---
id: "claim-employee-willingness"
type: "claim"
source_timestamps: ["§ Employees Want to Reskill—When It Makes Sense"]
tags: ["employee-sentiment", "program-design"]
related: ["contrarian-employees-want-reskilling", "concept-destination-roles"]
confidence: "high"
testable: true
speakers: ["Jorge Tamayo", "Leila Doumi", "Sagar Goel", "Orsolya Kovács-Ondrejkovic", "Raffaella Sadun"]
sources: ["reskilling"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-reskilling"
originDay: 10
articleStem: "hbr-edu-34-reskilling-in-age-of-ai"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2023/09/reskilling-in-the-age-of-ai"
sourceTitle: "Reskilling in the Age of AI"
---
# Employees are highly willing to reskill if programs are designed well

**Claim (confidence: high, testable).** Contrary to OECD ([[entity-oecd]]) reports suggesting low worker participation in standard training, BCG ([[entity-bcg-d34]]) data shows **68% of workers are aware of coming disruptions and are willing to reskill**.

The authors argue the barrier is not lack of desire but *poorly designed programs*. Employees will eagerly participate if they are treated as partners, understand the rationale, and if the program minimizes personal cost and risk — e.g., guaranteeing outcomes, covering tuition upfront, or clearly defining [[concept-destination-roles|destination roles]]. This grounds the contrarian view [[contrarian-employees-want-reskilling]] and the "design a product employees like" ethos of [[quote-employee-product]].

**Enrichment note.** The 68% figure is BCG survey-based and should be cited as such (not an OECD statistic). Qualitatively strong: policy/industry research consistently attributes the willing-but-not-participating gap to cost, time, relevance, and risk. Counter-nuance: structural barriers (time constraints, financial pressure, care responsibilities, digital divides) limit participation even in well-designed programs, so **policy supports** (funding, leave, guidance) matter alongside employer program design.