Concerns and Strategic Responses of Older Workers Navigating Generative AI in Bridge Employment

Sustained deployment of generative AI agents requires more than isolated task success. Agents must remain useful across repeated interactions, changing conditions, and dependencies on people within shared workflows, especially as technical, human, and operational disruptions accumulate over time. We propose operational resilience and considerate participation as two complementary aspects of evaluating such agents: the former captures how agents recover from blocked work while preserving progress and communicating their limits, and the latter captures how their adaptation accounts for affected people, role boundaries, and the surrounding workflow. Yet both remain underexplored under accumulating challenge. We study 120 simulated healthcare trajectories across two generative AI models and twelve stakeholder-derived tasks under light, medium, and heavy challenge. We compare textual action plans, prompted internal assessments, and quantitative structured workload and affect reports to examine how agent behavior and reported state change as challenge accumulates. Regarding operational resilience, agents shift from self-directed recovery toward greater human dependence, while reporting increasing workload and negative affect in structured reports but seldom expressing strain in textual responses. Regarding considerate participation, agents broaden from task-focused adaptation toward task reframing, attention to others, role-boundary adjustment, and wider coordination, with distinct patterns across actions and internal assessments. From these findings, we derive five deployment dilemmas involving persistence, attention, role boundaries, state disclosure, and escalation that require stakeholder specification, further informing technical implications for learning, situated evaluation, and embodied adaptation.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to transform work, but less is known about how firms reorganize labor demand as the technology diffuses. Existing research has largely focused on which occupations are exposed to AI or whether exposed jobs decline. We extend this debate by examining whether firms adjust by changing where they hire, what jobs contain, or both. Using a nationwide dataset of job postings in the United States, covering all sectors of the economy, we construct a dynamic, posting-level measure of generative AI exposure with a two-stage large language model pipeline. The pipeline identifies the tasks described in each posting and classifies the extent to which generative AI can perform or assist them. We then decompose changes in aggregate exposure into two margins: reallocation of demand across jobs and redesign of tasks within jobs. We document three main findings. First, generative AI exposure is dynamic rather than fixed, changing substantially over time. Second, labor demand adjusts through both margins. Hiring reallocation explains the largest share of the aggregate decline in exposure, accounting for 52% on average, while within-job redesign becomes increasingly important, accounting for 39.5%. A complementary Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition shows that shifts in occupational composition account for about 90% of the exposure change attributable to observable job characteristics. Third, adjustment differs across the job ladder. Senior jobs adjust earlier and mainly through reallocation, whereas junior jobs adjust through a broader mix of reallocation, redesign, and their interaction. These findings suggest that labor-market adjustment to generative AI is a process of organizational reconfiguration, in which firms reshape both hiring demand and the task architecture of work.

Generative AI (GenAI) deployment in the workplace is accelerating rapidly. Nevertheless, questions of who adopts, who benefits, and who is left behind and why are still understudied. In this paper, we investigate these dynamics in the context of a multinational tech company transitioning from a legacy Human Resources (HR) search system to a GenAI-supported system, analyzing search log data, survey data (n=25), and ten semi-structured interviews. Our findings show that adoption depended on the fit between the GenAI system's design assumptions and employees' work positionalities (role, spoken language, tenure). Further, we find that employees' trust in GenAI answers was built through source-checking, comparison among systems, and seeking input from colleagues or HR when in doubt. Our contribution is twofold. First, we provide empirical evidence of workplace GenAI adoption during a live organizational transition, showing that adoption is influenced by factors such as situational fit, search literacy, and trust calibration. It is also further shaped by knowledge conditions such as the system's content quality, employee training, and guidance. Second, we translate these findings into design considerations for inclusive deployment and adoption in high-stakes environments such as HR. We argue that organizations should design systems considering the role and context-sensitive benefits they yield to different social groups. They also need to treat the organizational knowledge infrastructure as AI infrastructure to improve the accountability and usability of GenAI systems