首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 商潮 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

企业过度使用AI,或将造成人才断层?

尽管用AI替代入门级员工在短期内可以提升企业利润,但从长期来看,这种做法将掏空人才储备,埋下严重隐患。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

毫无疑问,AI完成部分入门级工作的能力正持续提升,而其成本远低于企业招聘并培训年轻专业人士的投入。摩根大通(J.P. Morgan)的一份报告估计,企业通过自动化缩减用工规模,每年可节省数十亿美元开支。事实上,斯坦福大学(Stanford University)在2025年发布的一项研究发现,AI已经“开始对美国劳动力市场中的入门级岗位产生显著且不成比例的冲击”,在受AI影响最严重的职业中,22至25岁劳动者的就业率降幅高达13%。

然而,尽管用AI替代入门级员工在短期内可以提升企业利润,但从长期来看,这种做法将掏空人才储备,埋下严重隐患。职场的“学徒阶段”,本应是年轻员工从低成本试错中积累经验、在资深导师指导下成长、并锤炼审慎商业判断力的关键时期,如果企业将这个阶段的工作自动化,很可能会催生一代“失落的”知识型劳动者:这些人虽有工作岗位,却完全不具备胜任未来领导角色的能力。

最终,这个问题不只会困扰应届毕业生。当下这一代企业管理者或许正通过用技术替代人力成本来获取商业收益;但这样做也意味着,他们会放弃对企业未来发展至关重要的人力资本进行再投资。在这一过程中,他们实际上可能正在把组织的长期可持续性乃至生存能力置于风险之中。最重要的是,即便那些实现入门级岗位自动化的企业在个体层面仍能保持良好业绩,但此类行为的总体叠加效应却可能在国家层面造成重大人才缺口,在未来数十年将削弱美国的整体实力,损害其全球竞争地位。

传统模式下,企业管理者愿意投入资源招聘并培养新员工,也清楚这些员工需要一定时间学习沉淀,才能真正实现高效产出、为组织成功贡献重要价值。他们明白,无论新员工的学历背景多优异,真正的职业成长往往发生在实际工作场景之中。

而如今,许多企业却转而依赖AI和其他技术进步,去替代曾由入门级员工承担的角色。诚然,资深员工正逐步掌握运用新技术的能力,可以借助技术推动企业发展、实现组织目标;但问题在于——当这些人因跳槽、退休或其他原因离开时,企业将陷入何等境地?届时,企业将只剩下一堆技术系统,却缺乏真正具备专业能力和判断力的人才,无法有效运用这些系统,更无从对技术提出合理质疑。

事实上,本应在企业内部历经数年打磨,成长为训练有素、技术娴熟、知识丰富的一代核心人才,很可能彻底缺位。尤其是在当下,许多企业高管都是即将退休的“婴儿潮一代”,人才断层风险更加突出。如果企业过度用技术替代初级专业人员,却又没有为足够规模的新一代职场“学徒”提供学习机会,他们很快就会面临高层管理人才稀缺的困境。更糟的是,企业文化(正如彼得·德鲁克那句名言所说:“文化能把战略当早餐吃掉”)也将失去赖以延续传承的“肌肉记忆”。

宾夕法尼亚大学(University of Pennsylvania)沃顿商学院访问学者、全球联盟POZE主任科妮莉亚·C·沃尔特,曾在学院期刊《沃顿知识在线》(Knowledge at Wharton)中发出警示:“企业正面临一场完美风暴。经验最丰富的专业人士不断流失,而培养新一代高技能员工的机制却被自动化取代。这造成了系统思维中所谓的‘延迟反馈问题’:短期的效率提升掩盖了长期后果,直到企业应对复杂挑战时出现知识缺口,这些隐患才会真正爆发。”

在印第安纳大学凯利商学院,我们定期通过院长AI圆桌会议,与来自多个重要行业的资深企业高管交流。与会者达成的一项核心共识是:商科教育培养的毕业生,既要有扎实的技术能力,还必须具备坚定的职业操守和组织敏捷性。他们也普遍认为,企业不应因对AI的过度反应,而摧毁培养下一代管理者的入门级岗位成长平台。

这些高管以及我接触过的其他管理者都认为,技术能力只是职场准入的基本门槛。对如今的初级职场新人而言,掌握AI应用能力,就和几年前必须熟练使用Excel一样,是基础必备技能。但他们一致指出,真正拉开求职者差距的是另一组能力:应对突发问题的能力、平衡多方利益冲突的能力、作出理性判断和科学决策的能力、批判性思维能力,以及具备情商、能够在团队中高效协作并建立信任关系的能力。这些能力历来是且至今依然是商业成功的核心“秘方”。

考虑到美国GDP中服务经济占比极高,这一点显得尤为重要。机器人固然可以向客户提供许多高度标准化的服务,但真正让企业脱颖而出的,将是只有人类才能提供的个性化体验。事实上,如果缺乏具备人际交往能力的人才,美国企业在全球市场上的竞争力可能会日益落后于其他国家。

企业从来都不只是技术工具的集合体,而是复杂的社会系统。管理者仍然必须依靠人来推动业务运转,并在人力资源与技术资源之间找到平衡。归根结底,企业不能忽视未来五年乃至更长远周期内所需的人力资本储备。简而言之,企业必须树立长期规划思维,认识到盲目追捧新潮技术、却忽视真正成就组织卓越的人才,是一种短视行为。入门级工作或许可以被AI以更低成本轻易复制,但入门级员工不会永远停留在入门阶段,他们在职业生涯初期积累的经验和能力,对企业的长期成功至关重要。

本文作者特里克·E·霍普金斯现任印第安纳大学(Indiana University)凯利商学院院长,同时担任詹姆斯·R·霍奇卓越讲席教授及会计学教授。他曾荣获多项教学奖项,并以其具有深远影响力的研究而闻名,先后荣获美国会计学会(American Accounting Association)著名的怀尔德曼奖章和会计文献杰出贡献奖。他曾担任美国财务会计准则委员会(Financial Accounting Standards Board)财务会计准则咨询委员会成员,并曾任《会计评论》(The Accounting Review)主编。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。(财富中文网)

译者:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

毫无疑问,AI完成部分入门级工作的能力正持续提升,而其成本远低于企业招聘并培训年轻专业人士的投入。摩根大通(J.P. Morgan)的一份报告估计,企业通过自动化缩减用工规模,每年可节省数十亿美元开支。事实上,斯坦福大学(Stanford University)在2025年发布的一项研究发现,AI已经“开始对美国劳动力市场中的入门级岗位产生显著且不成比例的冲击”,在受AI影响最严重的职业中,22至25岁劳动者的就业率降幅高达13%。

然而,尽管用AI替代入门级员工在短期内可以提升企业利润,但从长期来看,这种做法将掏空人才储备,埋下严重隐患。职场的“学徒阶段”,本应是年轻员工从低成本试错中积累经验、在资深导师指导下成长、并锤炼审慎商业判断力的关键时期,如果企业将这个阶段的工作自动化,很可能会催生一代“失落的”知识型劳动者:这些人虽有工作岗位,却完全不具备胜任未来领导角色的能力。

最终,这个问题不只会困扰应届毕业生。当下这一代企业管理者或许正通过用技术替代人力成本来获取商业收益;但这样做也意味着,他们会放弃对企业未来发展至关重要的人力资本进行再投资。在这一过程中,他们实际上可能正在把组织的长期可持续性乃至生存能力置于风险之中。最重要的是,即便那些实现入门级岗位自动化的企业在个体层面仍能保持良好业绩,但此类行为的总体叠加效应却可能在国家层面造成重大人才缺口,在未来数十年将削弱美国的整体实力,损害其全球竞争地位。

传统模式下,企业管理者愿意投入资源招聘并培养新员工,也清楚这些员工需要一定时间学习沉淀,才能真正实现高效产出、为组织成功贡献重要价值。他们明白,无论新员工的学历背景多优异,真正的职业成长往往发生在实际工作场景之中。

而如今,许多企业却转而依赖AI和其他技术进步,去替代曾由入门级员工承担的角色。诚然,资深员工正逐步掌握运用新技术的能力,可以借助技术推动企业发展、实现组织目标;但问题在于——当这些人因跳槽、退休或其他原因离开时,企业将陷入何等境地?届时,企业将只剩下一堆技术系统,却缺乏真正具备专业能力和判断力的人才,无法有效运用这些系统,更无从对技术提出合理质疑。

事实上,本应在企业内部历经数年打磨,成长为训练有素、技术娴熟、知识丰富的一代核心人才,很可能彻底缺位。尤其是在当下,许多企业高管都是即将退休的“婴儿潮一代”,人才断层风险更加突出。如果企业过度用技术替代初级专业人员,却又没有为足够规模的新一代职场“学徒”提供学习机会,他们很快就会面临高层管理人才稀缺的困境。更糟的是,企业文化(正如彼得·德鲁克那句名言所说:“文化能把战略当早餐吃掉”)也将失去赖以延续传承的“肌肉记忆”。

宾夕法尼亚大学(University of Pennsylvania)沃顿商学院访问学者、全球联盟POZE主任科妮莉亚·C·沃尔特,曾在学院期刊《沃顿知识在线》(Knowledge at Wharton)中发出警示:“企业正面临一场完美风暴。经验最丰富的专业人士不断流失,而培养新一代高技能员工的机制却被自动化取代。这造成了系统思维中所谓的‘延迟反馈问题’:短期的效率提升掩盖了长期后果,直到企业应对复杂挑战时出现知识缺口,这些隐患才会真正爆发。”

在印第安纳大学凯利商学院,我们定期通过院长AI圆桌会议,与来自多个重要行业的资深企业高管交流。与会者达成的一项核心共识是:商科教育培养的毕业生,既要有扎实的技术能力,还必须具备坚定的职业操守和组织敏捷性。他们也普遍认为,企业不应因对AI的过度反应,而摧毁培养下一代管理者的入门级岗位成长平台。

这些高管以及我接触过的其他管理者都认为,技术能力只是职场准入的基本门槛。对如今的初级职场新人而言,掌握AI应用能力,就和几年前必须熟练使用Excel一样,是基础必备技能。但他们一致指出,真正拉开求职者差距的是另一组能力:应对突发问题的能力、平衡多方利益冲突的能力、作出理性判断和科学决策的能力、批判性思维能力,以及具备情商、能够在团队中高效协作并建立信任关系的能力。这些能力历来是且至今依然是商业成功的核心“秘方”。

考虑到美国GDP中服务经济占比极高,这一点显得尤为重要。机器人固然可以向客户提供许多高度标准化的服务,但真正让企业脱颖而出的,将是只有人类才能提供的个性化体验。事实上,如果缺乏具备人际交往能力的人才,美国企业在全球市场上的竞争力可能会日益落后于其他国家。

企业从来都不只是技术工具的集合体,而是复杂的社会系统。管理者仍然必须依靠人来推动业务运转,并在人力资源与技术资源之间找到平衡。归根结底,企业不能忽视未来五年乃至更长远周期内所需的人力资本储备。简而言之,企业必须树立长期规划思维,认识到盲目追捧新潮技术、却忽视真正成就组织卓越的人才,是一种短视行为。入门级工作或许可以被AI以更低成本轻易复制,但入门级员工不会永远停留在入门阶段,他们在职业生涯初期积累的经验和能力,对企业的长期成功至关重要。

本文作者特里克·E·霍普金斯现任印第安纳大学(Indiana University)凯利商学院院长,同时担任詹姆斯·R·霍奇卓越讲席教授及会计学教授。他曾荣获多项教学奖项,并以其具有深远影响力的研究而闻名,先后荣获美国会计学会(American Accounting Association)著名的怀尔德曼奖章和会计文献杰出贡献奖。他曾担任美国财务会计准则委员会(Financial Accounting Standards Board)财务会计准则咨询委员会成员,并曾任《会计评论》(The Accounting Review)主编。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。(财富中文网)

译者:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

Without question, AI increasingly has the ability to complete some entry-level tasks at far less cost to companies than the hiring and training of young professionals. A report by J.P. Morgan estimates that corporations can save billions of dollars a year by employing fewer people through automation. And, in fact, a 2025 study out of Stanford University has found that AI is already “beginning to have a significant and disproportionate impact on entry-level workers in the American labor market,” with workers between the ages of 22 and 25 in the most AI-exposed occupations experiencing a 13 percent decline in employment.

Yet while replacing entry-level workers with AI can boost profits in the short term, it will ultimately drain the talent pool and create real vulnerabilities over the long haul. By automating the “apprentice” stage of work—the time when young workers learn how to make low-cost mistakes, gain guidance from experienced mentors, and practice thoughtful business judgment—companies risk creating a lost generation of knowledge workers who are technically employed but unprepared to lead.

In the end, this won’t just be a problem for new graduates. Today’s generation of managers may be extracting gains from their businesses by substituting technology for labor costs, but by doing so, they are also failing to reinvest in the human resources that their companies need to thrive into the future. In the process, they may be risking their organizations’ sustainability and survival over the long haul. Most important, even though some firms that automate entry-level roles may continue to perform well individually, the collective impact could be a major national talent deficit, jeopardizing the United States at large for decades and damaging its competitive position worldwide.

Traditionally, business leaders have been willing to invest in hiring and onboarding new employees, recognizing that it will take some time for those workers to learn enough to be as productive as possible and fully contribute to the organization’s success. They’ve recognized that, however well-educated a new employee might be, that person will usually learn much more once they’re actually on the job.

Today, however, many companies are instead relying on AI and other technological advances to replace the roles that entry-level employees once played. And while many more-seasoned workers are becoming competent enough to apply such new technologies in ways that can advance an organization and its objectives, what will happen when that organization starts to lose those individuals as they move to other firms, retire, or depart for other reasons? It will be left with a variety of technical systems, but without the people who have the expertise or judgment to apply—and question—those systems effectively.

In fact, an entire tranche of well-trained, skilled, and knowledgeable individuals who previously would have gained such expertise within a few years at that company may very well not be there, especially given that many senior managers in companies today are Baby Boomers on the verge of retiring. If companies replace too many junior professionals with technology and do not provide a sufficiently large entry class of new “apprentices” opportunities to learn the business, they may soon find senior leaders increasingly hard to find. Worse, company culture—yes, the organizational element that Peter Drucker famously wrote “eats strategy for breakfast”—will not have the muscle memory to survive.

As Cornelia C. Walther, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business and director of global alliance POZE, has warned in the school’s journal, Knowledge at Wharton: “Organizations face a perfect storm. Their most experienced professionals are leaving while the mechanism for creating new skilled workers have been automated away. This creates what systems thinkers call a ‘delayed feedback problem’—the immediate efficiency gains mask longer-term consequences that won’t become apparent until knowledge gaps emerge during complex challenges.”

At the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, we regularly engage with our Dean’s AI Roundtable of seasoned executives whose companies span a wide variety of important industries. A key consensus among the roundtable participants is that business education must produce graduates who are not only technically fluent but also ethically grounded and organizationally agile. They also broadly acknowledge that companies should not overreact by decimating the entry-level training ground for the next generation of company leaders.

They and other executives with whom I’ve spoken view technological competency as table stakes, meaning AI fluency is as essential to any entry professional as Excel skills were just a couple years ago. However, they all indicate that the separating characteristics that differentiate candidates are those such as the ability to deal with unexpected problems, to balance competing interests, to demonstrate good judgment and make sound decisions, to have critical-thinking skills, and to have the EQ to work well in teams and establish relationships of trust. Those have always been and still are the key ingredients to the secret sauce of how good business gets done.

That’s especially the case given how much of our nation’s GDP is made up of a service economy. Robots can certainly provide many highly defined services to customers, but what will distinguish companies from the pack is the ability to offer customers and clients the personal touch only people can provide. Indeed, without relationally skilled individuals, U.S. businesses may increasingly lag other nations in the global market.

Businesses are not just a network of technological tools; they are complex social systems. Managers must still rely on individuals to make things happen and seek a balance between human and technological resources. Ultimately, they can’t ignore considering the human capital that they’ll need to have in place in five years and beyond. Simply put, they should take a long-term planning perspective and recognize that it’s short-sighted to buy lots of shiny new technology and forget about the people who make any organization truly great. Entry-level tasks may be easily replicable and cheaper with AI—but entry-level employees don’t stay entry-level forever, and what they learn in those first few years on the job is vital to organizations’ long-term success.

Patrick E. Hopkins is Dean at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, the James R. Hodge Chair of Excellence, and Professor of Accounting. He has won numerous teaching awards and is known for his influential research, earning the American Accounting Association’s prestigious Wildman Medal and the Distinguished Contribution to the Accounting Literature Award. He served on the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council and is past editor of The Accounting Review.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开