Perceptions and Barriers in Workplace Artificial Intelligence Adoption Among Industry Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Survey

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

As professionals increasingly encounter artificial intelligence (AI) in their workplaces, questions around adoption barriers, ethical concerns, and job security have grown in prominence. This paper reports an exploratory cross-sectional descriptive survey of self-reported perceptions among a convenience sample of 324 UK-based industry professionals. The study does not identify determinants, predictors, or causes of AI adoption. The survey examined eight binary items covering daily personal AI use, perceived strategic importance, cost as a barrier, ethical concern, perceived income change, subjective job-displacement anxiety, perceived work-performance change, and preference for conversational AI tools over traditional search engines. All eight items were completed by all 324 eligible respondents. Using Wald 95% confidence intervals, 47.2% (95% CI 41.8–52.7) reported using AI in their daily jobs, while 66.4% (95% CI 61.2–71.5) perceived AI as important for remaining competitive. Cost was identified as a barrier by 76.5% (95% CI 71.9–81.2), and 65.7% (95% CI 60.6–70.9) reported concern about ethical implications. These two figures are separate aggregate proportions and are not treated as an individual-level behavioural gap. Only 37.0% (95% CI 31.8–42.3) reported an income increase associated with AI at work, whereas 71.9% (95% CI 67.0–76.8) reported improved work performance. These two items were separate self-report questions; no respondent-level association was tested, and neither item measured objective productivity or pay. Job-automation concern was reported by 48.5% (95% CI 43.0–53.9). The same share as the performance item, 71.9% (95% CI 67.0–76.8) preferred ChatGPT-like tools over traditional search engines. The sample was recruited through professional networks, email, social media, and organisational mailing lists and is likely to over-represent professionals already interested in digital tools. Findings are therefore presented as descriptive perceptions from this respondent pool and are not generalised to UK professionals as a whole.