Employees Who Write About AI Rate Their Companies Lower, and Senior Leadership Much Lower

AIDE Institute analyzed 507,878 Glassdoor reviews of S&P 500 companies filed between January 2024 and June 2026. Employees who mention AI rate their employer 0.42 stars lower than coworkers at the same company who do not, and confidence in senior leadership shows the widest gap of any category measured.

The report, Employee Trust in the Age of Corporate AI, covers 4,278 AI-related reviews across 497 companies. Among the 84 companies with enough AI-related reviews to measure reliably, AI-related reviews were rated lower at 84.5% of them.

Senior leadership takes the biggest hit

The sharpest divide was not about the technology. It was about the people leading the transition. Among employees whose reviews spoke negatively about AI, confidence in senior leadership averaged 2.04 out of 5. Among those who spoke positively about it, the same measure averaged 3.34 – a gap of 1.30 points, wider than pay, work-life balance, or culture.

When employees react negatively to AI, they are often not just judging the technology itself. They are judging the people leading the transition: whether there is a credible plan, whether it has been clearly explained, and whether leadership can actually deliver on what it has promised. The category that suffers most is trust in management.

That pattern suggests employee reactions to AI may work as an early indicator of broader confidence in management, rather than simply a measure of enthusiasm or resistance toward the technology.

The trust penalty tracks the say-do gap

The Institute paired the reviews with the AIDE Index, which uses public evidence – patents, job postings, earnings calls, annual reports, executive profiles – to measure separately how much a company talks about AI and how much it has actually deployed. On the AIDE Matrix, AI visionaries are companies whose talk about AI outpaces their execution. Stealth adopters are the opposite.

Sorting AI-related reviews by AIDE designation produces a clear result.

At companies where leadership promoted a bold AI agenda that was not yet matched by visible execution, 27.5% of AI-related reviews were negative. Where strong ambition was paired with visible execution, the negative share was 12.6%, less than half as high. Companies that built quietly, with less leadership fanfare, recorded the lowest negative share of all at 7.2%.

The data does not suggest that employees punish companies for being ambitious about AI. They punish the gap between what leadership says and what employees can actually see changing in the business. That gap is ultimately paid for in trust.

What this means for executives, boards and investors

• Treat AI sentiment as a leadership signal. A rise in negative AI commentary is a read on management credibility, not on employee appetite for new tools.
• Close the say-do gap before you widen the narrative. Ambition paired with visible execution carried less than half the negative share of ambition alone.
• Make execution legible internally. Quiet builders scored best because employees could see change in the work, not only in the announcements.
• Watch it as execution risk. For boards and investors, workforce AI sentiment offers an early read on whether an AI narrative is translating into visible results. Compare your position on the AIDE Index rankings.

How the analysis was done

The analysis identified 4,278 AI-related reviews across 497 companies using a 125-term AI vocabulary and an individual review of employee-written content. Glassdoor sub-ratings are optional, and categories a reviewer left unrated are treated as missing rather than counted as zero. Glassdoor reviews are self-selected public comments, so the findings show associations rather than proof that AI caused lower ratings. More on how we measure is in our methodology and data and research hub.

Frequently asked questions

Do employees who mention AI rate their employers lower?

Yes. Across 84 S&P 500 companies with enough AI-related reviews to measure reliably, employees who mentioned AI rated their employer an average of 0.42 stars lower out of five than coworkers at the same company who did not mention it. AI-related reviews were lower at 84.5% of those companies.

Which workplace category suffers most when employees are negative about AI?

Confidence in senior leadership. It averaged 2.04 out of 5 among employees who spoke negatively about AI and 3.34 among those who spoke positively, a 1.30-point gap that is wider than pay, work-life balance, or culture.

Does being ambitious about AI hurt employee trust?

Not on its own. Companies pairing strong AI ambition with visible execution saw 12.6% of AI-related reviews turn negative, compared with 27.5% at companies whose AI talk outpaced execution. Companies building quietly recorded the lowest negative share at 7.2%.

How many reviews were analyzed and over what period?

507,878 Glassdoor reviews of S&P 500 companies filed between January 2024 and June 2026, from which 4,278 AI-related reviews across 497 companies were identified using a 125-term AI vocabulary.

Can employee AI sentiment predict company performance?

The report does not claim prediction. Glassdoor reviews are self-selected public comments, so the findings show associations rather than causation. The Institute's position is that AI sentiment is best used as an early read on management credibility and execution risk, alongside other evidence.