UK workers are planning to change jobs at a rate far above the global average, as stagnant pay, fears over automation and a lack of career progression drive a collapse in confidence that employers are struggling to recognise. According to Morgan McKinley’s Global 2026 Workplace Trends Report, 59% of UK employees intend to look for a new role in the next six months, compared with 49% of workers worldwide. The gap is even starker on job security: only 22% of UK staff feel secure in their current position, against 30% globally.
Why UK workers are losing confidence
Beneath those headline figures lies a deeper picture of anxiety rooted in concrete economic pressures. Labour market data shows the UK unemployment rate has risen to 5.2%, its highest level in several years, while job vacancies have fallen below 700,000 for the first time since the pandemic. Average earnings growth has slowed to a five‑year low of 3.8% in the three months to January 2026, and real wage growth – once inflation is accounted for – stands at just 0.1%. Early pay deals in 2026 are clustering around 3%, suggesting further restraint ahead.
The cost‑of‑living squeeze remains acute. Separate surveys indicate that 59% of UK workers are worried their pay will not keep up with rising costs, while 92% are concerned about the country entering a recession in 2026. That pervasive economic insecurity is translating directly into job‑seeking behaviour. Nearly eight in ten UK employees (79%) say they are worried about losing their job this year, a marked increase in anxiety compared with 2025.
For many, the immediate trigger is a perceived lack of reward and recognition. Morgan McKinley’s report found that globally nearly 70% of employees have not received a salary increase in the past six months – up from 65% a year earlier. In the UK, a lack of career progression is cited as the single most common reason for leaving a job, with 85% of employees naming it as a factor. At the same time, 56% of employees worldwide say their employer is not investing enough in their professional development, at a moment when demand for AI and data skills has become the top development priority, cited by 70% of respondents.
Restructuring and automation are also fuelling the drift. Morgan McKinley reports that 37% of employees believe their role could be affected by restructuring, automation or cost‑cutting measures. If they felt their job was at risk, 85% would start applying for new roles and 64% would develop new skills or certifications. This readiness to move is reflected in the UK’s annual employee turnover rate of around 34%, with the average cost of replacing a departing employee estimated at £30,614.
How AI is reshaping the job market
Artificial intelligence is playing a dual role in the current unease. On one hand, employees are increasingly using AI to find new opportunities: 43% of workers globally now employ AI or automation tools in their job search, up from 26% in 2025. On the other hand, there is significant discomfort with AI in recruitment. Morgan McKinley found that 46% of employees globally are uncomfortable with AI being used to assess interview performance. In the UK, seven in ten large organisations already use AI for screening, and 75% of job applications never reach a human recruiter. Younger workers are particularly wary: 36% of those aged 17–25 would consider withdrawing an application if they felt an organisation relied too heavily on AI.
The technology is also reshaping roles themselves. Routine and administrative positions are most exposed to automation, and while AI adoption has not yet resulted in large‑scale job replacement across the UK, it has been linked to slower wage growth in affected occupations. Some firms have explicitly tied workforce reductions to increased AI use. A separate survey of UK tech leaders found that 52% reported an AI skills gap in 2025, while adaptability has emerged as the biggest capability deficit in the UK workforce, with 47% of employees lacking the ability to pivot as roles change. Only 28% of organisations have equipped their people to use AI effectively, leaving many to self‑learn.
The impact on younger entrants is stark: graduate roles have fallen 45% year‑on‑year, partly as a result of employers using AI to handle tasks previously assigned to new hires. Projections suggest demand for AI‑related skills could reach 3.9 million jobs by 2035, but the current supply of qualified workers is unlikely to keep pace.
A widening gap between employer plans and employee reality
Despite the anxiety gripping the workforce, many employers appear to be planning for stability. Morgan McKinley’s report notes that 63% of employers globally say they have no planned headcount reductions for 2026. Yet only 43% of employees describe themselves as secure or very secure in their current role. That disconnect is particularly acute in the UK, where the proportion of workers feeling secure (22%) is eight percentage points below the global average.
Mark Astbury, Director at Morgan McKinley, described the gap as the most striking finding for the UK. “Many organisations are planning for stability, but employees are reading the signals around pay, progression, AI and job security very differently,” he said. “The findings show a workforce that is alert to change. People are not necessarily panicking, but they are preparing. If pay is flat, if roles are changing and if AI is being introduced without clear explanation, employees will naturally ask where they stand and whether their future is better protected somewhere else.”
This fluidity is compounded by a job market that feels increasingly contradictory. While employers in sectors such as construction, education, manufacturing and digital technology report persistent skills shortages – with the “missing middle” of qualifications at levels 4 and 5 a particular concern – job seekers themselves are experiencing fewer visible opportunities, more competitive application processes and longer hiring cycles. The net effect is that employees feel simultaneously uncertain about their current role and anxious about the prospects of finding a better one.
What employers must do differently
Astbury’s advice is blunt: employers cannot rely on stable headcount plans alone to retain people. “When employees are uncertain about their future, they do not simply wait and see. They start exploring alternatives. Employers that communicate clearly, invest in skills and career development, and provide confidence around change will be in a much stronger position to hold on to their people.” He added: “Retention is no longer just about staffing levels. It is about whether people believe there is a future for them in the organisation. Employers that are clear on pay, honest about change and serious about skills will be in a much stronger position than those relying on stability alone.”
Effective retention strategies are increasingly multi‑faceted. They combine competitive pay with flexible working arrangements, clear career pathways, managerial training and a supportive culture. The quality of direct line management accounts for up to 70% of variance in team engagement, meaning poor management remains a significant driver of departures. With the cost of replacing an employee averaging more than £30,000, particularly for SMEs, the financial case for getting retention right is as strong as the cultural one.
On AI, employers also face a compliance imperative. As AI becomes embedded in recruitment, organisations must ensure their use of the technology complies with UK GDPR and anti‑discrimination laws, addressing concerns about algorithmic bias and the lack of human oversight that many workers find unsettling.
The message from the data is that UK workers are not simply drifting – they are making calculated decisions based on a series of unmet expectations. Stagnant pay, limited progression, uncertain career paths and an accelerating AI transition have created a workforce that is simultaneously more skilled and more sceptical. For employers, the window to act is narrow: those that fail to address the confidence gap now may find themselves losing talent they cannot afford to replace.
