Strong diagnosis. I’d add one missing piece: people don’t only need explanation or participation — they need to see how their work fits into the goals leadership has already decided.
When decisions arrive fully formed and that line of sight is missing, legitimacy collapses. What gets labeled “resistance” is often people opting out of systems that no longer show how their effort connects to the organisation’s priorities.
I think we’re slightly talking past each other though. My “missing piece” wasn’t about participation or consent before decisions, but about line-of-sight after decisions are already made. 😊
Even when strategy is fixed and infrastructure is non-negotiable, people still need to see how their daily work is taken up, preserved, and used by leadership. When that visibility disappears, effort starts to feel Sisyphus-like — not resisted, just quietly disengaged.
Disengagement can occur at any point. But when decision makers have less need, purpose or sense of urgency to engage those directly impacted by a decision, silent compliance becomes a new norm.
Increasingly as AI is embedded in processes, managers may have less understanding and line of sight themselves--no malice, just confusion. Difficult to explain to others where their daily efforts fit in.
Exactly. And once silent compliance becomes the norm, it’s very hard to tell whether things are “working” or just no longer being questioned. The AI layer amplifies that gap by further obscuring line of sight, even for managers themselves. Confusion scales quietly. 🕊️
Strong diagnosis. I’d add one missing piece: people don’t only need explanation or participation — they need to see how their work fits into the goals leadership has already decided.
When decisions arrive fully formed and that line of sight is missing, legitimacy collapses. What gets labeled “resistance” is often people opting out of systems that no longer show how their effort connects to the organisation’s priorities.
Thanks for contributing your insights, Iwette--always appreciated :)
I just posted a new TAIIP essay "AI-First Infrastructure: The $100 Billion Shift Away from Human Systems" https://ab2ai.substack.com/p/how-ai-infrastructure-bypasses-human-systems
Let me know if it fully captures your suggested missing piece--thanks!
Thanks for sharing, Dee — I read it carefully.
I think we’re slightly talking past each other though. My “missing piece” wasn’t about participation or consent before decisions, but about line-of-sight after decisions are already made. 😊
Even when strategy is fixed and infrastructure is non-negotiable, people still need to see how their daily work is taken up, preserved, and used by leadership. When that visibility disappears, effort starts to feel Sisyphus-like — not resisted, just quietly disengaged.
Us talking past one another? Never! 😄
I do so get your point though--and agree with it.
Disengagement can occur at any point. But when decision makers have less need, purpose or sense of urgency to engage those directly impacted by a decision, silent compliance becomes a new norm.
Increasingly as AI is embedded in processes, managers may have less understanding and line of sight themselves--no malice, just confusion. Difficult to explain to others where their daily efforts fit in.
Exactly. And once silent compliance becomes the norm, it’s very hard to tell whether things are “working” or just no longer being questioned. The AI layer amplifies that gap by further obscuring line of sight, even for managers themselves. Confusion scales quietly. 🕊️