When generative AI started taking over the news cycle a few years ago, I—like plenty of others—found myself wading through the stages of grief, trying to make sense of what it meant for my role at work.

This week, research from Kellogg’s Bryan Seegmiller and Dimitris Papanikolaou points to a less-fatalist future—as far as AI’s effects on jobs go. Plus, Ellen Taaffe on how our career paths aren’t always linear.

Working hand-in-code?

The effect of the latest generation of AI tools on the labor market still needs time to play out. But new research by Seegmiller, Papanikolaou, and colleagues hints at how this might unfold.

AI is “the next big thing that’s going to be shaping the labor market over the next couple of decades,” says Seegmiller, an assistant professor of finance.

The researchers measured workers’ exposure to AI and its impact on employment across a wide range of industries. They found that AI’s effect on the labor market in the past decade wasn’t as straightforward—or as dire—as one might initially assume.

The team found that jobs with the most AI exposure—or jobs most likely to have their tasks replaced by AI—tended to be higher among higher-paying, white-collar jobs, peaking at the ninetieth percentile of income.

When a job had higher exposure to AI, the demand for that job was likely to go down. However, workers in those roles also had more opportunities to make adjustments to their responsibilities and shift their attention to other tasks such that their performance improved. For instance, with AI replacing one of their rote tasks, workers might be able to spend more time strategizing or forming important business relationships instead.

And if their company used AI heavily, the firm tended to increase its overall productivity and expand its workforce, similarly to how “a rising tide lifts all boats.”

Because these opposing effects balanced each other out for highly paid positions, the change in demand for these occupations was nearly flat overall—even though these highly paid positions tended to have high direct exposure to AI.

“There are countervailing forces [with AI], some that work in your favor and some that work against you,” says Seegmiller.

To survive the AI boom, the findings suggest, workers may need to shift their responsibilities to tasks that complement AI’s growing role in their occupation. People might consider, for example, spending more time on big-picture thinking, communication, and collaboration.

As AI continues its forward march, having this flexibility is going to be important “to mitigate its negative effects,” Seegmiller says.

And as workers brace for AI-driven changes, they may want to reevaluate how they think about their jobs. People should consider, Seegmiller says, how to work “in conjunction with AI rather than in competition with AI.”

Read more in Kellogg Insight.

See you next week,

Laura Pavin, multimedia editor
Kellogg Insight