Last month closed on a dismal note for those watching the labor market, with approximately 108,000 job cuts making it the worst January for layoffs in 17 years, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Many of these moves were large-scale cuts at organizations like Amazon and Pinterest, with significant speculation that many of the layoffs were a response to the growing influence of AI.

While employers are undoubtedly reshaping future workforce strategies in light of AI advancements, many are also tapping the tech to help HR make the very decisions that are leading to headcount reductions.

Chris Williams, global people and culture director at global employment solutions provider Mauve Group, says his firm is seeing organizations use AI for a number of reduction-related decisions, including modeling redundancies, projecting financial impact and navigating employment laws.

The “hidden risks” of AI-driven decision-making are numerous, despite how good the intention may be, he says.

“Models can embed bias or recommend role reductions that make financial sense but conflict with short-term strategic priorities,” Williams says. AI often can’t grasp team dynamics and may be likely to misread performance potential. At the same time, the tech often isn’t very good at navigating the complexities of local employment laws, which can be further complicated by outdated information that drives flawed

“In practice, we are often asked to step in where AI-driven outputs risk non-compliance or poorly managed terminations,” Williams says, “helping businesses navigate local laws, restructuring and redundancy policies to avoid costly errors.”

Supporting—not making—decisions

The mass layoffs of the last few weeks point to just how careful workforce reduction decision-making needs to be. For one, the risk of reputational damage is high; after the Washington Post laid off about one-third of its staff last week, hundreds protested outside the publication’s headquarters. Meanwhile, Amazon’s layoff leak crisis—in which some employees were accidentally notified of reductions ahead of time—deepened the public backlash against its recent 16,000-employee layoff.

On top of reputational harm, the risk of compliance issues and legal exposure is always present in layoffs, highlighting the criticality of air-tight decision-making overseen by humans.

‍

Read full article here