These days, everyone has probably received a notice on Slack saying, "AI training is mandatory," right? It even mentions that if you don't attend by the deadline, your manager will send you a reminder.

At first, I thought it was just another compliance training added to the list. But then I started hearing people say, "If you don't do this, your review will be affected," and that changed the conversation.

So, instead of just guessing, I decided to check the data. Are there actually companies that include AI usage in evaluations, and are employees receiving proper training?

The most frequently cited example is Microsoft. A June 2025 report from Business Insider revealed an internal memo from a development executive stating, "Using AI is no longer optional."

The memo included instructions for managers to consider AI utilization when assessing employee performance. While specific numerical criteria were not disclosed, it was suggested to view it as one element of a comprehensive evaluation.

Meta took it a step further. In 2025, they instructed employees to document their "AI-generated achievements," and starting in 2026, this would be officially reflected in performance evaluations.

However, Meta also implemented an internal training program and a gamified system that awards badges. The company recognizes that if they are going to include it in evaluations, they also need to provide learning opportunities.

But what about regular companies outside of big tech? According to Gallup data, as of May 2026, only 15% of American workers use AI daily.

30% use it several times a week, and 52% have used it at least once in the past year. While more than half have tried it, those who use it daily are still in the minority.

The number that surprised me the most was from the same Gallup data, which showed that only 25% of employees reported that their company clearly communicated plans for AI implementation.

This means that three out of four employees are not well-informed about how their company plans to use AI. Yet, AI is included in evaluation criteria? That seems out of order.

The data on training is similar. A survey conducted by the nonprofit organization Jobs for the Future in March 2026, which included 3,020 respondents, found that only 36% reported having access to the training and resources needed to use AI, down from 45% a year earlier. While discussions about AI have increased, the number of people feeling prepared has decreased.

The percentage of employees who have received AI training at work was only 37%, and among workers without a four-year degree, it was just 31%. In the same survey, 56% reported that their company did not ask for their input on AI usage.

This point concerns me the most. If training opportunities are not distributed evenly but AI is included in evaluations, it creates a structure where those who were already advantaged become even more so.

Now, let's address a practical question: Will your evaluation really suffer if you don't attend mandatory training?

The honest answer is that it varies by company. There are no legally mandated standards; it's a matter of the company's evaluation policies, so you need to look directly at your company handbook and review criteria.

However, in Texas, at-will employment is the norm, so there are virtually no mechanisms to prevent a company from designating work-related training as mandatory. It's also not easy to legally contest any disadvantages that arise from not attending.

That said, there are rights worth knowing. According to federal labor standards, for training time to be excluded from work hours, it must meet all four of these criteria: outside of work hours, voluntary participation, unrelated to work, and no other work being performed simultaneously.

This means that if a non-exempt employee, who is eligible for overtime, attends company-mandated AI training, that time should generally be considered paid work hours, even if they are told to do it at home after hours.

Additionally, Texas has a state law related to AI (TRAIGA) that took effect on January 1, 2026. However, it does not directly address mandatory employee training or evaluation inclusion, so it doesn't answer this issue.

Ultimately, what we can do is strategize. Personally, I would aim to complete any mandatory training before the deadline.

Completion records are almost certainly retained in the system. There's no downside to attending, but not attending could create unnecessary explanations later.

Next, focus on documenting results rather than just training. For example, note how much time you saved on report drafts using AI or how you automated data organization.

During evaluation season, saying "I attended AI training" is far less persuasive than stating, "I reduced this task by this much using AI." Ultimately, what Meta is asking for is this kind of impact documentation.

If the criteria are vague, just ask in a one-on-one. It's not at all strange to inquire how AI utilization is reflected in reviews or whether training time counts as work hours.

Personally, I believe it's difficult to stop the trend of including AI in evaluations. However, for it to be a fair evaluation, companies must transparently disclose their criteria and provide equal training opportunities for everyone.

So, my conclusion is this: complete mandatory training quickly, communicate how your achievements have changed with AI, and be sure to ask about any ambiguities.

The numbers mentioned here are based on the latest publicly available data at the time of writing this article. I will compare again when the next survey comes out.