The "AI for All" campaign that the Ministry of Justice announced in August, promising to provide every staff member with secure AI assistants by December, reflects a wider government ambition to embed AI across departments. But is everyone ready?
New research from Indeed suggests the answer is complex. Just 29% of workers over 50 feel optimistic about AI in their workplace, compared to 61% of those under 35. That gap isn’t just statistical, it’s cultural. For government departments like the MoJ – which acknowledged “significant infrastructure gaps” when it unveiled the AI action plan – this demographic divide presents a challenge that goes well beyond getting the technology right. If organisations don't address how different generations are responding to AI, their transformation ambitions risk becoming yet another policy that looks impressive on paper but falters in practice.
“I hesitate to say there's a generational divide, but there is a generational divide,” says Matt Burney, senior strategic advisor at Indeed, whose new research with YouGov surveyed nearly 3,400 UK workers. His words highlight the reality that many organisations are facing. While no one wants to pigeonhole people by age, the data shows generations are responding differently to AI at work.
The digital confidence crisis
The divide runs much deeper than a simple technology capability. According to Indeed’s research, younger employees are twice as likely to report using generative AI in their daily work
But here's where it gets interesting: younger workers tend to accept AI output at face value. Older workers bring crucial value by questioning how, when, and why technology is used. “Younger workers have more adoption and more willingness to just go with it,” Burney says. “But the value older workers bring to the table is in questioning how, when and why we're actually using that technology?”
This questioning instinct could prove crucial for government departments, where accountability and rigorous scrutiny remain paramount. Yet Indeed’s research reveals another trend: over one in five older employees aren't even sure whether their organisation uses AI.
This uncertainty highlights a fundamental lack of communication within some organisations rushing to embrace digital transformation. When 22% of older workers don't know if AI is being used in their workplace, it suggests leaders are implementing technology without properly explaining what's happening or why.
“Transparency is lacking across the board,” Burney says. “If we're not leading with clarity, security and inclusion, then we're going to lose people – and probably lose people's confidence in what we're doing from a leadership point of view.”
For the civil service, this represents a critical vulnerability. Government departments are already piloting or deploying AI for everything from recruitment to citizen services, but if a significant portion of the workforce remains unaware or unconvinced, the transformation risks becoming hollow – impressive on paper but ineffective in practice.
The problem is particularly acute in public sector organisations laden with legacy systems and established ways of working. “There are a lot of people who have been hired into a role which have been done the same way for years and years and years,” Burney notes. “Now suddenly you say: ‘Here's a new piece of technology. We're automating all these processes,’ and resistance is the first response.”
This resistance isn't necessarily irrational. The UK faces a stark digital literacy challenge, with 8.4 million people digitally illiterate and another 12.5 million having only rudimentary skills. When you're already struggling with basic digital confidence, the prospect of artificial intelligence can feel overwhelming.
“Digital literacy isn't just about using a computer,” Burney explains. “Some of it is around digital confidence. I think confidence, context, culture – those are three things that really impact literacy.”
Beyond the age divide
While age represents the most visible divide, the research reveals other fascinating patterns. Public sector and care workers – sectors with older average workforces – show higher AI adoption rates. This suggests the story is more complex than simple generational differences.
The divide also reflects deeper issues about leadership communication. Senior leaders consistently show more optimism about AI's potential than frontline employees, focusing on long-term efficiency gains whilst workers grapple with immediate concerns about job security and changing responsibilities.
“Senior leaders are focused on efficiency, cost savings, service transformations – those are the big things,” Burney notes. “Yet many of those same leaders aren’t digital natives themselves, meaning they may be advocating for technologies they rarely use.”
But instead of seeing the generational gap as a major problem, Burney suggests a smarter approach that uses the strengths of both younger and older workers, thus creating genuine opportunities for reverse mentoring, where tech-savvy younger employees can share their AI fluency whilst learning from the critical thinking and institutional knowledge of their older colleagues.
“We need to bring everyone along the AI journey and give people equal opportunity to adapt. Excluding older workers through lack of consultation alienates them; using AI in ways that feel disconnected alienates younger ones,” he says.
This solution requires radical transparency about AI implementation, comprehensive training programmes, and honest conversations about how roles might change. Most importantly, it demands leadership that understands both the technology and the human dynamics of organisational change.
“Transformation probably needs to start with trust and not technology," Burney concludes.
Visit Indeed's Public Sector Talent Hub to learn more about how you can level up your workforce strategy.
The Indeed research ‘Leading the workforce of the future’ was conducted by YouGov between 9th-23rd April 2025, surveying 1,944 employees, 898 senior managers and 569 HR decision-makers across the UK.
The information in this article is provided as a courtesy and for informational purposes only. Indeed is not a legal advisor.