Ky Holland, August 1, 2026

AI Isn’t Just Changing Jobs. It May Change How We Develop Future Leaders.

Much of today’s conversation about artificial intelligence focuses on one question:

Which jobs will AI replace?

A recent MIT Technology Review article offers a helpful reality check. The data doesn’t yet support the idea of a widespread AI-driven employment collapse. While there are early signs of disruption in some entry-level knowledge work, the broader labor market has remained remarkably resilient. Perhaps most importantly, we still have time to prepare thoughtfully rather than react in panic.

But reading the article led me to a different question.

What if the biggest impact of AI isn’t eliminating jobs—but changing where people gain the experience that develops future managers, executives, entrepreneurs, and civic leaders?

The articles description of research repeatedly distinguishes between codified knowledge—the information we can learn from books or increasingly from AI—and tacit knowledge—the judgment that comes only through experience.

That distinction may become one of the defining workforce issues of the next decade.

If AI increasingly performs many of the routine, entry-level knowledge tasks that have traditionally launched professional careers, then the classic pipeline of:

Four-year degree → Entry-level office job → Experience → Management → Executive leadership

may begin to change.

Ironically, AI may increase—not decrease—the value of experience.

Knowledge becomes more accessible. Experience becomes more valuable.

That suggests a different pathway could emerge:

Career & Technical Education → Skilled employment → AI-augmented expertise → Team leadership → Management → Executive leadership.

The skilled trades, advanced manufacturing, healthcare, transportation, construction, energy, public safety, and other hands-on professions may become not only essential occupations, but also the primary incubators for future organizational leadership.

The apprenticeship may become the new internship.

This doesn’t diminish the importance of higher education.

Instead, it may change when higher education occurs.

Rather than expecting many (more than we need, but that’s a different discussion) to complete four or more years of education before entering meaningful work, we may increasingly build careers through a lifelong sequence of learning.

One model I’ve been thinking about is a true 2+2+2 pathway I helped develop in Alaska over 20 years ago working at UAA and teaching and advising students in the Apprenticeship Technologies and Bachelor of Science in Technology that linked associate degrees and recognized apprentice/journey status training to a BS, and then to the CTE education Masters degree program. More generally this looks like:

• First 2 years: Earn an associate, technical degree, military technical training or apprenticeships that leads directly to employment.
• Second 2 years (later in a career): Build seamlessly on those credits and experience to complete a bachelor’s degree—without starting over or losing credit or standing from the first years of education.
• Final 2+ years (when appropriate): Continue into graduate education, leadership, or specialized professional study.

The key is that each stage builds on the last. Education becomes cumulative, flexible, and aligned with career growth rather than requiring people to step away from work or abandon previous credentials.

This could fundamentally change how states invest in education and workforce development.

Instead of asking whether Career & Technical Education is an alternative to college or a optional education program cut when education finances are limited, we should ask whether it is becoming the front door to higher education, lifelong learning, and leadership development.

If that’s true, our priorities may shift toward:

• Universal access to high-quality CTE beginning in high school, or before with career awareness in K-5, career exploration in 6-9, and career preparation in 10-12. (An idea older than I am! But still saying it makes it seem new and progressive.)
• Stackable credentials that connect certificates, associate degrees, bachelor’s degrees, and graduate education.
• Apprenticeships that extend beyond the trades into healthcare, technology, manufacturing, business, and public service including Muncipal and community management. (We really don’t need to keep employing people from the southeast United States running our cities in rural Alaska do we!?)
• Employers that become long-term education partners rather than simply hiring graduates.
• Universities designed to educate working adults throughout their careers—not just recent high school graduates. (Kudos to UAx and APU that are already doing a great job of offering working adult friendly programs and schedules.)

For Alaska, this possibility is especially compelling.

Our economy depends on industries where judgment, teamwork, problem-solving, customer relationships, and field experience remain enormously valuable. We have an opportunity to build a workforce system that prepares young Alaskans to enter meaningful careers earlier, earn while they learn, continue advancing their education over time, and ultimately develop into the next generation of business, community, and public leaders.

I don’t know whether this is exactly how the future unfolds.

But I suspect we may spend too much time asking how AI changes work, and not enough time asking how it changes the development of people.

That may prove to be the more important question.

---

For those interested, I found this MIT Technology Review article to be a thoughtful, data-driven starting point for the discussion:

“A Reality Check on the AI Jobs Hysteria” by David Rotman https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/05/26/1137855/a-reality-check-on-the-ai-jobs-hysteria/

Ky