Using AI or going it alone: Why companies are forcing 100% employee use of AI despite not yet seeing profits.

After an enthusiastic pilot phase, major technology and finance companies are moving toward a performance-driven approach to artificial intelligence, according to reporting by Business Insider. With billions of dollars invested in AI not yet translating into clear, commensurate profits, employees are increasingly being told to use AI—or risk unfavorable performance evaluations.

From incentives to requirements

In recent weeks, Business Insider’s sources describe a shift in how companies manage AI adoption across the labor market. For roles ranging from software engineering at Meta and Google to finance positions at JPMorgan Chase, proficiency with AI tools is moving from a “nice to have” to a requirement reflected in job descriptions.

Analyst Eric Ross of Cascend said many firms have not yet realized productivity gains from their AI spending. “The vast majority have not yet seen any productivity value,” he said.

Investor pressure and internal oversight

Business Insider links the change to investor pressure and leadership concerns about falling behind competitors in the AI race. Brad Reback, an analyst at Stifel, said companies are working to demonstrate they have a clear AI strategy.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg previously told investors that “2026 will be the year AI starts to make a meaningful difference in how we work.” The statement has been reflected internally through AI-focused teams and targets for the share of code produced by AI among engineers.

At JPMorgan Chase, oversight has tightened further through internal dashboards that track how frequently employees use AI tools. Employees are reportedly grouped into three categories: low-frequency users, regular users, and non-users. In that environment, being classified as a non-user can affect career advancement.

Trust, replacement fears, and the “productivity paradox”

Despite the push to use AI to improve productivity, employees face a psychological barrier: fear that AI will replace them. A software engineer at JPMorgan said, “We all joke that our degrees will become useless in five years.”

A former Block employee, laid off recently, described a similar concern: “Over the past year, as we were strongly encouraged to use AI tools, we were actually laying the groundwork for our own replacement.”

Economists cited by Business Insider argue that companies need more than directives to change behavior. Stanford’s Erik Brynjolfsson and Wharton’s Scott A. Snyder said behavioral change depends on both “skill and will.”

Efforts to reduce resistance

To address reluctance, companies are adopting approaches intended to make AI adoption more practical and less threatening. Meta reportedly holds AI transformation weeks with workshops, while Google encourages engineers to experiment with “Agent Smith,” an internal AI assistant designed to help write code.

Business Insider also notes that some firms are being advised not to respond to time saved by AI with additional workload alone, but to allow employees to retain some of the value—or free time—for creative research.

Another idea gaining traction is offering access to compute resources as a benefit, similar to stocks or bonuses, to attract and retain talent.

Impact and analysis

Wharton’s Snyder cautioned that adoption efforts will not gain genuine employee support if the goal is simply “do more with less.” “This must be an opportunity to elevate people and broaden their impact at work,” he emphasized.

In this view, the central workplace challenge is no longer whether AI works, but whether employees are willing to trust it and delegate parts of their work to it.