← Home

How Generative AI Impacts Job Satisfaction: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Government

Jiaen Wu, Amanda Rutherford

R&R at Public Administration Review

Overview

Generative AI is spreading quickly through the U.S. federal government, and much of the enthusiasm rests on a single promise: that these tools will lift routine administrative burdens and free public servants to spend more time on mission-critical work. We know much less about what sustained interaction with GenAI does to the people using it. We argue that the effect on job satisfaction depends on how the technology is integrated—through automation, which substitutes for routine tasks, or through augmentation, which inserts model outputs into more complex human decisions. We examine a panel of 25 U.S. civilian federal agencies from 2017 to 2024, combining task-level GenAI scores from Claude usage data (Handa et al., 2025) with agency job satisfaction from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, and we treat the public release of GenAI in late 2022 as an exogenous shock within a continuous difference-in-differences design. We find that automation exposure has no significant effect on job satisfaction, while augmentation exposure is negatively associated with it. The pattern is consistent with the idea that augmentation shifts public sector work from creation to verification—employees must monitor, interpret, and remain accountable for probabilistic outputs—and that this verification burden carries real psychosocial costs.

Research Design

Key Findings

1. Automation exposure has no effect on job satisfaction

2. Augmentation exposure lowers job satisfaction

3. The augmentation result is robust

Overall mechanism: from creation to verification

Augmentation shifts work from producing to auditing—employees prompt, check, and remain accountable for probabilistic outputs. This imposes verification burden, accountability ambiguity, and reduced task meaning, costs that automation does not carry and that efficiency-centered assessments tend to overlook.

Results

Figure 1. Event-Study: Automation Exposure

Event-study estimates for automation exposure and job satisfaction

Treatment intensity is each agency’s 2017–2022 average automation exposure; the outcome is the agency-year FEVS job satisfaction score, with agency and year fixed effects and coefficients shown relative to 2022. Post-treatment estimates are statistically insignificant, while a significant pre-trend points to historical shifts already underway in these routine-heavy agencies.

Figure 2. Event-Study: Augmentation Exposure

Event-study estimates for augmentation exposure and job satisfaction

Using the same specification with 2017–2022 average augmentation exposure as the treatment intensity, the pre-treatment coefficients are indistinguishable from zero, supporting parallel trends. Following the 2022 release of GenAI, augmentation exposure is associated with a statistically significant decline in job satisfaction that deepens the next year.