“We need to see a stronger focus by the government and employers on longer-term workforce planning and investment in skills.”
Context
James Cockett, senior labour market economist at HR organisation the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), made the statement in response to recent employer data showing soft hiring intentions, modest pay expectations and growing concern about the disruptive impact of artificial intelligence on jobs.
“Jobseekers are already feeling the impact of slower hiring since employment costs rose in the last (2024) Budget, and measures in the Employment Rights Bill could make it even harder for employers to take on people with less experience and more development needs,” he added.
Cockett argued that AI disruption should not be treated as a short-term cost-saver, but as a long-term transition requiring investment in human capabilities.
Meaning
His comment signals that both policymakers and employers may be underestimating the scale of workforce change brought by generative AI. By calling for “longer-term workforce planning,” Cockett implied that organisations need to move beyond reactive hiring and consider how skills, roles and workflows will evolve.
The reference to both “government and employers” reflects the CIPD’s position that AI’s impact is not just a business issue but a shared public responsibility. Public investment in lifelong learning and digital infrastructure must be matched by employer commitments to upskilling and rethinking job design.
The line also captures a growing anxiety in HR: that AI is moving faster than skills systems, and that without clear planning, organisations risk displacing staff without building future capabilities.
Implications
With AI tools being introduced across everything from finance and customer service to recruitment and training, observers say HR leaders must take the lead in mapping affected roles and designing pathways for employee adaptation.
This may include revising learning and development strategies, identifying roles for augmentation rather than automation and ensuring fairness in AI-enabled performance management.
From a policy standpoint, the quote reinforces calls for greater public-private collaboration on skills funding, clearer national frameworks for digital training and closer alignment between industrial policy and workforce needs.
Cockett’s message is ultimately about readiness. In a labour market still grappling with productivity challenges and low engagement, treating AI as a human opportunity rather than a threat will depend on how well HR teams — and governments — prepare people to use it.
