Why AI Productivity Gains Could Backfire Without Workforce Trust
Matt Levin is the CEO of Modern Health.
Every leadership team I speak with is talking about AI. The conversation usually starts in the same place: efficiency, automation, productivity, scale.
Those are important conversations. But there is another one leaders need to have with equal urgency, and far fewer are having it: What happens to your business when the productivity gains AI promises come at the cost of the trust that makes performance possible? That may be the defining leadership question of the AI era.
The True Cost Of AI Adoption
My company recently surveyed 1,000 full-time US employees from companies with more than 250 employees, and the results should give every CEO pause. Nearly seven in ten employees believe AI will lead to layoffs at their company within three years. Almost half are personally afraid of losing their job to AI. And 67% say AI has already raised productivity expectations, with 64% of that group reporting increased stress as a direct result.
This is not background noise. It’s a warning signal.
AI is typically introduced as a tool to make work easier. But for many employees, it registers as a signal that the bar is moving again: more output, faster timelines, fewer people, less room for error. That perception gap between how leadership frames AI and how employees experience it is where trust erodes. And the erosion is already well underway.
In our survey, 72% of employees said their employer actively encourages productivity at the expense of personal well-being—up 11 points in a single year. Just 33% strongly agree that their employer values their mental health, down from 41% the year prior. Perhaps most striking: 58% say they feel safer discussing their mental health with a chatbot than with their company’s HR department.
The Execution Risk Leaders Are Missing
When employees would rather confide in a machine than a person inside their own organization, the problem is not benefits utilization. It is organizational trust, and that has direct consequences for execution.
In low-trust environments, employees hide stress, burnout and disengagement until those issues become performance problems: absenteeism, attrition and crisis. In high-trust environments, leaders get better information sooner, managers can intervene earlier and teams adapt before pressure becomes an acute clinical concern. The difference between those two scenarios for a business is not just human, it is financial.
The burden of this trust deficit falls hardest on managers. In my experience, managers are often the most under-supported group in any organization, and this data is signaling that this may be becoming more widespread. They are being asked to translate executive strategy, spot early signs of employee burnout, sustain productivity and navigate uncertainty that most were never trained for. In our survey, 82% of senior managers said that being a manager is harder than ever. Yet only 37% feel strongly equipped to identify burnout in their teams. Meanwhile, 40% of senior managers have received a new mental health diagnosis in the past 12 months—more than three times the rate of non-managers. This is a serious execution risk that does not show up in most productivity dashboards.
Companies can invest heavily in AI tools, but if managers cannot lead teams through fear, ambiguity and rising expectations, those tools will not deliver their full value. The middle layer of leadership is where transformation either becomes real or breaks down.
So what should CEOs do differently?
Being Explicit About What AI Will And Will Not Change
Employees assume the worst when leaders communicate in vague terms about efficiency. If roles will change, say so clearly. If the goal is to eliminate repetitive work, define what that means for people’s time. Clarity is not just good communication. It is a trust investment.
How To Stop Outsourcing Resilience To Individuals
Too often, companies ask employees to be more resilient without examining whether the organization itself is creating unsustainable conditions. Resilience is not solely a personal attribute; it’s also a function of whether your organization provides people with clarity, prioritization and whole-population well-being support to sustain performance.
Equipping Managers For The Job They Actually Have Now
Technical skills and performance management are no longer sufficient. Managers need practical training in recognizing burnout, navigating difficult conversations and directing people toward support, without being asked to become therapists themselves.
Measuring The Human Cost Of Productivity
Most executive teams track output, speed and efficiency. Fewer track whether the way they are achieving those gains is sustainable. Attrition, absenteeism, burnout signals, manager capacity and employee trust are business indicators, not soft metrics. Treat them that way. According to a recent study, the average cost of employee turnover has climbed to $45,236, up nearly $10,000 from $36,723 a year earlier. The same study found that among companies with 500 or more employees, 64% expect turnover to rise in 2026.
Automation is an important capability. However, trust is a multiplier. Companies that treat them as separate priorities will quickly find that one quietly erodes the other, and by the time it shows up in the numbers, it’s an expensive problem to fix. Every leader should be working toward how we can leverage AI to modernize work and increase efficiency while providing the conditions people need to perform well: clarity, support and the belief that the institution they work for actually gives a damn about them.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
