Welcome to the TTA Community. TTA Connect is where you can manage and update your profile, search, and view opportunities, manage your work, track payments, and more.
AI fluency is becoming a basic workplace capability, but tool use alone does not prepare employees to make sound decisions. New IBM research shows a sharp gap between the judgment skills CHROs prioritize and the skills employees believe matter most. Organizations should train employees to frame problems, verify outputs, challenge recommendations, and take clear responsibility for the final decision.
Many workplace AI programs begin with access and prompts. Employees learn where to open the tool, what information to enter, and how to improve a response.
That foundation is useful. It does not address the most consequential part of AI-enabled work: deciding when an output is reliable, what context is missing, which risks matter, and whether a human should override the recommendation.
IBM’s September 21, 2026, CHRO study shows why that gap deserves attention. The IBM Institute for Business Value and Oxford Economics surveyed 1,500 CHROs and equivalent executives and 8,800 full-time employees globally. Seventy-one percent of CHROs identified the ability to supervise, validate, and override AI outputs as the most essential workforce skill. Only 29% of employees ranked judgment as important.
Sixty percent of employees said they worried AI was eroding their skills, with critical thinking cited most often.
The findings are based on perceptions, and IBM has a commercial position in AI. Even with those caveats, the gap between executive expectations and employee priorities raises a practical question for L&D: are employees being trained to operate the tool, or to remain accountable for the work?
AI can reduce time spent drafting, summarizing, searching, and organizing information. It can also create work that is less visible.
Employees must inspect recommendations, correct errors, supply missing context, manage exceptions, document decisions, and determine when escalation is necessary. IBM reported that 80% of CHROs believe AI adoption creates this kind of invisible work. Forty-two percent of employees said AI increases their work or that the added work goes unrecognized.
Critical thinking is often treated as a broad professional skill. AI makes it possible to teach it through specific workplace behaviors.
Employees should be able to define the decision, audience, constraints, evidence standard, and risk level before generating an answer. A vague problem produces an output that may look polished while solving the wrong issue.
Verification should be part of the workflow, not a reminder at the end. Employees need practice tracing important claims, testing calculations, comparing evidence, and recognizing when the available source material is incomplete.
AI may not know internal priorities, customer history, regulatory nuance, operational constraints, or the consequences of a false positive. Human judgment includes recognizing which context changes the decision.
Employees need explicit authority to challenge the output and a clear process for high-risk situations. IBM found that employees reported greater safety in questioning or overriding AI recommendations when HR shared responsibility for decisions that remain human-led.
TTA’s professional development solutions can support the communication, decision-making, leadership, and problem-solving capabilities that become more important in AI-enabled work.
A lecture on critical thinking will not prepare employees for the moment when an AI answer is plausible, incomplete, and time-sensitive.
Scenario-based practice is a stronger approach. Give employees a realistic AI output and ask them to:
Scenarios should vary by role. A recruiter reviewing an AI-generated candidate summary faces different evidence and fairness questions than a financial analyst, customer service representative, learning designer, or operations leader.
TTA’s article on professional skills in system implementation training reinforces the same principle: technical capability and human capability need to be developed together.
Managers shape whether employees feel safe questioning AI and whether verification work receives enough time.
Their development should address:
Usage metrics can show whether employees opened a tool. They do not show whether employees made better decisions.
Organizations can evaluate judgment through scenario performance, error detection, escalation quality, decision rationale, policy compliance, rework, and outcomes connected to the actual workflow. Measures should match the risk of the work. A low-risk drafting assistant does not need the same review process as AI used in employment, finance, safety, health, or customer eligibility decisions.
The goal is a workforce that can use AI productively while knowing where its own responsibility begins.
The next stage of workplace AI learning should move beyond prompts and features. Employees need repeated practice in problem framing, evidence review, contextual reasoning, challenge, and accountability.
Organizations building broader AI capability can draw on TTA’s technical and IT training talent and professional-skills expertise to connect tool instruction with the human capabilities the work still requires. Speak to a Learning Advisor to design AI learning around responsible decisions, not tool activity alone.
AI can produce fast, confident, and plausible outputs. Employees need critical thinking to test claims, identify missing context, weigh risk, and decide whether to use, revise, reject, or escalate a recommendation.
It should include problem framing, source verification, assumption testing, contextual reasoning, risk recognition, escalation, decision explanation, and clear human accountability.
Use realistic role-based scenarios with imperfect AI outputs. Ask employees to evaluate evidence, identify risks, make a decision, explain their reasoning, and receive feedback on both the outcome and process.
Managers set review expectations, create psychological safety for challenge, recognize verification work, coach decision quality, and clarify which decisions remain human-led.
Measure error detection, evidence quality, escalation choices, decision rationale, policy compliance, rework, and job-relevant outcomes rather than relying on tool usage or course completion.
