Worker anxiety is outpacing the reality of AI, say experts, and that gap won't close on its own
The numbers landing on the desks of Canadian HR leaders right now are hard to dismiss. Across surveys and sectors, a consistent picture is emerging: the Canadian workforce is anxious about artificial intelligence in ways that are measurable, deepening, and — if left unaddressed — could be corrosive to the productivity gains that AI is supposed to deliver.
For HR professionals rolling out AI tools, upskilling programs, and workforce transformation strategies, that anxiety isn’t background noise. It’s the central problem to solve.
Nearly half of employed Canadians — 47 per cent — say they’re worried that AI and automation could soon force them to change their job or career, rising to 55 per cent among adults aged 18 to 29, according to a July 2025 survey of 1,915 Canadian adults by Abacus Data.
Nearly two-thirds of Canadian job seekers — 63 per cent — worry AI will significantly limit job opportunities, and almost half fear their job could be eliminated entirely, according to an Express Employment Professionals and Harris Poll survey.
More than half of jobs exposed to AI
According to Signal49 Research (formerly the Conference Board of Canada), 56 per cent of Canadian jobs were classified as highly exposed to AI. Of these, 53 per cent are AI-competing roles where AI can automate core tasks with limited need for human judgement, while 48 per cent are AI‑augmenting roles where AI applications can enhance human capabilities by handling repetitive tasks and allowing more focus on judgement, creativity, and human interaction.
For roughly half of highly exposed workers, the threat is real. For the other half, AI is more likely to make them better at their jobs than replace them outright. The problem is that most employees cannot tell which category they fall into — and their employers aren’t telling them.
The AI anxiety gap isn’t just confined to leadership versus employees — it can manifest at all levels, says Krista Pell, Chief Human Resources Officer at Trimec Transportation.
"I think it has to do probably more with the foundational value skill sets and roles,” says Pell. “And also what value or non-value experiences people have had with it.”
Human capital strategist and future of work advisor Sachi Kittur sees the impact of that silence across sectors.
“[AI anxiety] is valid and it’s everywhere — if I think back to conversations that I'm having with my HR peers, this is the biggest looming issue, that there's a lot of angst and uncertainty in cultures,” says Kittur. “And it's actually industry-agnostic — it's happening everywhere, not just tech, services, construction, manufacturing, you name it.”
Kittur believes that the rapid pace of transformation is presenting a challenge for leaders. “There's this race to adopt AI in the business and all the productivity lift that everyone's touting — and this urgency is compromising two key things, which is trust and clarity,” she says.
The training gap that’s making everything worse
Only about one in three employed Canadians — 36 per cent — report that their employer has encouraged, required, or provided any training to help them use AI tools at work, according to the Abacus Data survey. At the same time, more than half of Canadian hiring managers say their company uses AI, yet a clear majority admit they lack the resources or training to help employees use it effectively.
Organizations are adopting AI faster than they’re preparing people for it. They deploy the technology and then discover that adoption is lower than expected, resistance is higher than anticipated, and the productivity gains promised in the business case have not materialized.
The problem isn’t the tools — It’s the implementation model, according to Kittur. When AI rollout is treated as a technology project instead of a human change challenge, training becomes a one‑off webinar instead of a sustained investment in capability. Employees are told to “use the new tool,” but not given the protected time, coaching, or psychological safety to learn it.
Why telling people not to worry doesn’t work
The instinct of many leaders, when confronted with AI anxiety in their organizations, is to reassure. Send a message from the CEO saying that no one's job is being eliminated. Run a town hall where executives explain the benefits. Publish an FAQ.
None of this is wrong. But reassurance without substance tends to backfire. When employees see tools starting to do work that used to belong to colleagues, they believe their own eyes, not a slide deck.
“You have to have very clear communication on what value you’re looking for AI or automation to bring into your organization,” says Pell. “For me, it starts with being crystal clear: do you have your why, and do you have boundaries, programs, or policies?”
Kittur agrees that when an organization is undergoing transformation, “there's no such thing as overcommunication.”
“It's the leaders who are actually advocating for AI, and you have to help employees understand why and what are the expectations, how does this affect your job, and how does it augment your job?” says Kittur.
What actually works well with AI
First, leading organizations are specific about which jobs are changing and how. Signal49 Research is calling on employers to classify roles as AI‑competing or AI‑augmenting and to tailor development accordingly. That clarity, even when the news is mixed, reduces anxiety more effectively than vague promises that “No one will lose their job.”
Second, they are building AI fluency where it matters most: in functional leadership.
“You actually want to build AI fluency at the functional leadership level, so they can self-guide whether AI is actually going to have an impact in terms of the productivity goals that are really driving and fuelling it,” says Kittur. “That's a misstep that's happening in every organization — speed is compromising trust, collaboration, and clarity on why AI is needed in the organization and what are the goals.”
Third, they are designing training as a permanent feature of work, not a one‑off event. That means allocating real time for experimentation, coaching, and peer learning — and measuring leaders on whether their teams are actually building capability.
Pell believes in promoting a culture of curiosity to help with transformation. “Training for automation is really interesting because you want people to just get in there and get curious,” she says. “We have guidelines and a community of practice, and we gave people early pilots,” she says. “But I think it’s about very clear about what your intent is and let people get curious.”
Finally, they are reframing AI not as a threat to human skills but as a pressure test of leadership. In high‑growth, high‑transformation environments, Kittur has seen the same pattern repeat: “Through my HR/people culture lens in high-growth, high-transformation environments, we're heavily investing in AI and we're not seeing the productivity gains, and actually, in some cases, it's declining,” she says.
“Trust and employee engagement are important prerequisites to recognize sustained productivity,” says Kittur. “From an HR lens, we need to focus less on traditional productivity metrics, and focus our energy on collaboration, engagement, trust, psychological safety. clear accountability — if we can put more energy into these levers versus the actual absolute top-line productivity metrics, you will get trust, you will get engagement, and the performance metrics will speak for themselves.”
Human readiness feeds productivity
Canada already carries a persistent productivity gap with the US. Organizations that respond to AI adoption anxiety by slowing deployment risk falling further behind competitors who are moving faster. Those that deploy without adequately preparing their people will achieve neither the productivity gains nor the workforce trust they need to sustain long‑term performance, says Kittur.
Experts say the winners will be the organizations that treat human readiness as a prerequisite for technological investment, not an afterthought. The fear is real, it’s measurable, and it won’t dissipate on its own. It responds to honesty, to genuine training, and to leaders willing to slow the technology rollout long enough to bring people with them.
Organizations need to be in lockstep with the latest developments and evolution of technology and what it means for people in the organization, says Pell. “In order to create capacity, we need to rely on technology, and in order to rely on technology as it evolves, we need to have capability,” she says. “HR’s expertise is developing the raw skill set of understanding how to be curious and how to use automation.”
Closing the AI anxiety gap means organizations need to look at transformation as a partnership, says Kittur. “I would challenge companies, HR leaders, and executive teams to actually look at AI and humans as a partnership, and that partnership is going to augment our ability to hit those performance goals and do it in a more productive, efficient, and optimized way,” she says.
