AI & Jobs Research: And Why I’m Optimistic

⏱️Read time: ~5 min

2025 is officially history. And what a year it's been!

A year of relentless AI hype. A year of new tools launching every other week (or every other day?). A year of headlines screaming about job cuts "because of AI." If you're a coach or consultant, you've probably felt the weight of it: clients asking anxious questions, colleagues wondering if their expertise still matters, maybe even your own quiet doubts about where you fit in all this.

I wanted to give you something different as we head into 2026. Not more hype. Not more fear. Just a bit of selected research and some encouragement.

I spent some time digging into what the top-tier publications such as Harvard Business Review, The Economist, Boston Consulting Group are saying about AI and work right now. And here's what I found: Yes, disruption is real. But the story is far more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

While the media fixates on jobs disappearing, something else is happening quietly in the background: new kinds of jobs are emerging. Roles that didn't exist two years ago. Opportunities for people who can bridge strategy, people, and technology, even if they've never held an "AI" title before.

I know this because I'm living it. Over the past few months, I've been getting requests for AI transformation work, even though I've never formally led an AI transformation. What I do have is a transformation background and hands-on AI experience. Turns out, that combination is exactly what organizations need right now. The roles are being invented as we speak, and the market is valuing adjacent skills + AI fluency over traditional credentials.

Now let me share what some of the research is telling us.

What the Research Shows

The Economist: New occupations are emerging, not just disappearing

In their December 14 piece, "Job apocalypse? Humbug! AI is creating brand new occupations", the Economist argues that fears of an imminent jobs apocalypse are overstated. AI is giving rise to entirely new roles. Roles like AI safety specialists, alignment engineers, even "killswitch engineers." These aren't just tech jobs; they're roles that require strategic thinking, ethics, governance, and human judgment. The net employment effect will hinge less on raw automation and more on how quickly we create, recognize, and scale these new AI-complementary occupations.

HBR: AI is changing how work feels, not just if work exists

Harvard Business Review's "The 5 AI Tensions Leaders Need to Navigate" (December 9) highlights something critical: AI's impact isn't only about displacement. It's about how work feels: motivation, agency, mental health. European research from 2025 shows that workers in highly automated jobs report lower purpose, less control, and more stress. The takeaway? Leaders (and coaches/consultants supporting them) need to intentionally redesign jobs and workflows so AI augments rather than erodes job quality. This is where your expertise comes in.

HBR: The skills gap is the real bottleneck

Another HBR piece, "The New Tools That Can Improve Workfore Training (December 10), notes that companies plan to invest $1.5 trillion in AI initiatives in 2025, rising toward $2 trillion by 2026. But much of it will underperform without better workforce training. The constraint isn't the technology, it's people's ability and willingness to use it. Organizations that treat AI-driven training as core to job design and career paths (not an add-on) will see the gains. Translation: there's massive demand for people who can help organizations reskill, redesign roles, and navigate change.

BCG: AI adoption is a people problem, not a tech problem

Boston Consulting Group's August 5 article on "Reimagining work and embedding AI in core activities" frames AI as a workforce-centric transformation, not just a technology project. To realize productivity benefits, leaders must understand employees' personal adoption journeys and address fear, trust, and capability gaps.

This aligns with what we keep hearing: that most AI transformations fail to deliver the promised benefits. The research shows why: it's not a tech problem, it's a people problem. Companies that co-design new ways of working with employees (retraining, role redesign, participation) see both higher productivity and better sentiment about job security and quality. Again: this is the work coaches and consultants are uniquely positioned to lead.

Still, There's Also an Uncomfortable Truth

Some jobs will disappear. And not everyone will seamlessly pick up a new occupation. Massive up- and reskilling will be required. Not just within organizations, but across entire systems. Academia needs to catch up and produce graduates with the skills the market actually needs. Policies need to evolve. Support structures need to be built.

This won't be easy. It won't be automatic. And I doubt it will be all that fair.

And that's exactly why the work you do matters more than ever.

Because the gap between "AI gets deployed" and "AI actually works for people" is where transformation lives. It's where fear turns into capability. It's where disruption becomes opportunity. And it's where coaches and consultants who understand both human systems and technological change can make an outsized impact.

Til then - all the very best to you!
Elena