Nearly one in four UK senior leaders, 23%, may be overstating how much they know about artificial intelligence, according to research by Emergn. The finding points to hidden knowledge gaps at the top of companies, where admitting uncertainty carries reputational cost. It matters because these same executives approve AI budgets, hiring criteria and automation priorities.
What Emergn found among UK senior leaders
The study describes discomfort with acknowledging gaps as a central driver. Around 38% of respondents believe their career prospects could suffer unless they significantly improve AI skills over the next year. That 12-month horizon turns AI literacy from a general development goal into a near-term employment risk. For owners, the signal is that leadership confidence in meetings may not reflect real understanding.
The pressure runs in both directions. While some leaders conceal gaps, 43% now value AI skills more highly than formal qualifications when assessing people. That preference reshapes recruitment and promotion logic, putting practical capability ahead of diplomas. The result is a paradox: executives demand AI competence from staff while doubting their own.
Anxiety forms the backdrop to the numbers. About one in five leaders, 22%, report feeling anxious or losing sleep over how quickly AI is changing their industry. An equal share, another 22%, say they feel out of their depth because of AI effects on their role. Emergn CEO Alex Adamopoulos linked this to role expectations, noting the difficulty of admitting a lack of understanding when a leader is expected to have answers.
What leadership AI gaps mean for companies
For firms adopting AI agents and process automation, weak leadership literacy slows decisions and distorts priorities. Project selection, risk assessment and vendor comparison all depend on managers who can distinguish workable use cases from marketing claims. Small companies feel this faster because one executive often approves tools and workflows directly, while large firms spread the risk across committees but face slower alignment.
The training picture remains incomplete and responsibility is unresolved. Only 43% of senior leaders say they received substantial AI training over the past 12 months, leaving a majority without structured support. The report leaves open whether upskilling should sit with IT teams, HR or the executives themselves. Until ownership is assigned, budgets for learning risk staying fragmented and tied to isolated tool demos.
The marker to watch is whether leadership training shifts toward daily work problems over the next year. Emergn argues programs should help employees solve tasks they actually encounter, with leaders learning openly alongside staff. If the share of executives reporting substantial training rises above the current 43% and hiring keeps weighting AI skills over degrees, the gap will narrow. If not, bluffing will remain a business risk.
