share on
AI readiness is not defined by technology alone, writes Yvonne Chan, Head of People & Culture, Jardine Engineering (Singapore); it is shaped by the leadership, clarity, and confidence people experience throughout change.
Artificial Intelligence has become one of the defining workplace conversations of our time. Organisations are investing heavily in technology, redesigning workflows, and encouraging employees to develop new digital capabilities. Across industries, discussions about AI readiness have centered on automation, productivity, governance, and technological capability.
These conversations are necessary. Yet they have also led me to reflect on a dimension of AI readiness that receives far less attention: how people experience organisational change.
This reflection was prompted by a recent coffee conversation with another workplace practitioner. Rather than discussing AI tools or implementation strategies, we found ourselves asking a much simpler question: Who is feeling anxious about AI, and why?
Drawing from my own experience, I shared that the anxiety within my organisation has been most evident among employees in their forties and fifties. Many have spent years building deep technical expertise and practical knowledge. As conversations about AI become more frequent, some quietly wonder whether the work they have mastered will eventually be redesigned around technology, leaving them behind.
Their concerns are rarely expressed as resistance to AI itself. Instead, they are rooted in uncertainty. They wonder whether their experience will continue to matter, whether they are expected to already understand AI, and whether greater efficiency today could eventually lead to fewer opportunities tomorrow.
My conversation partner, however, had observed something quite different. Across several organisations, he noticed that employees in their twenties were expressing their own form of anxiety. Rather than worrying about remaining relevant, they questioned whether they would be able to enter the workforce successfully. As AI continues to reshape entry-level work, many were unsure which career paths would remain viable or whether they would have sufficient opportunities to gain experience.
Although the concerns came from different generations, they shared a common foundation. Both groups were responding to uncertainty about their future, albeit from different starting points.
Our discussion then shifted towards leaders.
It is easy to assume that anxiety exists primarily among employees. Yet leaders are navigating their own uncertainties. AI is advancing rapidly, organisations are under increasing pressure to improve productivity, and leaders recognise that ignoring technological change is no longer an option. At the same time, they are expected to make significant decisions without the benefit of established playbooks. Which investments are worthwhile? Which processes should change? How should AI reshape work without weakening organisational capability?
These questions become even more complex in industries such as facilities management, engineering and the built environment, where operational delivery continues to rely heavily on people. While AI can undoubtedly improve productivity and support better decision-making, many roles cannot simply be redesigned or removed without affecting service delivery.
The more we explored these perspectives, the more one observation became apparent. The discussion naturally led us to a different question: if uncertainty is the common thread, what reduces it?
Our own experience led us to take a different approach. Rather than treating AI as a technology initiative, we chose to normalise the conversation. We explained why AI was being introduced, where it could support our work and where human judgement would continue to matter. Alongside clear governance on responsible AI usage, we invested in practical learning through external trainers so employees could explore AI with confidence rather than uncertainty.
Looking back, I do not believe confidence grew because we introduced AI successfully. It grew because we chose to have difficult conversations before expecting people to embrace technology. Questions were answered before assumptions took hold. Boundaries were established before experimentation began.
Employees understood not only how AI could improve their work, but also why their own contribution continued to matter.
As confidence increased, conversations shifted naturally. Employees began sharing how they were using AI in their own work, moving from uncertainty to curiosity and from curiosity to experimentation. During our discussion, my colleague suggested inviting employees to present these experiences during future town hall meetings. I found myself taking the idea one step further by considering an internal AI Hackathon – not simply to reward innovation, but to celebrate learning itself.
That observation has stayed with me ever since. Looking back on both our organisational experience and that conversation over coffee, what reduced anxiety was never the technology itself. It was the quality of leadership surrounding it. Employees became more willing to explore AI because they understood why it was being introduced and how it would support their work. More importantly, they knew they were invited to grow alongside technology rather than compete against it. The conversation shifted from whether AI would replace them to how AI could help them perform their work more effectively, and that subtle shift fundamentally changed how the organisation experienced AI.
Organisations often measure AI readiness by technological capability. Increasingly, I wonder whether leadership capability deserves equal attention. Technology determines what organisations can do; leadership determines how people experience what they do.
In many respects, AI is simply another chapter in organisational transformation. Technology itself will continue to evolve, as every technological advancement eventually does. What remains remarkably consistent is how people respond to change. Employees continue to seek clarity about their future, reassurance that their contribution remains valuable, and confidence that organisational decisions are being made responsibly. Those expectations have not changed because AI has entered the workplace; if anything, they have become even more important.
For that reason, I have come to believe that organisations should evaluate AI readiness through two lenses. The first concerns technology, capability and implementation. The second, which receives considerably less attention, concerns leadership. Are leaders prepared to explain change with clarity? Are they able to answer difficult questions honestly, even when every answer is not yet available? Can they create an environment where people feel safe to learn, adapt and contribute? These questions are no less important than selecting the right AI platform because they determine how technology is ultimately experienced throughout the organisation.
Technology can undoubtedly improve productivity, generate insights and support better decisions. Accountability, however, remains a fundamentally human responsibility. Leaders continue to own the judgement behind every decision, the communication that follows it and the trust that either strengthens or weakens organisational confidence.
Looking back, what has stayed with me is not the discussion about AI tools or even the ideas we exchanged about employee sharing sessions and Hackathons. It was a much simpler observation. Every organisation represented in that conversation was preparing for AI. The difference lay in how they were preparing their people.
Technology will continue to evolve. The responsibility to guide people through change, however, will remain fundamentally human.
Employees may work with AI every day, but what they ultimately experience are the decisions leaders make, the conversations leaders initiate and the confidence leaders create.
Ultimately, technology can assist decisions. Leadership owns the consequences.
Photo / Yvonne Chan, Linkedin
share on
