Copy article

Gartner HR Research Reveals AI Will Create More Jobs Than It Sheds from 2028

ended 22. May 2026

Over 40% of organisations have eliminated roles to "align with evolving business needs." Gartner's press release on the report "AI Is Breaking Careers: Reset Your Approach to Internal Talent Advancement" says the jobs AI creates will outnumber the ones it destroys, from 2028.

In the UK, graduate vacancies have fallen 45% year on year, dropping below 10,000 for the first time since records began. Youth unemployment has hit 15%, the sharpest rise among G7 nations. Entry-level roles in professional services are down 35%. 

Gartner's solution for workers and firms is “skills-based advancement”. This means identify who can learn fast and promote them differently. If you automate the roles where people learn judgement, you don't get a workforce ready for complex AI-created jobs in 2028. 

Youth workers are increasingly hostile to AI seeping into the jobs market and displacing them. If the current scare-tactics marketing narrative continues, those workers become harder to reach, risking a shortage.

We'd like your views:

  • AI is automating the tasks that teach humans judgement, but judgement is the one thing AI can't reliably do. Why has no one noticed the contradiction?
  • Gartner wants "simulations and guided practice environments" to replace real work experience. Why does watching a workflow on a screen now teach staff how to handle a crisis?
  • How is "Skills-based advancement" measured? By a manager or a machine? How will that work?
  • Half of UK executives expect AI to cut jobs. Gartner expects AI to create them in 18 months. Which number should HR leaders actually plan against?

4 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Colette Mason
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
Gartner says build skills faster. The roles where people built those skills are the ones being automated. You can't accelerate development on a ladder you've already pulled up. "Simulations and guided practice environments" is an admission the real learning environments are gone, and a gamble that a synthetic version produces the same judgement. No evidence says it does.

Nobody asked young workers whether they wanted their careers redesigned around AI. They're told to adapt to a system they had no say in building, then called hostile when they resist. If your first experience of work is being replaced and then lectured about reskilling, pushing back is a reasonable response, not a character flaw.

"Skills-based advancement" sounds great until you ask who writes the framework. Whoever defines the skills and sets the thresholds holds enormous power over other people's careers and the future of the business. Either way, the workers being assessed don't choose what counts. Again.
Copy

Editor
Kate Underwood
Founder & Chief People Strategist at Kate Underwood HR and Training
AI is automating the “junior” tasks that look low value, but they are actually where people build judgement. That’s the contradiction. We are removing the reps that create good managers, then acting surprised when nobody can handle nuance, risk, or messy human situations without escalating everything. Why isn’t it being shouted about more? Because it’s a time-lag problem. AI savings show up this quarter. The skills gap shows up in 18 to 36 months. And judgement is hard to measure, so it gets ignored in ROI spreadsheets. Commercially, I get it. Strategically, it’s risky. If we automate the work where people learn to spot issues early, have difficult conversations, and make calls with imperfect info, we don’t build the workforce we’ll need for the complex roles everyone says AI will create. HR leaders: don’t just ask “what can we automate?” Ask “what learning are we deleting?
Copy

Editor
Paul Denley
CEO at Oakham Wealth Management
AI will almost certainly create more jobs than it destroys. Economic history broadly supports that. The problem is the transition period.

We are automating the entry level tasks where younger workers develop judgement, commercial instinct and resilience, creating a dangerous gap between today’s labour market and tomorrow’s AI economy.

There is a contradiction at the heart of this debate. Firms say they want adaptable, high judgement employees while simultaneously removing the roles where judgement is learned. Watching a simulation is not the same as handling a difficult client, a market shock or a real world mistake under pressure.

“Skills based advancement” sounds sensible. But who defines the skills — managers or algorithms? And on what evidence?

The deeper issue is youth unemployment. Britain needs a serious strategy for apprenticeships and entry level opportunity before an entire generation becomes detached from the workforce.
Copy

Editor
Mitali Deypurkaystha
AI Governance Strategist & CMO at AISensa
49% of UK executives expect AI to cause net job losses over the next decade, according to Raconteur, while Gartner predicts the technology will create more jobs than it destroys from 2028, leaving HR leaders planning against two completely different futures. Firms say the AI economy will demand more judgement, adaptability and oversight, yet they are automating the very entry-level work where those instincts are traditionally learned. Replacing real workplace pressure with “simulations and guided practice environments” risks creating employees who can navigate workflows on a screen but struggle when ambiguity, conflict or crisis hits in real life. The deeper contradiction is that businesses appear to be using AI to dismantle the human apprenticeship model at the exact moment they claim human judgement matters more than ever. If that continues, the real skills shortage may not be technical at all, but experiential.”