Should AI Use Determine Who Gets Promoted at Work?

Should AI skills determine who gets promoted at work?

As artificial intelligence becomes embedded in the modern workplace, a new question is emerging in offices around the world: should employees who use AI effectively have a better chance of climbing the career ladder?

For decades, promotion has generally been associated with experience, performance, leadership, reliability and the ability to deliver results. But the rapid spread of artificial intelligence is beginning to challenge that traditional formula.

The BBC has examined the growing debate over whether companies should take an employee's use of AI into account when deciding who deserves promotion. The question is particularly significant as employers increasingly encourage staff to become more comfortable with AI tools and use them to improve productivity.

The debate is not simply about whether workers know how to write a good prompt. It is about what employers should value in an age when technology can increasingly perform tasks that once required hours of human labour.

AI is becoming part of the career ladder

For some companies, AI is moving from being an optional workplace tool to becoming part of expectations around professional development.

Accenture, one of the world's largest consulting and technology companies, has already attracted attention for linking AI adoption with career progression for some senior employees. The approach has reportedly caused concern among some staff, illustrating how controversial the idea can become when technological competence is connected directly to promotion.

The logic behind such policies is straightforward.

If an employee can use AI responsibly to complete work faster, analyse information more effectively or solve problems that previously consumed considerable time, an employer may reasonably regard that ability as a valuable professional skill.

But there is another side to the argument.

An employee who does not use AI extensively is not necessarily less productive, less intelligent or less deserving of promotion.

Some jobs may require considerably more interaction with AI than others. A software developer, data analyst or marketing professional may have obvious opportunities to integrate AI into daily work, while a teacher, nurse, mechanic or field worker may use it differently.

That makes a blanket requirement potentially unfair.

Is AI use actually the same as good performance?

This is perhaps the most important question.

Companies could measure how frequently workers use AI. They could record participation in AI training programmes or examine whether employees use approved AI platforms.

But measuring AI use is not necessarily the same thing as measuring value.

An employee could use AI constantly and still produce poor-quality work. Another worker might use it occasionally but make excellent decisions, demonstrate strong leadership and consistently deliver results.

The danger is that companies could end up rewarding employees simply for using technology rather than for using it effectively.

That distinction matters.

AI can generate reports, write emails, analyse information, produce computer code and assist with research. But the person using it remains responsible for deciding whether the output is accurate, appropriate and useful.

In other words, the most valuable employee may not be the person who uses the most AI.

It may be the person who knows when not to use it.

The growing pressure on workers

The debate comes at a time when AI literacy is becoming increasingly valuable in the labour market.

Research cited by ITPro found that interest in AI certification among IT and HR leaders surveyed by Pearson rose from 17% in 2025 to 35% in 2026. Another study by Revelio Labs found that workers with foundation-level AI or generative-AI certification had higher average salaries and were more likely to move into senior positions.

That suggests AI skills could increasingly become a form of career currency.

For ambitious employees, the message may appear obvious: learn AI or risk falling behind.

But that message could also create anxiety.

Workers may feel compelled to use AI simply to demonstrate that they are keeping up, even when the technology does not necessarily improve their work.

This could produce an unusual workplace phenomenon in which employees use AI because they believe management expects them to, rather than because the technology genuinely helps them.

What about employees who resist AI?

There is also a legitimate debate over workers who choose not to embrace AI.

Some employees remain concerned about accuracy, privacy, copyright, job security or the possibility of becoming overly dependent on automated systems.

Others may believe that certain aspects of their profession require human judgement that cannot easily be delegated to a machine.

Should such employees be denied promotion?

Not necessarily.

A fair promotion system should distinguish between AI avoidance and responsible professional judgement.

If an employee refuses to use a tool that would clearly make their work better and faster, an employer may reasonably question that decision.

But if the employee can demonstrate that their approach produces better outcomes without relying heavily on AI, simply penalising them for low AI usage could be counterproductive.

The danger of creating a two-tier workforce

There is another concern.

If AI proficiency becomes an informal requirement for promotion, workers who have greater access to technology and training could gain an advantage over colleagues who do not.

Large companies may be able to provide sophisticated AI tools, training programmes and dedicated support.

Smaller organisations may struggle to do the same.

The situation could be even more complicated for workers in developing economies, where access to reliable internet, expensive software, computing infrastructure and formal AI training can vary dramatically.

For countries such as Zambia, this raises an important question about the future of work.

If AI becomes a prerequisite for career advancement, employers will need to consider whether workers have been given a realistic opportunity to acquire those skills.

It would be difficult to justify penalising an employee for lacking AI expertise if the organisation never provided meaningful training or access to the necessary tools.

AI literacy may be more important than AI obsession

There is growing agreement that workers need at least a basic understanding of artificial intelligence.

But that does not necessarily mean everyone needs to become an AI expert.

ITPro's analysis of AI certification argues that the appropriate level of training should depend on the employee's role. Technical workers involved in building or governing AI systems may require deeper expertise, while other employees may primarily need a foundation in responsible AI use, prompting and checking AI-generated information.

That distinction could provide a more sensible path forward.

Rather than asking, "How much AI does this employee use?", employers could ask:

"Does this employee understand AI well enough to use it responsibly and effectively when it is appropriate?"

That is a very different measure.

The human qualities that AI cannot easily replace

There is also a danger of forgetting why people are promoted in the first place.

Leadership requires trust.

Management requires judgement.

Teamwork requires empathy.

Innovation requires curiosity.

And difficult decisions often require an understanding of people and circumstances that cannot be reduced to an AI-generated answer.

An employee who mentors younger colleagues, resolves conflicts, builds relationships with customers and takes responsibility during a crisis may be enormously valuable even if their daily AI usage is modest.

Those qualities should not disappear from promotion criteria simply because AI has become fashionable.

A new workplace definition of productivity

The arrival of AI is nevertheless forcing employers to rethink productivity.

For years, being busy was sometimes treated as evidence of being productive. Employees spent hours writing reports, answering emails, searching through documents and preparing presentations.

AI can dramatically reduce the time required for some of those activities.

That means the future workplace may increasingly reward what workers achieve, rather than how long they spend completing individual tasks.

This could ultimately be positive.

If AI removes repetitive administrative work, employees could spend more time solving difficult problems, developing ideas, serving customers and making decisions.

But achieving that future will require thoughtful management.

Companies should not simply tell workers to "use AI more". They need to teach employees how to identify appropriate applications, protect confidential information, verify outputs and remain accountable for the final result.

The promotion question is really a leadership question

The debate over AI and promotion is therefore bigger than technology.

It is about how companies define talent in a rapidly changing world.

An organisation that ignores AI completely could fall behind competitors. But an organisation that treats AI usage as the ultimate measure of employee value could make an equally serious mistake.

The most sensible approach may lie somewhere between the two extremes.

AI competence should increasingly become part of professional development, but promotion should ultimately depend on outcomes, judgement, leadership, adaptability and the ability to create value.

AI can help an employee do those things.

It should not become the sole reason they are rewarded for doing them.

As artificial intelligence moves deeper into offices, schools, businesses and public institutions, one principle may prove particularly important: the best workers will not necessarily be those who use the most AI, but those who know how to combine technology with human judgement.

That may be the real skill employers should be looking for in the next generation of leaders.

---