Survey reveals not only an ‘AI readiness gap’ but also an emerging phenomenon of ‘AI shame’ in the workplace—especially in the C-suite

The findings come from WalkMe, an SAP company, which surveyed over 1,000 U.S. workers for the 2025 edition of its “AI in the Workplace” survey. Nearly half of employees (48.8%) admit to hiding their use of AI at work to avoid judgment, suggesting that something like “AI shame” is a real phenomenon in the workplace. This discomfort is especially pronounced at the top, with 53.4% of C-suite leaders admitting they conceal their AI habits—despite being the most frequent users. Entry-level workers aren’t exempt, but the paradox deepens at the executive level, highlighting how even the most empowered employees remain uneasy.

Gen Z: eager, but unsupported

Gen Z’s relationship with AI appears to be both enthusiastic and anxious. A striking 62.6% have completed work using AI but pretended it was all their own effort—the highest rate among any generation.

More than half (55.4%) have feigned understanding of AI in meetings. Their behavior is context-dependent: 28.4% exaggerate their AI use to some, while 13.5% downplay it to others. Intriguingly, this can be dependent on who they’re speaking with. But only 6.8% report extensive, time-consuming AI training, and 13.5% received none at all. This is the lowest of any age group. Despite this, an overwhelming 89.2% use AI at work—and just as many (89.2%) use tools that weren’t provided or sanctioned by their employer. Only 7.5% reported receiving extensive training with AI tools. This is a strikingly small advance from 2024, when the same survey from WorkMe found 7.0% reported extensive training—just a 0.5% increase.

Sharon Bernstein, chief human resources officer for WalkMe, told Fortune in an interview that “Companies are not educating enough about this whole thing,” saying that they seem to not be facilitating use of AI tools. They “are not training their employees enough today, or guiding … Even if you are an amazing CIO and you’re allowed to buy a few different tools for AI, how much was it adopted? Like, for real?”

The AI class divide and a productivity paradox

Access to AI training and guidance increases with rank and company size. Only 3.7% of entry-level employees receive substantial training compared to 17.1% of C-level executives. Younger and junior staff remain unsupported—a gap that risks cementing an “AI class divide” where the most frequent users are left to navigate on their own.

AI is changing work, and the survey suggests not always for the better. Most employees (80%) say AI has improved their productivity, but 59% confess to spending more time wrestling with AI tools than if they’d just done the work themselves. Gen Z again leads the struggle, with 65.3% saying AI slows them down (the highest amount of any group), and 68% feeling pressure to produce more work because of it. Nearly one in three are deeply anxious about AI’s impact on their jobs, saying they worry “a lot” about its impact on their jobs. Confidence is mixed: only 45% of Gen Z say they’re “very confident” using AI—less than Millennials (56.3%) and tied with Gen X (43.2%).

How this fits into the picture

These gaps, around AI readiness and varying levels of AI shame, fit into an emerging picture of a confusing, if not chaotic, implementation of AI into the workplace, from the entry level all the way to the C-suite. For instance, more than half of professionals report being overwhelmed by AI training initiatives, saying that it feels like “a second job”—adding stress and longer hours, often with little tangible benefit to workflows. While it’s speculative to link lack of proper training to the bombshell MIT study showing a staggering 95% failure rate for generative AI pilots at large enterprises, there is clearly an issue going from the drawing board to the factory floor. Furthermore, this disconnection between corporate hype and actual business value is fueling investor worries about a potential AI bubble.

Finally, the survey fits into the trend of “shadow AI,” where workers are overwhelmingly using these tools, but companies are further behind in official adoption of AI tools. Many colleges are banning AI tools, meanwhile, as they try to stem what they perceive as a rampant “cheating” crisis. From the market, where investors fear a bubble, to the entry level, where workers are trying to match their shadow use of AI to their actual performance, to the C-suite, where leaders are under pressure to revolutionize their companies and get results with this new technology, there’s an emerging gap between theory and reality.

Bernstein said that from her perspective as a human resources leader, “first of all, you want people not to fear to admit that they use it, right?” She urged companies to be transparent about how they’re really planning to use AI to displace the fear of AI tools being used to replace workers, on the one hand, and even facility with using it, on the other hand. “I don’t really think that we can literally replace employees,” she added, “maybe in very specific positions, but in general, I think companies are now in a stage that they need to educate their team members about it.”

Rising anxiety, falling readiness

Worry about AI’s effect on jobs is intensifying. 44.8% of workers are worried, and the proportion “very worried” has spiked since last year. Gen Z feels this most acutely: 62.2% say they worry about AI’s impact, with 28.4% “very worried”—the highest rate across age groups. Stress levels are up for 27% of Gen Z, the highest of any generation. Yet hope persists: 89.6% want to learn more about AI, and 86% believe AI proficiency is critical for career success.

The findings point to an urgent need for employers to bridge the AI readiness gap, offering clear guidance, comprehensive training, and transparent policies. Those on the leading edge of AI adoption—whether in the boardroom or among Gen Z—need support, not secrecy. As tools proliferate and expectations rise, organizations risk eroding trust, productivity, and emotional wellbeing unless this issue is addressed head-on.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.