Over the past few months, I’ve had several conversations with candidates at a range of levels who have raised concerns about how AI is impacting their current workload and working life. When someone leaves, they’re not always being replaced. Instead, teams are being told to “see what can be automated” or to explore what AI might take on before a new hire is approved. On paper that sounds efficient, and we should embrace AI (it’s not going anywhere), but I haven’t seen many people talk about the impact this could have on DE&I.  

Entry-level opportunities will be the first to be impacted and we’ve already seen this taking place. And because diversity often needs to be addressed as a grassroots issue, we rely heavily on these roles to help shape a workforce that reflects the communities we work in and speak to. These roles are the gateway into the industry. When they vanish, it disproportionately affects candidates from underrepresented and lower socio-economic backgrounds. Replacing or automating that work might make commercial sense in the short term, but it risks deepening the equity gap. Without consistent investment in early-career pathways, we’re not just losing diversity- we’re losing future leaders who bring new thinking, broader perspectives, and a more authentic connection to clients and audiences.

In London’s communications and public affairs agencies, AI is already being used to automate research, reporting and even content creation. That’s a good thing in many ways, as it can make work more efficient and free people up to focus on higher-value tasks. But when AI becomes the default answer to cost-cutting, we risk sidelining the very people who make agencies thrive. Entry-level staff are no longer doing the traditional “gruntwork,” which means we need to be more deliberate about what they do learn and how. Mentorship and progression pathways matter more than ever. As one senior agency lead put it recently, the danger isn’t that AI takes junior jobs - it’s that without the right support, juniors won’t develop the strategic thinking and soft skills they need to become tomorrow’s Directors.

With fewer entry-level hires coming through, the natural progression of teams begins to stall. When agencies flatten structures and lean more heavily on AI, they’re also creating fewer mid and senior roles over time, simply because there are fewer people moving up the ranks. This creates a shrinking pipeline that doesn’t just affect diversity, but it also undermines long-term leadership development altogether. Let’s not forget that the PR industry still struggles with representation at the top. Last year’s CIPR report revealed that nine out of 10 directors in the UK PR industry are white. Without a consistent flow of junior talent coming in, and being supported to grow, how can we guarantee the change that’s needed?

We’re at risk of making short-term decisions that will have long-term consequences. Agencies that navigate this well will be the ones that use AI as an enabler, not a substitute: supporting their teams, investing in a range of talent, and protecting the relationships and culture that sit at the heart of their business. Because when we start replacing people instead of supporting them, we don’t just lose headcount. We also lose creativity, culture, and connection – all the factors that make agencies one of the best places to learn and work!

And this is where the question becomes harder to ignore: if AI is quietly reshaping how agencies hire, train and grow talent, are we also quietly accepting a future that is less diverse than the one we’ve been working towards? Because this isn’t just about entry-level roles disappearing in isolation, it’s about what happens three, five, ten years down the line when there simply isn’t a broad, diverse cohort of talent ready to step into mid and senior positions. If the pipeline narrows now, the leadership gap will continue to widen.

Who gets a seat at the table when the entry point disappears? Who gets the opportunity to learn the fundamentals, build confidence, and be visible early in their career? And critically, who doesn’t? If those early opportunities become more limited, they’re far more likely to be filled through existing networks, referrals, or those who already have proximity to the industry (which we know already lacks diversity). Without intentional intervention, AI risks reinforcing the same homogeneous leadership profiles we’ve been trying to move away from.

We also need to ask what kind of leaders we’re creating in an AI-shaped model. If fewer people are coming through the ranks, and those who do aren’t getting the same breadth of experience, are we setting up a future where leadership is not only less diverse, but also less prepared? Diversity isn’t just about representation, it’s about the range of thinking, lived experience and challenge that drives better decisions. Without that, agencies risk becoming more insular at the very moment they need to be more connected to the world around them.

So the real concern isn’t just whether AI creates efficiency, it’s whether it quietly erodes the very foundation that diverse leadership is built on. If we don’t protect and reimagine those early pathways now, we’re not just limiting access today, we’re defining who leads tomorrow. And if that future leadership looks very similar to the past, despite all the progress and intent, then we have to ask: will AI have accelerated innovation in our work, while simultaneously setting DEI back a decade?

‍