According to Forbes, a new study from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and GBK Collective reveals that less than 20% of executives foresee AI-driven job cuts in their organizations. The survey of 800 business leaders found that 40% expect AI to boost hiring for entry-level positions, while another 40% anticipate no change in hiring patterns. IT departments are experiencing the most significant AI impact, with 47% affected—up from 30% in 2023—while 74% of enterprises report positive returns on their generative AI investments. The research also shows that 82% of business leaders use AI weekly, with nearly half using it daily, and most expect their AI investments to pay off within two to three years.
Table of Contents
The Executive Optimism Gap
The most telling finding from this research isn’t just the positive outlook—it’s the disconnect between leadership levels. When 45% of vice-presidents and above report significantly positive returns (greater than 20% ROI) compared to only 27% of mid-managers, we’re seeing a classic case of what I call “C-suite AI euphoria.” Senior leaders often experience AI through polished demos and strategic briefings, while mid-managers face the daily reality of implementation challenges, training gaps, and workflow disruptions. This optimism gap could create significant organizational friction if not addressed through better communication and realistic expectation setting.
Departmental Disruption Patterns
The dramatic increases in AI impact across IT (47%, up from 30%), purchasing (39%, up from 14%), and product development (37%, up from 22%) reveal a clear pattern: AI is targeting knowledge work first. These aren’t manual labor positions being automated—they’re roles involving pattern recognition, data analysis, and creative problem-solving. The acceleration in purchasing and procurement transformation is particularly noteworthy, suggesting that AI’s ability to analyze supplier data, optimize contracts, and predict supply chain disruptions is delivering immediate value. As artificial intelligence capabilities mature, we should expect this pattern to continue, with roles involving structured decision-making and data synthesis being transformed fastest.
The Skill Atrophy Challenge
The study’s identification of “skill atrophy” as the greatest inhibitor points to a deeper, more systemic issue that most companies aren’t adequately addressing. When 43% of executives agree that generative AI will lead to declines in proficiency, we’re looking at a potential crisis in workforce development. The danger isn’t just that employees might become dependent on AI tools—it’s that organizations might stop investing in fundamental skill development, assuming AI will handle the heavy lifting. This creates vulnerability: what happens when AI systems fail or produce unreliable outputs? Companies need balanced training approaches that leverage AI while maintaining core human competencies.
Measuring Real ROI
The study’s methodology around ROI measurement deserves scrutiny. When researchers “intentionally asked the question about ROI for gen AI in a fairly broad way,” they essentially allowed executives to define success on their own terms. This raises questions about whether we’re seeing genuine financial returns or what I’d call “perceived productivity gains.” Many early AI implementations deliver time savings and quality improvements that are real but difficult to quantify in traditional ROI calculations. The fact that returns are being measured against metrics like “productivity, profitability and throughput” from the Wharton-GBK report suggests companies are taking a comprehensive view, but we’ll need more standardized measurement approaches as AI adoption matures.
Hiring Dynamics in Context
While the hiring outlook appears positive, we need to consider what types of jobs are being created versus transformed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing over 5 million monthly hires needs to be examined alongside job quality and requirements. If AI is indeed boosting entry-level hiring, are these positions offering the same career progression opportunities as before? Or are we creating a bifurcated workforce where entry-level roles become more narrowly focused on AI-assisted tasks while higher-level positions require increasingly sophisticated AI management skills? The long-term career implications of this shift deserve careful monitoring.
The Amazon Paradox
The mention of Amazon’s 14,000 layoffs being partially attributed to AI highlights an important nuance in the job impact discussion. Large-scale workforce reductions at tech giants often reflect broader business strategy shifts, cost optimization efforts, and post-pandemic right-sizing—not purely AI-driven displacement. This creates what I call the “Amazon paradox”: high-profile layoffs get attributed to AI for narrative convenience, while the more complex reality involves multiple factors. The Wharton School research provides valuable counterbalance to these simplified media narratives, but we should remain cautious about drawing definitive conclusions from any single data point.
