Employees waste 1.5 weeks a year 'correcting' AI output
AI is helping employees save time, but these gains are often lost while mistakes are rectified, content is rewritten, and output is double-checked.
According to HR software company Workday, staff are typically spending one to two hours a week clarifying, correcting or rewriting low-quality outputs. In a year, this can amount to 1.5 working weeks per highly engaged employee.
It also found that 39% of employees are using AI tools and technologies at least once a day.
Its report, Beyond productivity: Measuring the real value of AI, argues that the organisations getting the most success from AI do not just deploy it, "they reinvest the time it saves into their people".
It estimates that almost 40% of time savings are lost to rework, while only 14% of employees report consistently getting clear, positive outcomes from AI.
The more people use AI, the worse this gets, according to Workday. More than 90% believe it will help them succeed in a task, but 77% review their AI-generated work just as carefully as work done by humans, if not more.
Employees aged 25 to 34 make up 46% of those dealing with AI rework, despite being considered the most tech-savvy.
Training is not addressing this gap - 66% of leaders cite skills training as a top priority, but only 37% of employees who are reworking AI output are getting access to the training they need.
Instead, companies are more likely to reinvest AI savings into technology - this was the case for 39% of respondents, compared to 30% investing those savings into employee development.
Furthermore, 32% simply increase workload after employees have saved time using AI, meaning they have to navigate these challenges on their own.
The company has come up with a "net productivity matrix" to show employee personas and how they use AI. The four personas are:
- The observers - they remain on the sidelines of AI, neither generating value or spending a lot of time correcting output.
- The misaligned middle - often mid-career professionals who engage with AI but find the effort required to make output usable outweighs the benefits.
- The low-return optimists - many of these personas are in HR, and are most enthusiastic about AI but also the most over-burdened.
- The augmented strategists - 93% treat AI as a "radar" to spot patterns rather than a tool to do their work for them. More likely to have received skills training.
- Employees who reported positive AI outcomes were far more likely to use the time saved to increase the value of their work through deeper analysis, stronger decision-making and strategic thinking, Workday found.
They were also far more likely to have had more skills training on AI, with 79% citing this to be the case.
"Too many AI tools push the hard questions of trust, accuracy, and repeatability back onto individual users," said Gerrit Kazmaier, president for product and technology.
"Our philosophy is that AI should do the complex work under the hood so people can focus on judgment, creativity, and connection. That's how organisations turn AI-powered speed into durable, human-led advantage."
Workday's research comes as a number of companies incentivise experimentation with AI.
Law firm Ropes & Gray now encourages junior lawyers to spend 20% of their billable time on AI, while consulting firm McKinsey is asking graduate applicants to "collaborate" with an AI tool as part of its recruitment process.
