“Will I still be needed?” Many employees have been asking themselves this question since artificial intelligence became part of their daily work lives. It reflects a chronic fear of losing one’s job. It’s no longer just about the fear of temporary layoffs due to economic conditions, but a constant feeling of uncertainty about whether one will still have a job tomorrow. AI is therefore no longer a forward-looking topic reserved for technology departments. It is becoming a matter of governance—and, above all, of labor-management dialogue.
AI is becoming a matter of governance—and, above all, of social dialogue
The eighth Syndex-Ifop survey, conducted in 2026 among 1,167 employee representatives, 1,301 employees, and 400 executives, confirms this discrepancy in perception: employee representatives rate the quality of social dialogue at 5.3 out of 10, compared with 6 out of 10 for employees and 7.8 out of 10 for executives.
According to the same survey, 58% of employee representatives consider management to be “tension-filled” in its dealings with the social and economic committee, and 52% consider it “closed-minded.” For a long time, the contract between the company and its employees was based on a relatively simple promise. In exchange for their commitment, employees could expect to develop their skills, advance in their careers, gain autonomy, and gradually build expertise. This promise shaped both individual career paths and collective performance.
Artificial intelligence is changing this implicit contract. Not because it is replacing employees on a massive scale, but because it automates precisely those activities that used to enable people to learn, grow, and gain experience. In other words, it is not just job-
s that are changing; in some cases, it is the very steps that used to lead to those roles.
With artificial intelligence, the nature of social dialogue must change
At the same time, certain intellectual activities are becoming commoditized: searching for information, producing an initial summary, drafting a memo, or generating a preliminary assessment. It is not people who are becoming commodities; it is certain activities. Value is thus shifting toward discernment, interpretation, accountability, and the ability to make decisions.
With artificial intelligence, social dialogue must take on a new dimension. Until now, it often took place after broad policy directions had already been established. This timeline is reaching its limits with AI, and the gap in perception between management and employee representatives risks widening if nothing changes.
Technological decisions immediately become organizational decisions.
- Choosing to automate a task also means redefining a profession.
- Deploying an AI agent means redistributing responsibilities.
- Bringing in a co-pilot means changing the learning conditions and, at times, the performance criteria.
Social dialogue can therefore no longer take place only after decisions have been made. It must be involved in their formulation
This is probably the real turning point: moving from a reactive social dialogue to a collaborative social dialogue.
It is no longer simply a matter of consulting employee representatives on the consequences of a decision that has already been made, but of involving them in the initial discussions, experiments, the definition of operating guidelines, and the trade-offs that will shape the future of work.
Managers, employees, employee representatives, and business unit leaders must get involved early on to lay the groundwork for project success by collectively discussing which jobs and activities are most at risk, which tasks must remain under human supervision,
performance evaluation criteria, and safeguards regarding confidentiality and transparency.
The role of employee representatives would then no longer be limited to managing the consequences of a transformation, but would also involve contributing to its design. Social dialogue would thus become a forum for anticipation, experimentation, and regulation.
Social dialogue should therefore not be viewed as an obstacle to innovation. It can become the foundation of trust for innovation. This new agreement first requires clearly stating what is changing and why. It then requires involving employees from the very start of pilot projects, making every AI project an opportunity to develop skills, and defining what must remain under human control.
Success cannot be measured solely by productivity gains. It will also be measured by employee engagement, the quality of work, and the trust that is built. The difference between companies will therefore no longer lie solely in technology, but in their collective ability to put it to work for the benefit of employees. This is where social dialogue takes on a new role: it no longer serves merely to support transformation. It helps to shape it.
In the age of AI, trust is becoming a strategic asset.
AI Consulting Firm
As a strategy and transformation consulting firm, iQo places AI at the heart of its business model. Understanding all the challenges of AI today, while providing our clients with the right AI tools, is central to our approach. We place AI at the heart of a hybrid consulting approach to deliver concrete, results-oriented solutions.
AI and Ethics: We Must Build a Humanistic AI
Since the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, public debate has oscillated between fascination and concern. Will humans outperform AI, or will they simply be replaced? This dichotomy can and must be overcome.
AI doesn't vote… but it's already influencing those who do
With one year to go before the presidential election, the question is no longer whether AI will influence the democratic debate, but to what extent. We are gradually entering a battle of algorithms, and not
Can artificial intelligence (AI) become a public good?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become the invisible driving force behind our daily digital and professional lives. Its widespread adoption today raises a fundamental question: Should AI become a common good?
