On the surface, that appears reassuring. Yet more than half plan no further than 12 months ahead, and investment continues to tilt heavily towards technology rather than workforce capability. In most cases, confidence therefore reflects immediate responsiveness to pressure rather than sustained institutional resilience.
The APAC findings sit firmly within this global narrative, while sharpening many of its underlying tensions. Compared with their peers elsewhere in the world, employers in this region are more likely to experience strain in managing geopolitical and regulatory change, more exposed to execution barriers, such as data silos and fragmented governance, and more inclined towards short-term prioritisation. At the same time, they operate within highly diverse and often volatile national contexts, where regulatory divergence, demographic pressure, and uneven infrastructure maturity interact simultaneously. The result is a regional profile characterised less by complacency than by structural complexity, where gaps between ambition and delivery become particularly visible. As a result, the central question in APAC is rarely whether organisations understand the pressures they face: it is whether they can integrate and execute at the same speeds as those pressures evolve.
1. Confidence gaps and exposure to pace
APAC organisations report lower perceived preparedness than their global peers. 75% feel well prepared for AI and technology disruption, compared with 86% globally. The same gap appears across geopolitics and regulation at 76% versus 84%, workforce demographics at 82% versus 87%, and sustainability at 81% versus 90%. These figures point to a region that is acutely aware of exposure: confidence exists, but it is more qualified and more conditional than elsewhere.
Perceptions of pace reinforce this pattern. For AI and technology, 75% say the pace of change is manageable, compared with 79% globally, while 22% find it challenging. In geopolitics and regulation, only 68% view the pace as manageable and 30% find it challenging, versus 21% globally. The gap is therefore most visible in areas shaped by regulatory divergence, political tension, and shifting trade dynamics: as policy shifts, enforcement variability, and cross-border tensions constitute central features of the everyday environment, geopolitics and regulation increasingly appear to shape operating models to a greater extent in this region than elsewhere. Managing them often requires deeper coordination, greater oversight, and continuous adaptation.
Time horizons compound this exposure: 64% of APAC-based organisations prioritise short term results over long-term outcomes, compared with 52% globally, and only 18% actively prioritise long-term outcomes, versus 28% globally. Lower confidence is therefore paired with shorter planning cycles, suggesting that volatility is being absorbed tactically rather than structurally. The risk here is not inertia, but compression: decision-making becomes faster, yet more fragmented.
2. Execution strain and cross-functional fragmentation
A core conclusion of the report is that readiness depends less on awareness than on execution capacity. In APAC, this execution strain is particularly visible. 47% cite data silos as an obstacle to effective AI training and use, slightly above the global figure of 44%. 30% report weak cross-functional collaboration between HR, IT, operations and business units, compared with 28% globally. 46% highlight difficulty integrating AI into broader business strategy, placing APAC among the regions most likely to experience strategic misalignment between technology ambition and organisational delivery.
While small, these are not insignificant gaps: they describe organisations that have set direction, yet struggle to align systems, incentives, and governance around that trajectory. Multi-jurisdictional operations, uneven infrastructure maturity, and complex regulatory overlays increase the friction involved in aligning systems, governance, and accountability. The result, according to the data, is a heightened risk that technology initiatives advance faster than organisational integration. In other words, that ambition might outpace architecture.
3. AI capability, literacy, and governance friction
AI remains a board-level priority across the region, particularly for organisations operating cross border models that require harmonised policies and controls. Yet, capability constraints are pronounced: half of APAC organisations report shortages in AI literacy across the workforce, compared with 44% globally. 29% cite workforce skills and training gaps as a barrier to adoption, versus 24% globally. Concerns around poor data quality, availability or integration stand at 27%, well above the global average of 18%. The pattern is therefore consistent: technology is advancing, but the foundations beneath it are uneven.
Governance issues add further complexity. 42% report gaps in data governance, compared with 39% globally. Around one in three cite legacy systems that do not integrate well with AI tools. 54% highlight resistance to adoption, among the highest proportions across regions.
At the same time, APAC organisations are least likely to identify shortcomings in change management or reskilling programmes as an obstacle, at 21% versus 25% globally. Skills gaps and data constraints are acknowledged, yet the depth of organisational transformation required to address them may be understated. There is therefore a subtle tension between recognising capability shortages and fully confronting the cultural and structural change needed to resolve them.
4. Skills demand, investment asymmetry, and leadership strain
Globally, 79% of employers expect skills requirements to increase and 62% anticipate workforce growth over the next year. 64% foresee greater demand for human centred capabilities such as judgement, collaboration, and creativity, compared with 14% for technical skills. Despite this, 74% prioritise investment in technology, data, and platforms, while only 5% prioritise workforce development.
APAC mirrors this asymmetry. 63% anticipate greater demand for human centred skills and 17% for technical skills. Investment remains skewed towards technology at 63%, while only 7% prioritise workforce development. The region therefore reflects the same global paradox: employers expect people to operate more creatively and collaboratively, yet continue to allocate the bulk of capital to tools rather than capability, even as the data signals a heightened need for the latter.
Leadership capability intensifies this tension. 24% cite limited leadership knowledge or vision around AI, slightly above the global average of 22%. Where investment, skills demand, and leadership confidence diverge, organisations may struggle to convert digital ambition into consistent operational outcomes. Middle layers of management, in particular, become the pressure points where strategic aspiration meets operational reality.
5. Culture, sustainability, and polarisation in people agendas
Global indicators around culture and employee voice are relatively strong. 68% prioritise meaningful work and values over pay. 87% report employee voice influencing decision making. 52% record improved employee sentiment.
In APAC, these signals are weaker and more polarised. 64% prioritise meaningful work and values, and 82% report employee voice influencing decisions. The region is least likely to measure both ESG and DEI at 73% versus 78% globally, and 8% measure neither, the highest proportion across regions.
However, among organisations that do engage, embedding runs deeper than elsewhere. 59% report full embedding of DEI and 57% of ESG into decision making. This bifurcated pattern suggests that people and sustainability agendas are either integrated at strategic depth or remain peripheral, and, as a result, there is less middle ground.
Employee sentiment reflects this unevenness: only 49% report positive shifts in sentiment, compared with 56% globally, while 35% report negative shifts, versus 31% globally. Where embedding is shallow, morale and engagement risks appear more pronounced. Yet, where embedding is deeper, the data hints at more resilient cultural foundations.
6. Workforce outlook and adaptation to volatility
APAC organisations remain cautious in their workforce outlook. 34% expect headcount growth over the next 12 months, compared with 62% globally. 56% anticipate stability, versus 32% globally. 65% expect AI-driven job creation to remain below 5%, compared with 59% globally. This caution aligns with the broader theme of compressed planning cycles and structural uncertainty: expansion is selective, not homogeneous.
Perceptions of geopolitical and regulatory impact present an additional paradox. 46% describe the impact as ‘moderate’, 37% regard it as minimal, and 4% report no impact. Mobility restrictions are seen as minimal by 41%, and only 9% view cultural factors as a significant challenge for attraction and retention.
APAC is highly diverse, with far greater variability across countries than in more integrated regions. Yet, many organisations appear accustomed to operating within regulatory divergence and geopolitical uncertainty as routine conditions. Lower headline confidence therefore coexists with embedded adaptation to complexity. Volatility, in this sense, is less a shock than a setting.
7. Coherence under structural pressure
The APAC data therefore reveals a region shaped by structural volatility, compressed time horizons, and persistent execution strain. Confidence levels are lower, capability gaps are sharper, and embedding of people and sustainability agendas is uneven. At the same time, organisations demonstrate a degree of operational pragmatism in navigating regulatory and geopolitical fragmentation.
The Future@Work 2026 report argues that confidence alone is a weak proxy for readiness. The APAC findings reinforce that insight: in environments where uncertainty is structural and multi layered, preparedness depends on the ability to align strategy, systems, skills, and governance under sustained pressure.