Beyond the Hype

Generative AI has entered the workplace conversation in a meaningful way, but adoption is far from consistent. Globally, 70% of employees say their organization has at least somewhat integrated GenAI into workflows, yet only 15% report that it is fully integrated. At the team level, the story is nearly identical: 73% see some integration, but just 15% say their team has fully embedded GenAI.

These findings point to an early stage of adoption where visibility is widespread, but depth is limited. Many employees may be aware of GenAI’s presence or dabbling with it, but few are experiencing the type of seamless, embedded usage that signals a true transformation of work. This uneven pattern highlights a gap between ambition and reality: GenAI may be on the roadmap, but it has not yet become a fully functioning part of everyday processes.

At an individual level, interest and experimentation are high. Nearly 3 in 5 employees (57%) report using GenAI often, regularly, or occasionally, while another 16% are not yet using it but say they are interested. Only 27% report no usage and no interest, showing that the conversation already touches nearly every corner of the workforce.

For employees who have adopted GenAI, the technology is already reshaping the flow of work. We found that 3 in 4 employees said their workload has changed (75%) and the types of tasks they focus on has shifted (78%). This is far more than an efficiency story. It reflects a structural change in how work is organized. Repetitive, lower-value tasks are being automated or streamlined, while employees redirect their time to work that requires judgment, creativity, or human nuance.

Collaboration is also transforming. 73% of employees report that GenAI has altered the way they work with colleagues. Early signs point to more distributed and asynchronous workflows, where GenAI generates initial drafts, updates, or analyses that employees later refine and contextualize. If this trend continues, organizations may need to rethink team dynamics, shifting from “who does the work” to “when and how the work gets done.”

But transformation comes with a cost: learning. 8 in 10 employees say they have had to build new skills because of GenAI. This signals organic upskilling in action, but it also raises a risk. Without organizational investment in reskilling, skill growth may remain uneven — concentrated among early adopters while others lag behind. The result could be a widening gap between GenAI “haves” and “have-nots” within the same workforce.

The productivity story reflects this duality. While 42% of employees report feeling more productive thanks to GenAI, 14% say they now feel less secure in their jobs. Productivity gains may be real, but so is the anxiety about being displaced. Organizations that fail to address this tension risk fostering a divided culture: one group motivated by GenAI’s potential, another hesitant or fearful about its implications.

Confidence in GenAI is widespread, but not always deep. Globally, 82% of employees say they feel at least moderately confident in their ability to work effectively in an GenAI-augmented environment. However, only half of employees report feeling very or extremely confident. This distinction matters. Employees with moderate confidence may be willing to adapt but could do so reactively rather than proactively, waiting for clear instructions rather than experimenting on their own. That slows the pace of change.

Managers play a critical role in bridging this gap. 77% percent of employees say their manager is moderately or very prepared to lead them through GenAI-driven change, which suggests most employees believe their leaders are keeping pace. Yet fewer (64%) say their manager actively helps the team adapt to these changes. This gap between perceived readiness and active enablement is a warning sign. Preparedness without action risks leaving employees in the dark, particularly those who are less confident in their own skills.

The lesson is clear: organizations must go beyond general reassurance and give managers concrete tools, training, and examples to translate GenAI adoption into day-to-day practice. When managers act as guides rather than passive observers, they can help employees move from surface-level confidence to genuine empowerment.

Visibility into GenAI decision-making is another area where ICs lag significantly. Only 47% of ICs say they understand how decisions are made about which GenAI tools are adopted, compared to 69% of managers and 81% of executives. ICs also report lower agreement that their organization is transparent about GenAI use (47% vs. 65% managers and 80% executives) and that GenAI-supported decisions are fair (43% vs. 64% managers and 81% executives).

These gaps matter because transparency and fairness perceptions are strongly linked to employee trust and willingness to adopt new tools. If ICs feel excluded from the conversation, they may resist GenAI-enabled changes or disengage from organizational priorities.

Managers and executives appear to be carrying the greatest workload and skill-building burden associated with GenAI adoption. 81% of managers and 85% of executives say their workload has changed because of GenAI, compared to just 59% of individual contributors. A similar pattern appears in skill development: 84% of managers and 90% of executives report needing to learn new skills, versus 67% of ICs.

These results suggest that managers are playing a dual role: adapting their own workflows while also guiding their teams through change. Without proper support, this “manager squeeze” could lead to burnout, particularly if managers are expected to absorb additional work while maintaining team performance and engagement. The drive to adopt and implement GenAI runs the risk of placing an even tighter squeeze on an already burdened manager population.

Psychological safety also shifts with hierarchy. Just 59% of ICs feel comfortable raising concerns about GenAI, compared to 72% of managers and 84% of executives. That gap matters because ICs are often closest to the practical challenges and risks of GenAI.

When employees hesitate to speak up, organizations risk blind spots in implementation, such as overlooking issues in workflows, ethics, or employee experience.

Creating structured forums for ICs to voice input and acting visibly on that feedback can help close the loop and strengthen adoption. Taken together with previous sections, ICs risk an engagement spiral where they don’t understand how tools are being adopted, feel a lack of transparency from their leaders on their usage, and feel less comfortable raising concerns regarding GenAI.

Where employees differ most sharply is in how clearly their organizations are communicating. 63% of North American employees say their organization is transparent about how GenAI tools are being used, compared to 57% of employees in Europe. Understanding of adoption decisions follows the same pattern (66% North America vs. 59% Europe).

The downstream effect of this communication gap is evident. 64% of employees in North America say their organization has explained how GenAI will affect their role, compared to only 56% in Europe. Without that clarity, European employees may hesitate to adopt GenAI fully, fearing unknown impacts.

Finally, the gap shows up in psychological safety: 71% of employees in North America feel comfortable raising concerns, compared to 66% in Europe. If European employees are less likely to speak up, organizations may miss early warning signs about unintended consequences of GenAI.

Managers are at the center of the GenAI transformation. They are expected to explain, champion, and implement changes, often while simultaneously figuring out how these tools will reshape their own roles. Our data shows that employees’ perceptions of manager preparedness vary by region, with a meaningful gap between North America and Europe.

In North America, 78% of employees say their manager is at least moderately prepared to lead in an GenAI-augmented environment, compared to 73% in Europe. This difference may seem small, but when scaled across large organizations, it represents a meaningful number of employees who may feel less supported during GenAI rollouts. And support from managers matters: when employees believe their manager is ready to guide them, they are more likely to adopt new tools and less likely to resist change.

However, preparedness is only one part of the picture. There is also a gap in whether managers are actively helping their teams adapt to GenAI-driven changes. In North America, 66% of employees agree their manager helps the team navigate these changes, compared to 57% in Europe.

This suggests that managers in Europe may not have the same enablement resources or clear direction, which could slow down team-level adoption. Employee confidence appears to track closely with these perceptions of manager support. In North America, 84% of employees feel moderately or very confident in their ability to work effectively in a GenAI-enabled environment, compared to 78% in Europe. This six-point difference reinforces the idea that confidence is not just an individual trait; it is shaped by how effectively managers are communicating, modeling, and supporting change.

Closing these gaps will require a focused effort to better equip managers, particularly in Europe, with the training, tools, and messaging they need. When managers feel confident and supported, they can in turn build confidence within their teams and help employees see GenAI as an opportunity rather than a threat.

The story is not simply that North America is “ahead” and Europe is “behind.” Rather, they are moving along different adoption curves.

For multinational organizations, the takeaway is clear: a one-size-fits-all rollout will miss the mark. North America may need reassurance and balance, while Europe needs confidence and clarity, supported by local GenAI champions who can translate strategy into team-level action. Meeting employees where they are will smooth the adoption curve and build the foundation for global momentum.