Employment outcomes for young workers are still positive, but for how long?

While entry-level roles aren’t disappearing at the rates some are suggesting, the nature of these jobs is certainly shifting, forecasting resounding effects for managers, according to one recruitment leader.

Traditional career stepping stones and trajectories are moving to accommodate AI, with the biggest impact happening “in entry-level and operational roles, particularly work that is process-driven, repetitive, administrative, or heavily coordination-based”, as explained by the co-founder of recruitment firm Samuels Donegan, Evelina Samuels.

Moreover, expectations are increasing much earlier in careers, with certain skills now non-negotiable.

Samuels said: “Entry-level roles now require stronger data literacy, analytical thinking, and the ability to use AI-enabled tools, and apply more critical thinking far earlier than they would have previously.”

“From what we’re seeing, more than half of the entry-level roles coming through now require some form of data or analytics capability. That is a significant shift from even a few years ago. The traditional pathways into the workforce are narrowing, and data literacy is quickly becoming the baseline, not the advantage.”

But is the labour market now asking too much of its younger employees, or is this part of the natural evolution of work, much like the information age, or even the Industrial Revolution?

Speaking at The Australian Financial Review Workforce Summit last month (28 April), Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Amanda Rishworth, released findings of research undertaken by the department regarding workforce composition in a post-ChatGPT employment landscape.

Referencing the Luddites of the 19th century, she said the workers “weren’t actually opposed to new machinery” … “they were in favour of tools that would enhance employment opportunities and make their life easier”.

“What they objected to was the gains flowing only to employers,” Rishworth said.

In this vein, she referenced a recent Redbridge poll that found more than 70 per cent of workers see AI as negative for job security.

However, a major study from Jobs and Skills Australia revealed that AI – at least in the medium term – is more likely to augment a worker’s duties, rather than fully automate them.

Revealing early findings of the aforementioned departmental study, she said: “Employment outcomes for young tertiary graduates have been positive, despite some expectations that they could be the ‘canaries in the coalmine’ for AI in the workplace.”

“We are not seeing an elevated rate of compositional change, meaning that the mix of jobs in the economy is not changing faster than usual.”

Rishworth added: “However, we are starting to see a slight softening in the rate of growth for occupations that are most exposed to AI adoption, like filing clerks or keyboard operators.”

While this may be welcome to potential employees looking for stable work, some read these findings as an indicator that AI is only yet to decimate what could be, for many, their first professional jobs – which isn’t exactly reassuring.

And as Samuels said: “The risk is not that entry-level roles disappear, it is that they become inaccessible to those who have not developed the right capabilities early.”

While some are looking at educational institutions, Samuels identified that employer expectations also have a role to play.

She said: “The pace of change around AI and technology is so fast that businesses, educators, and individuals are all trying to adapt at the same time. A lot of employers are now expecting graduates to come in with both analytical thinking and strong communication skills, and that combination can take time to develop.”

Where organisations are getting it wrong, she added, is by “focusing on technology before redesigning the work itself. In many cases, AI is being layered onto existing processes rather than fundamentally rethinking how work should operate”.

And these changes are having a significant, systemic impact. Fewer people are potentially prepared, and certainly interested in, management and leadership roles, proving how even minor changes to entry-level roles can almost have a down-up effect, with employers likely to eventually feel the impact.

Samuels said: “Historically, people developed through much more structured and linear career pathways. They would build operational experience over time, gradually increase responsibility, and then move into leadership.”

“Now, expectations are accelerating much earlier, roles are evolving fast, and pathways are becoming far less clear.”

In this way, leadership pressure is only increasing as demands for AI competence, job instability, economic uncertainty, and a dynamic workforce, are complicating an already fraught role.

It is a time of more questions than answers, but Samuels asserted that human judgement should always have a place in decision making, hiring, and people-related processes.

In addition, skills and capability building, teamwork, upskilling and internal promotion and training will certainly place workers in better stead for whatever lies ahead. And as reported at the start of the year, Deel regional enterprise leader Shannon Karaka said the focus for HR teams must be on mitigating risk and seizing opportunity.

In the same vein, Samuels urged employees to maintain perspective, concluding: “A lot of this is less about job loss and more about job evolution.”

However, with more changes and increasing demands on workers across the board in a narrowing job market, it ironically remains to be seen whether Gen Z are truly the latest canaries in the digital coalmine.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.