This is the weekly Work Life newsletter. If you are interested in more careers-related content, sign up to receive it in your inbox.

 
 

School may be out for the summer, but the conversation around artificial intelligence in education is heating up.

 
 

Joe Castaldo, a Globe and Mail reporter covering AI and technology, recently joined The Decibel podcast to discuss how AI may be dulling students’ critical thinking skills and answer the question, “What are we losing when we rely too much on AI?”
 
 

To set the scene, Mr. Castaldo retold a story from Swiss business professor Michael Gerlich: Mr. Gerlich was sitting in a university auditorium behind a student who was using ChatGPT during a lecture to generate questions that the student would go on to ask the guest speaker. The problem was they were questions the speaker had already extensively answered. “The student wasn’t even paying attention,” Mr. Castaldo says. It’s one small example of a growing trend that sparked a study by Mr. Gerlich.
 
 

Mr. Gerlich surveyed more than 600 students to explore the connection between AI usage and critical thinking. “He found the higher somebody’s AI use, the lower their critical thinking skills,” Mr. Castaldo says. “And it was most pronounced for younger people, like under 25.”
 
 

While the study didn’t prove causation, it raises flags among educators. Some professors reported seeing students who couldn’t make even basic academic decisions without consulting AI.

 
 
 

However, it’s not just students leaning on AI, knowledge workers are too. According to a survey by workplace technology platform OwlLabs and Pulse, nearly 67 per cent of companies are using AI and 46 per cent of employees report they’re either heavily using AI at work or somewhat reliant on it.

 
 

This surge brings a cost. A study by Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon surveyed 319 knowledge workers and found the more confident someone was in AI’s abilities, the less critical thinking they reported.

 
 

The survey revealed a few motivational barriers that cause workers to opt-out of critical thinking, including:

 
 
  • Time pressure: Many workers reported that their job performance is measured by output volume or speed, which limits the time available to reflect critically on AI-generated results. For example, sales professionals cited daily quotas that discourage deep engagement.
  • Misaligned job incentives: Some participants said their role didn’t reward or expect critical thinking around AI output. For instance, they relied on other team members to verify or revise AI-generated content.
  • Task priorities: Workers deprioritized critical thinking if it was seen as outside the immediate goal of the task or irrelevant to their core responsibilities.
  • Reliance on AI to save time: Even when not under immediate time pressure, some participants used AI to accelerate work and viewed reflection as counterproductive to efficiency.
 
 

These barriers contribute to a broader pattern: even well-intentioned or capable knowledge workers may opt out of critical engagement when organizational structures or task demands don’t support it.
 
 

Microsoft’s research suggests that without motivating workers to critique outputs, AI tools tend to shift cognition from production to oversight — and that can be a slippery slope.
 
 

“It’s not that the tools themselves are bad, it’s how we use them. We can use them in good, effective ways, but a lot of that comes down to the individual’s motivation,” Mr. Castaldo says.
 
 

From boardrooms to classrooms, the real test will be how leaders cultivate environments where AI challenges us, not just does things for us.
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

76 per cent
 
 

That’s how many employers are already using some kind of personality and skills tests in assessing job candidates, according to a recent report from TestGorilla.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Many hiring managers have been faced with the same challenge: when a new role pops up that demands new skills, do they recruit new talent or retain and retrain the people already on the team?
 
 

This article says that the classic “50-per-cent rule,” popularized by Robert Townsend, still holds weight – especially in today’s fast-moving skills landscape. The rule advises giving proven internal candidates a shot, even if they only meet half the job’s requirements. The missing piece? Support. With mentorship and a strong learning culture, employees can grow into roles while boosting retention and engagement.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

“This stage of life has largely been ignored. That’s an injustice that we need to change, particularly when you think about not just the impact to one’s own personal health, but the impact to the economy and to society over all. This is an issue that demands urgent attention and action,” says Janet Ko, co-founder of the Menopause Foundation of Canada.

 
 

In this article, The Globe explores how the lack of menopause awareness and support doesn’t only affect women at work, but the broader economy. It also covers some of the positive changes we’ve seen at Canadian workplaces and how we can create more inclusive, productive workplaces.