Research Finds Understanding of GenAI Lags Among Public Sector Workforce

What’s the difference between artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI (GenAI)?

A simple way to describe the difference between the two is that “traditional” AI is adept at analyzing data and performing specific tasks, while GenAI is typically used to create new content—text, images or music, for instance.

New research finds that most public sector workers can’t make that distinction.

For example, the recent SAS survey of 1,600 business decision makers determined what percentage of organizations in various industries were fully implementing GenAI into regular business processes. At 9%, the public sector ranked near the bottom of the list. Just 13% of public sector agencies indicated they already use GenAI to some extent.

Employees’ wariness concerning AI’s proliferation in the workplace is well-documented.

For example, one 2023 survey found 77% of workers saying they were concerned that AI would cause job loss in the year ahead, with 44% saying they were “very concerned” and the remaining 33% of this group indicating they were “somewhat concerned.”

PSHRA^® recently teamed with researchers at Nova Southeastern University and the University of Illinois-Springfield to get a sense of where public sector employers are on the spectrum of AI acceptance and adoption, from an individual and an organizational standpoint.

The new report, Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence & Generative AI on Public Sector Human Resource Professionals, surveyed 155 PSHRA^® members, combining their responses with qualitative insights from focus groups and individual interviews.

This research finds that skepticism around AI still very much exists, at least in some pockets of the public sector workforce.

For example, 58% of the PSHRA members surveyed reported feeling that their employees are afraid they will be replaced by AI. And, when asked to gauge their comfort level experimenting with AI, 44% noted they were either “not comfortable” or “very uncomfortable.”

Concerns about data use and storage were notable as well, with 38% rating their concern level on this front as “high,” and another 24% saying they were moderately concerned. In addition, the largest percentage of respondents (38%) rated their trust in AI-generated decisions as “low.”

All that said, overall perceptions of AI and its workplace potential are positive among the PSHRA members surveyed. In addition to the 40% of respondents who indicated they were comfortable experimenting with AI, another 41% said they were very comfortable doing so. More than half (53%) reported finding generative AI tools such as ChatGPT “easily accessible and beneficial.”

Report co-author Travis Bland, associate professor and interim dean of the College of Health, Science and Technology at the University of Illinois-Springfield, recently sat down to discuss the study findings for the cover story of the upcoming July/August issue of Public Eye. During that discussion, Bland urged agency HR leaders to play a key role in addressing the concerns surrounding AI on an individual and organizational level.

For example, HR can conduct position audits to assess the positions most at risk of being replaced, Bland told Public Eye.

“This audit, coupled with an assessment of AI knowledge, capability and willingness to upskill, would provide a great starting point for providing targeted training,” Bland said, reiterating the need to equip employees with the necessary AI-related tools and training.

“HR really needs to play a strategic role here in preparing an already shrinking public sector workforce—meaning that many are choosing other sectors—for the future of work,” he said. “The worst thing HR could do is to try and alleviate the very real and valid concern [around AI] by suggesting that it is unfounded.”