Bankers say AI is not eating jobs, yet

Rumors that AI is killing jobs in banking are overblown, according to a new study. 

When Jack Dorsey, CEO of Block, announced that he was laying off half his company's staff due to use of artificial intelligence "paired with smaller and flatter teams," many assumed other financial companies would follow suit.

But in American Banker's AI Talent Shift Survey 2026, released Wednesday, only 3% of bankers said AI has led to workforce reductions at their firms. The impact of AI has mostly been positive, according to the 206 bank executive respondents: 28% said AI is leading to efficiency gains and 12% cited role augmentations. Only 4% said AI has had a negative effect, such as layoffs or decreased morale.

This optimistic view suggests that AI is changing roles and making people more productive, but hasn't caused job losses.

But the research also suggests this situation may not last. The same bank executives expect significant headcount reductions at their organizations in the next 12 months. Among large national banks, which are the heaviest spenders on AI technology, 33% of the executives expect such headcount reductions in the next 12 months. At midsize and regional banks, 30% do.

Is the optimism warranted?

There may be a disconnect between perception and reality.

Several bank CEOs have recently warned of the possibility of AI-related layoffs.

In March, HSBC CEO Georges Elhedery said his bank would undergo an AI-driven multi-year restructuring that could result in 20,000 job cuts, or about 10% of the bank's global workforce, according to Bloomberg.

In JPMorganChase's annual report last year, CEO Jamie Dimon wrote that AI "may reduce certain job categories or roles." He said the bank would "aggressively retrain and redeploy our talent."

David Solomon, CEO of Goldman Sachs, told CNN at the end of last year that AI would cause "disruption" in jobs. "The need for some white-collar office jobs will be diminished, but they'll be picked up in other parts of the economy," he said.

Surjit Chana, a board member of Beneficial State Bank, a Harvard fellow and tech committee member at the Global Alliance for Banking on Values, predicts that a third of bank jobs will be fully automated within three years.

"As I look at some of the tasks and roles within a bank — the administration, the clerical roles — all of those roles are exposed," said Chana, who will be the guest on American Banker's podcast on April 14. "If you systematically look at what each individual does in a bank, a lot of that can be automated with AI."

The World Economic Forum has estimated that 92 million jobs will be displaced globally due to rising AI adoption and other factors, and 170 million jobs will be created. 

"These numbers are often cited reassuringly, but those aggregate numbers mask a distribution problem," Chana said. "The workers most exposed to displacement are those in routine administrative and clerical roles who often lack the financial buffers, professional networks and transferable skills to navigate the transition. The workers least exposed can be the ones who least need the protection if the transition isn't actively managed with genuine investment in reskilling, honest communication and workforce impact assessments."

Banks have a responsibility to understand what the likely implications of AI's rise will be for their workers and what roles will be impacted, said Chana, who is developing a moral architecture for AI in finance. He called on employers to provide the training and career paths necessary for people to progress. 

Bradley Leimer, founder and principal of Leimer One Advisors, noted that some companies have used AI as an excuse for workforce reductions that were really a result of overhiring, reduced profitability or other management issues.

"AI will eliminate some tasks," he told American Banker. "It will compress middle layers of management. It will automate portions of engineering, customer support, compliance review, and marketing production. But at scale, AI adoption tends to be gradual and workflow-driven, and should never ever be justification for cutting thousands of people across diverse roles."