75% of Knowledge Workers Use AI. Only 39% Got Trained

By Grace Kim

Three-quarters of surveyed knowledge workers were already using AI in 2024, but only 39% of AI users had received any training from their employers. That figure comes from Microsoft and LinkedIn's 2024 Work Trend Index, and it frames a growing problem one Entrepreneur contributor calls the Human Capacity Gap: the disconnect between advancing technology and the development of the people expected to use it.

The gap is measurable from several angles. The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025 estimates that 59% of workers will require training by 2030. McKinsey's 2025 global AI survey adds a structural dimension: only 21% of respondents at organizations using generative AI said their companies had fundamentally redesigned at least some workflows.

The takeaway in plain words: companies are buying the technology faster than they're building the people who run it.

Who owns the capability question?

Companies employ executives accountable for finance, technology, operations and human resources. The article's argument is that nobody owns a narrower, sharper question: who is responsible for ensuring employees become more capable over time — not just better trained today, but more adaptable, more resilient and better equipped for tomorrow's challenges?

The proposed answer is a new executive mandate: the Chief Human Capacity Officer, or CHCO. The author is careful about scope. As the piece puts it: "The argument isn't that every business needs another executive title. It's that Human Capacity Development must become a strategic priority with measurable accountability."

Isn't this already the CHRO's job?

Fair question, the author concedes. Strong Chief Human Resources Officers and Chief Learning Officers already run talent development, leadership programs, workforce planning and organizational effectiveness. Many are actively leading AI-related workforce transformation right now.

The CHCO concept doesn't duplicate that work. It sharpens the mandate around one measurable outcome: whether employees are becoming better thinkers, stronger leaders, more adaptable collaborators and more effective decision-makers. Traditional HR metrics — retention, engagement, training completion — remain valuable, but an organization can retain people and deliver extensive training without actually improving those capabilities.

The structure matters less than the accountability. A CHRO may be best positioned to take it on. A Chief Learning Officer could lead with business executives as partners. Larger organizations might eventually create a dedicated CHCO role.

What would a CHCO actually do?

The article sketches three priorities for a human capacity mandate.

• Anticipate future capabilities. Look beyond current job requirements toward how AI, automation and changing customer expectations will reshape work — with critical thinking, judgment, adaptability and communication weighted alongside technical skills.
• Strengthen managers as multipliers. Managers translate strategy into daily employee experience. Their ability to coach, navigate disagreement and develop talent determines whether organizational capability improves or deteriorates.
• Measure meaningful outcomes. Track whether employees show stronger judgment, adapt to new workflows, build leadership readiness and sustain performance without chronic overload — as a complement to existing HR and business metrics, not a replacement.

The article offers a concrete example: when introducing AI into customer service, leadership shouldn't measure success solely through faster response times. It should also examine whether employees are getting better at resolving complex problems, exercising judgment and building customer trust.

That's the difference, the author writes, between implementing technology and developing human capacity.

Why experience should appreciate, not depreciate

Companies routinely describe employees as their greatest asset. The article pushes the logic one step further: if that's true, the asset should appreciate over time.

Consider a 50-year-old manager with decades of institutional knowledge, customer relationships and industry experience. When that manager adds AI proficiency, stronger judgment and greater adaptability, technology can multiply the value of accumulated experience rather than render it obsolete.

But appreciation isn't automatic. Experience becomes either an advantage or a limitation depending on whether development continues — which is why the author argues Human Capacity Development must extend beyond onboarding, annual compliance training and succession planning into a career-long investment.

The so-what

The future of work won't be decided solely by which companies acquire the most sophisticated AI, the article argues. It will also depend on which organizations develop people capable of using that technology wisely — and every leadership team should be able to answer one straightforward question: how much more capable are our people because they work here?

With 59% of the workforce needing retraining by 2030 and barely a fifth of gen-AI adopters redesigning workflows, that question is moving from philosophical to operational.