Beyond the wave of redundancies — the real governance question.
The most frequently asked question about AI and work is poorly framed. "How many jobs will AI eliminate?" implies that the outcome is fixed and the only question is scale. The reality is more nuanced — and for executives, simultaneously better and more demanding news.
Better: AI is eliminating fewer jobs than feared and creating new roles that do not yet exist. More demanding: the transition is unevenly distributed, is proceeding faster than organisations can absorb, and requires an active boardroom role that most executive boards are not yet fulfilling.
McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by 2030, 30% of current work tasks in the Netherlands will be automated or fundamentally altered by AI. That is not the same as 30% fewer jobs. Historical research into technological transitions shows that new technology creates net employment — but with a lag of five to ten years and with considerable friction for those whose work changes first.
That friction is the governance question. Not the macroeconomic outcome in ten years' time — but the question of how your organisation manages the transition over the next two to three years for the people who work for you now.
The labour market impact of AI is an ESG issue. It belongs on the supervisory board's agenda — not merely as a risk factor, but as part of how your organisation fulfils its responsibilities towards employees and society.
Which roles will change substantially due to AI in the next two years? Not in the abstract — but specifically, by department, with an assessment of scope and timeline. This analysis must exist. If it does not, commissioning it is your first order of business.
What is our reskilling policy — and who owns it? The organisations navigating the AI transition most effectively have invested proactively in reskilling before roles disappeared — not after. That requires budget, planning and board-level priority.
How and when do we communicate about this? This is the most underestimated element. Employees who are uncertain about their position but receive no information perform worse, leave sooner and are less willing to embrace AI. Honest communication — even when the messages are uncertain — is better than silence.
The works council holds the right of consent over significant organisational changes. AI implementations that substantially alter roles fall within its remit. Executive boards that only involve the works council once decisions are already fixed create resistance that slows implementation and damages the relationship.
The best-performing organisations treat the works council as a strategic partner in the AI transition — not as a legal obligation. They share their AI agenda early, communicate expected impact, and develop policy collaboratively. This costs more time at the outset and saves considerably more time and energy during implementation.
Not just insight — but a plan your board can execute.