Emerging evidence
More
HR professionals in the Gulf feel unsure about their roles as AI spreads; self-directed learning helped, interviews find
Study title: Are HR professionals insecure? AI, job insecurity and the re-wiring of workplace learning
- Evidence type
- Interviews or qualitative study
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- Published
- 2 min read
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2515cite or check it
Study title: Are HR professionals insecure? AI, job insecurity and the re-wiring of workplace learning
A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with HR professionals found that they see AI as an incremental, task-restructuring change to their work. Most treated AI as a complementary tool that moves work toward more strategic and relational responsibilities.
Read the study abstract
Purpose The expediting adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) across organizations is fundamentally reconfiguring human resource management functions, raising substantive questions about the psychological experience of the HR professionals who perform them. Building on conservation of resources theory, this study aims to explore how HR professionals experience and interpret AI-driven changes to their roles, how these changes shape perceptions of job insecurity and whether workplace learning helps in mitigating…

50Gain side
How the two sides scoreClose call
52Problem side
The gain
In interviews with HR professionals, participants said self-directed workplace learning restored their professional agency and adaptive capacity, and some came to see AI disruption as a career opportunity.
The problem
In interviews with HR professionals, AI-driven role changes produced job insecurity, expressed as uncertainty over evolving role expectations rather than immediate fear of job loss.
A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.
What the scores mean
G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.
P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.
In brief
Even so, the changes created job insecurity. It showed up mainly as uncertainty about what their roles will require, not as an immediate fear of losing their jobs.
Participants said workplace learning, especially self-directed learning, was the main way they regained professional agency and built adaptive capacity. Some began to treat AI disruption as a career opportunity. The perceived irreducibility of human judgment and relational expertise also steadied their sense of professional identity.
The accounts are self-reported and the data were collected in 2025, so they reflect views at one point in a fast-moving technology shift.
Main points
- The study used semi-structured interviews with HR professionals, analyzed thematically, and drew on conservation of resources theory.
- HR professionals described AI-driven role changes as incremental and task-restructuring rather than abrupt.
- Participants broadly saw AI as a complementary tool shifting work toward strategic and relational responsibilities.
- Job insecurity was mostly qualitative: uncertainty over evolving role expectations, not an immediate fear of job loss.
- Belief that human judgment and relational expertise cannot be reduced to AI served as a stabilizing identity resource.
- Self-directed workplace learning was the main route to restoring agency, and for some it reframed AI as a career opportunity.
- The research provides rare empirical evidence from the Gulf region, where most AI research has a Western focus.
The full story
The study built on conservation of resources theory to ask how HR professionals experience and interpret AI-driven changes to their roles, how those changes shape job insecurity, and whether workplace learning reduces the effect. Researchers interviewed HR professionals from different sectors and analyzed the data thematically.
Participants described change as gradual. Rather than seeing AI replace their function, they saw it redistribute tasks toward more strategic and relational work. Their insecurity centred on unclear future role expectations, not on near-term job loss.
Perceived irreducibility of human judgment and relational expertise acted as a stabilizing identity resource. Self-directed learning was described as the principal mechanism for restoring professional agency and building adaptive capacity, and some participants reframed AI as a career-development opportunity.
The authors present the work as a shift toward the subjective experience of insecurity among insiders, with evidence from the Gulf region. They suggest future longitudinal studies and quantitative tests of workplace learning as a mediating or moderating factor.
What this doesn’t fix
The qualitative design with a relatively small sample of subjective accounts limits generalizability, participants came from different sectors with varying AI adoption, and the data were collected in 2025 in a cross-sectional design.
Sources
1 on file- Journal of Workplace Learningdoi:10.1108/jwl-05-2026-0256
Talk it over
This record found a gain and a problem in the same place. Which matters more to you, and who might answer differently?
HR professionals in the Gulf feel unsure about their roles as AI spreads; self-directed learning helped, interviews findhttps://truvace.com/item/are-hr-professionals-insecure-ai-job-insecurity-and-the-re-wiring-of-workplace-l
This record found a gain and a problem in the same place. Which matters more to you, and who might answer differently?
The gain In interviews with HR professionals, participants said self-directed workplace learning restored their professional agency and adaptive capacity, and some came to see AI disruption as a career opportunity.
The problem In interviews with HR professionals, AI-driven role changes produced job insecurity, expressed as uncertainty over evolving role expectations rather than immediate fear of job loss.
Answer in the threadHow do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?
The evidence This rests on interviews or another qualitative study, from Journal of Workplace Learning.
Answer in the threadWhat does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?
The record’s own caveat The qualitative design with a relatively small sample of subjective accounts limits generalizability, participants came from different sectors with varying AI adoption, and the data were collected in 2025 in a cross-sectional design.
Answer in the threadHave you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?
Answer in the thread
The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.
ace
What readers say