AI at Work: What Companies Owe Their People | Part 1

Edited for clarity and readability.

Michael Peregrin: It’s more than punching a time clock or filling out a timesheet. There’s something broader about work that relates to the dignity of people.

Nicole Lobdell: Work gives us more than a paycheck. It’s where we build relationships, develop skills, and find a purpose. So when companies announce that AI is changing their workforce, the questions are personal: What happens to my job? And who’s thinking about the people affected?

I’m Nicole Lobdell, and this is HR Current from Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Through August 2026, employers had cited AI in 116,175 announced job cuts—about 22% of all cuts tracked by Challenger, and the leading reason for the year to date.

That’s the backdrop to our conversation with corporate governance adviser Michael Peregrin, whom you just heard. Colleen Madden Blumenfeld spoke with him about the board’s responsibility as AI changes work. We’re revisiting that interview with some additional context along the way.

Today, we’re focusing on worker dignity: how the commitments companies make to their people carry through into decisions about their jobs. You can watch the full interview through the link in the episode description.

Before we join Colleen, a little context about the people Michael is addressing. In a public company, shareholders elect a board of directors to oversee the business and hold its leadership accountable. Michael’s argument is that AI makes their attention to the workforce even more important.

Colleen’s questions draw on his writing about that expanding role, including an article for Columbia Law School’s Blue Sky Blog. Here’s Colleen.

Worker dignity and the board’s role

Colleen Madden Blumenfeld: Michael, you cite Pope Leo’s encyclical on safeguarding the human person in the times of artificial intelligence, bringing dignity and social justice directly into the boardroom conversation.

That’s a striking move for a corporate governance piece. Why plant that flag now? And how do you translate dignity into something a human capital committee could actually operationalize?

Nicole Lobdell: In May 2026, Pope Leo XIV released his first encyclical, or formal teaching letter. This one addresses human dignity in the age of artificial intelligence. Michael draws a connection between that concern and the responsibilities companies already have toward their workforce.

Michael Peregrin: Well, Colleen, let me start off with a disclaimer: I’m not Catholic. I’m an Episcopalian.

But I do think, from a governance perspective, that the question of the dignity of labor is really one of the big-picture issues floating around the intersection of AI and corporate governance that boards and their human capital committees—not just their tech committees—are going to have to deal with as technology emerges.

To answer your question in particular, I like to start with the fundamental premise that human capital committees, as we know them now, are really going to be pushed to take a whole new look at the way they oversee their workforce, given the developments that you cite. The dignity issue, even though it’s been raised by religious leaders, is important.

Nicole Lobdell: He starts with what work means to people.

Michael Peregrin: Their view is that work is more than an instrument, but a vehicle of what they call social justice. It’s the vehicle through which the dignity of lives is expressed. It’s through work that we develop so many dimensions of our existence.

Nicole Lobdell: Michael is careful about the distinction here. He says religious teaching doesn’t carry the power of law for corporations. What interests him is where its concern for dignity meets the values companies have chosen to put in writing.

Michael Peregrin: I think first are the moral considerations that the leaders are raising and how they relate to the mission, vision, and values that companies set forth.

Go to a website. I’m sure Challenger Gray has one. SullivanCotter has one. What they say about what we’re there for, what they say about their employees—it usually contains special commitments to employee well-being and treating employees with dignity and respect.

Nicole Lobdell: Those statements give employees an expectation of how they’ll be treated. Michael wants boards to examine whether the decisions match.

Bringing HR into decisions early

Nicole Lobdell: That question has to reach the people making the decision while there’s still an opportunity to shape it. Colleen raised what she hears from chief human resources officers.

Colleen Madden Blumenfeld: We work with CHROs every day, and many are telling us that they’re brought in after a decision has already been made.

Michael Peregrin: Again, they should be raising up and saying, “Let’s carve out a specific role here.” That’s the most critical issue, because you’ve identified the major problem.

When I was a lawyer, that was always the same thing: Come to me when you’ve already done it. I can’t help you that much in that case.

Nicole Lobdell: For Michael, it’s about giving workforce concerns a place in the decision itself. He describes the reaction a director might have on discovering a major layoff after the fact.

Michael Peregrin: What? We don’t have any say on this? I wake up in the morning, I see my company, of which I’m a director, has just laid off 10% of its workforce. Why didn’t I hear about this?

Nicole Lobdell: His point is that the board and management need an agreed role for the board in major workforce changes. That creates room to consider the people affected before the announcement goes out.

Communicating workforce changes

Nicole Lobdell: And the announcement itself matters. Colleen asked how involved the board should be in what executives say about people’s jobs.

Colleen Madden Blumenfeld: We’ve all seen the headlines. Should the human capital committee be reviewing executive communications before they go public? And if so, how do you keep that from becoming too many cooks in the kitchen? How do you keep a bottleneck from occurring?

Michael Peregrin: When the company decides to use its corporate social voice to weigh in on key matters, the board has to have some kind of role in saying, “I’m sorry, but experience shows that CEOs without good input kind of mess this up.”

We’ve got trust issues in place. We’ve got workforce culture issues in place. We’re going to anger our consumers. So at some point, there has to be a board lean-in.

The board or the human capital committee, the communications firm, and the executive—we’ve got to work together. The risks to the organization are way too great for some kind of half-cocked statement that’s insensitive, or doesn’t say the right thing, or doesn’t communicate not only to the external community but to its workers as well. There’s just way too much at risk.

What happens to employee loyalty?

Nicole Lobdell: This reaches the employees who stay, too. They hear what leadership says and see what happens to colleagues. Colleen and Michael talked about what that can do to loyalty.

Michael Peregrin: As you just said, when employees think that AI is coming for them, there’s a switch that’s triggered: Am I part of the organization? Do I pull for it? Do I feel part of the fiber, or is this just a job?

I’m giving my all to it. The company is actively considering replacing me with a robot, something like that.

That’s not a legal concern; that’s a practical concern, because that is the thought process. We all know employees who are doing that. They’re worried: If AI is coming for me, why should I give my all to the company?

Nicole Lobdell: That’s a concern about the relationship between a company and its employees. Michael argues that retaining people’s commitment deserves attention alongside retaining senior leadership.

Michael Peregrin: We preach in corporate governance the need to retain quality executives. This is the next level down. We need to retain the loyalty and the commitment of our employees as a valued asset of the business.

If we are simultaneously sending the messages that you’re going to be replaced by technology, or your role is going to change to simply supervising the work of robots, they’re going to say, “See you later.”

Questions boards should be asking

Nicole Lobdell: So how would a board know that trust is slipping? Michael suggests looking at what employees are actually experiencing. These are some of the questions he wants leaders asking.

Michael Peregrin: Are we sending proper communications and realistic communications to the employees?

What are we hearing about meaningful employee training and education?

What are our employee surveys telling us? Are our managers going out onto the floors and asking people directly?

What are we seeing about voluntary departures from employees?

Are we having problems filling open positions, and is that attributed to a bad rep?

Are we making a lot of mistakes with our AI decisions that are going to undermine employees’ confidence in the company to make those decisions?

Nicole Lobdell: That brings dignity into the way a company listens, communicates, and supports people through change. The answers can reveal whether the experience of working there still reflects its stated values.

Near the end of the conversation, Michael described how significant this work has become for boards.

Michael Peregrin: We’ve historically thought in the corporate governance world that the two most complicated and difficult committees to serve on would be executive compensation and audit. I don’t think there’s any question now that the human capital committee gets added to that.

That’s where you’ve got to be careful. You want experts on that committee. You also want a good level of diversity and subject-matter expertise. But you want people who have the time and the vision to address these issues.

Closing

Nicole Lobdell: That’s where we’ll leave Part One. Michael is asking boards to make the treatment of people part of how they judge an AI transition. That means paying attention before decisions are made, to the way they’re communicated, and to what employees experience afterward.

Expect us to return to the conversation and follow the money: what companies are promising, what they’re funding, and how boards can check the results.

Coming out October 1 is the September Challenger Report.

You’ll find the full Michael Peregrin interview and the references from today’s episode in the description. Please like this episode and subscribe to HR Current. If you listen in a podcast app, tap Follow.

If you have ideas for future topics or questions for our hosts, please email us at challengercontentstudio@challengergray.com.

I’m Nicole Lobdell. Thanks for listening.