![]() |
![]() Most organizations are investing heavily in AI but not realizing its full value. Real impact depends on whether people adopt new ways of working and whether those changes improve performance at scale. Most organizations have moved quickly to put AI in employees’ hands. Investments have surged, tools are live and usage is climbing. The 2026 WTW Global EX Market Study found 58% of employers expect AI to fundamentally change how the employee experience is managed in the next three years, rising to 91% within ten years. |
By Asumi Ishibashi, Managing Director, John Rothera, Senior Director - Employee Experience and Anke Stone, Director - Employee Experience, WTW Yet expectation and impact are often misaligned. The real problem is that AI is transforming work faster than organizations can redesign it and true employee AI adoption is lagging. AI is reshaping how work gets done and how decisions are made. The challenge is no longer getting AI into people's hands. It's understanding whether the conditions exist to make that adoption stick at scale. So the questions have shifted. Which behaviors matter most? How do we know whether adoption is creating value? And how do we demonstrate ROI and business impact beyond usage metrics? AI changes what’s possible but people and behavior determine what’s realized. The gap between the two is where organizations struggle. Deployment isn’t adoption, and adoption isn’t value. That’s a distinction many AI strategies gloss over, at real cost. Why the gap persists
The adoption gap grows because AI is often approached like any other transformation. In most transformations, the focus is on what is changing: a new tool, a new process or a new system. AI goes deeper. It changes how work is structured, how teams work, how decisions get made, and what should remain human-led. That’s why the same playbook that worked for previous transformations starts to break down.
Many organizations are still missing the foundational elements that make AI transformation credible at scale: clear transformation objectives, a compelling workforce vision, visibility into how work is changing, an intentional focus on accelerating behavior change from the outset and a refined employee value proposition. When those pieces are missing, AI shows up as a scattered set of tools and random ad-hoc experimentation, rather than a coordinated shift. This disconnect becomes visible quickly. Leadership direction feels unclear. Trust and confidence start to wane. Skills and support do not match the pace of change. AI still feels bolted on rather than built into the workflow. Organizations that treat these signals as noise and respond with another round of generic training and enterprise-wide communications often struggle to move value beyond the pilot stage. This is where the gap between AI activity and business value tends to widen. Most organizations are good at putting tools into people’s hands. Far fewer are systematic about turning that activity into sustained performance. What you see when you look closely at adoption
Employees don’t adopt AI in a uniform way. The change is personal. They cluster into distinct behavioral profiles:
High impact: using AI broadly, with clear gains in speed, quality or outcomes
Fragile experimenting: using it often, but struggling to translate that into value
Untapped value: seeing the potential, but not embedding it into real work
Stuck: limited use, with little perceived relevance
These AI adoption profiles exist in almost every organization; each group faces different barriers and requires a different intervention. And that's not all, segments within an organization clearly differentiate on the prevalence of these behavioral profiles. Responding to all four with the same playbook is one of the fastest ways to stall progress. What actions can you take
So how do you understand where adoption is creating value, where it is stalling and what is driving the difference? The answer lies beyond usage metrics. While they can show who is using AI and how often, they reveal little about whether people are working differently, making better decisions or achieving better outcomes as a result.
Four conditions consistently shape AI adoption: Culture: do people feel safe and motivated to use AI?
Direction: is there clear leadership intent on how and where AI should be used and where it shouldn’t?
Enablement: do people have the skills, tools and practical support to apply it well and responsibly?
Integration: does AI fit naturally into how work gets done, or sit alongside it?
The challenge is knowing whether those shifts are actually happening, and this is where a data-driven diagnostics becomes critical. Usage data can show activity, but it is critical to understand the perceived value employees see in using AI. You need intelligence related to the four conditions to fully understand how behavior is changing across the organization. Where are new ways of working taking hold? Where is adoption stalling? Which conditions are accelerating progress and which are slowing it down? Diagnostics should lead to action. If employees are stuck, start by making AI relevant to real work.
If they are experimenting but not seeing value, help teams turn experimentation into repeatable practices.
If they see the potential but are not embedding AI, redesign the workflow so AI fits naturally into how work gets done.
If some groups are already creating value, study what they are doing differently and scale those behaviors across the organization. The same logic applies to the conditions that shape adoption. For example, low culture scores call for safer experimentation and visible leadership support. Low direction scores call for clearer guidance on where AI should and should not be used. Low enablement scores call for role-based capability building, not generic training. Low integration scores call for workflow redesign, not more communications. The point is not to launch more activity. It is to target the few actions most likely to shift behavior, increase perceived value and make AI part of how work gets done. Closing the gap between activity and value
The most important AI question is no longer Who is using it? It's What is changing because of it? The organizations pulling ahead are looking beyond usage metrics to understand where adoption is creating value, where it is stalling and what is driving the difference. They identify the behaviors that drive performance and create the conditions for those behaviors to take hold.
The winners in the age of AI won't necessarily be the organizations using AI the most. They'll be the ones that understand how work is changing, where value is being created and what it takes to scale it. Because while AI may reshape work, it is people who determine whether that transformation delivers results.
|
|
|
|
| Pricing Actuary – Cyber | ||
| London - £120,000 Per Annum | ||
| Reinsurance Pricing Actuary, Analytics | ||
| London - £130,000 to £180,000 Per Annum | ||
| Actuary - Financial Planning & Analysis | ||
| London/Hybrid - Negotiable | ||
| Reinsurance Pricing Actuary | ||
| London - £140,000 Per Annum | ||
| Head of Capital | ||
| London - £170,000 Per Annum | ||
| ART Pricing | ||
| London - £100,000 Per Annum | ||
| Pricing Transformation Actuary | ||
| London - £130,000 Per Annum | ||
| Pricing Actuary | ||
| London - £80,000 to £120,000 Per Annum | ||
| Pensions on Divorce Startup - Flexibl... | ||
| Remote - Negotiable | ||
| SVP, Head of Reserve Forecast Analytics | ||
| Bermuda - £200,000 Per Annum | ||
| START-UP, Lead Reinsurance Actuary | ||
| London - Negotiable | ||
| Senior Actuary | ||
| London - Negotiable | ||
| Reserving Manager | ||
| London - £130,000 Per Annum | ||
| Senior Reserving Consultant | ||
| London - £100,000 Per Annum | ||
| Head of Capital | ||
| London - £180,000 Per Annum | ||
| Head of Portfolio Optimisation | ||
| London - Negotiable | ||
| Pricing Lead/Manager | ||
| London - £130,000 Per Annum | ||
| Actuary | ||
| London/Hybrid - Negotiable | ||
| Capital Actuary | ||
| London - £110,000 Per Annum | ||
| Senior Reserving Actuary | ||
| London - Negotiable | ||
Be the first to contribute to our definitive actuarial reference forum. Built by actuaries for actuaries.