Employees Think Their Jobs Will Be Gone in Five Years, so They’re Waiting
Job Security: Eighteen percent of American workers fear AI will eliminate their jobs within five years.
Quits Rate: Despite fears, the U.S. quits rate remains low, indicating workers feel trapped rather than engaged.
Psychological Contract: The relationship between effort and security is eroding, leaving employees anxious about their future.
Engagement Misunderstood: High engagement rates obscure a larger issue: two-thirds of workers are not actively engaged.
AI Adoption Concerns: Only 12 percent report meaningful changes from AI, reflecting distrust in its role within companies.
Eighteen percent of American workers now believe AI, automation or robotics will eliminate their current job within five years. At companies that have actually rolled AI out, that figure climbs to 23%. In finance and insurance, it reaches nearly a third.
Those are Gallup's numbers from the first quarter of this year, and they are moving in one direction. The same belief sat at 15% in 2025.
Read that movement on its own and it looks like the start of an exodus. People who think the floor is about to give way tend to go looking for steadier ground.
Keep Reading—and Keep Leading Smarter
Create a free account to finish this piece and join a community of forward-thinking leaders unlocking tools, playbooks, and insights for thriving in the age of AI.
Have an account? Log In
They aren't looking. The quits rate, the share of workers who voluntarily leave a job in a given month, has fallen to 1.9%, down from a peak of 3% during the Great Resignation. It has sat at or below 2% for most of the past year. By the cleanest behavioral measure economists have, workers are staying put.
The standard reading of a low quits rate is a cold labor market. Hiring has slowed, openings have thinned, and the U.S. added 181,000 jobs last year against 1.5 million the year before. When there is nowhere better to go, people stop going. That explanation is correct, and it is incomplete.
Beyond the Cold Market Explanation
What it misses is the second thing happening at the same time. A frozen market keeps people in their seats. A workforce that increasingly believes the seat itself is being eliminated stays in those seats in a very different state of mind. One is a holding pattern, the other is closer to bracing for impact.
This is where the psychological contract starts to fray, the unwritten understanding that effort and loyalty buy some measure of security in return. That contract was already thinning before any of this.
AI is what finally gave the erosion a number. A quarter of the people inside AI-adopting companies have looked at the trajectory and concluded the deal no longer holds. They are still showing up, but they have stopped believing the relationship has a future.
The instruments most organizations use to read their workforce are built to miss exactly this.
Engagement surveys measure enthusiasm and discretionary effort. The U.S. and Canada post the highest engagement rate in the world at 31%, which sounds like cause for celebration, but we have to keep it context.
More than two-thirds of the workforce in the best-performing region on the planet is not engaged. Global engagement just fell to 20%, its lowest mark since 2020.
Retention and Entrapment Make the Same Chart
A low quits rate gets filed under retention. A stable headcount reads as loyalty. Both numbers can look healthy on a dashboard while describing a workforce that is afraid to move and convinced the move would not help. Retention and entrapment produce the same chart.
A worker who stays because the work is meaningful and a worker who stays because every other door looks just as likely to close behave identically on a turnover report. They submit the same timesheet, hit the same deadlines, but one of them is investing in the place. The other is running out the clock and watching the exits.
The engagement score cannot tell them apart. Neither can a manager trained to treat low attrition as a win.
Fear Is Not a Neutral Holding State
People who suspect they are training their own replacement do the minimum that protects them and little that grows the company. They hold onto what they know instead of teaching it. They volunteer for nothing that carries risk.
The Gallup data shows the drag in another form. AI investment is pouring in, and only 12% of workers say it has meaningfully changed how their work gets done. You do not get real adoption from people who suspect the tool is in the building to make them redundant.
This is the part operating leaders can actually move.
The reflex in most C-suite leaders is to manage the AI rollout as a technology program, with a timeline and a change-management slide. The harder work, and the more important one, is managing what the rollout is doing to the people expected to carry it out. That is not a soft concern sitting next to the real strategy. An organization that loses the trust of its workforce mid-transition does not get to keep the productivity it was chasing.
The leaders who understand the moment are treating it as a matter of stewardship. They are telling people the truth about where AI is headed inside the company, including the parts that are hard to hear, because a vague reassurance measured against a 23% belief lands as a lie.
They are being specific about which roles change and what the company owes the people in those roles. They are spending political capital to make the next five years survivable for the humans living through them, rather than spending it to hit an adoption metric a quarter sooner.
The waiting will not last. At some point the market thaws, or the fear hardens into something an organization cannot walk back. When that day comes, the companies that spent this stretch reading a calm dashboard as good news will learn what the calm was made of.
The number to watch was never the quits rate, but the belief underneath it. That belief is forming right now, in the space where leaders have decided not to say anything yet.
