it does, the future won’t belong to the ones who had all the answers. It will belong to the ones who stayed in the conversation and kept leading in spite of the chaos. All that to say, let’s lock arms and commit to keep showing up, learning, and doing this together.

With that, I’ll see you on the other side.