The problem is that if employees don't start embracing these tools, they're going to find themselves in difficult positions when mandates come down.
Organizations that don't move in a more innovative direction are going to find themselves utterly and completely stuck, so far in the past they're going to struggle. I'm really curious how institutions like higher education, K-12, and other organizations that are so slow to adopt anything is going to adapt to this, especially education because it's not just the employee's ability to use it, it's how are they going to teach students?
Because entire curriculums are going to need to change to stay relevant. And in higher ed, where many times faculty hold an enormous amount of power, where administrators can't force them to do anything, and tenure protects them to a large degree. There is no motivation for them to adapt to anything.
Thank you for sharing your insights, Bette. You clearly understand the inner workings of this world and the compounding challenges students face when institutions fall behind. The resistance to change, especially around technology adoption, is deeply ingrained in many faculty cultures. Without meaningful accountability from leadership, it becomes a slow erosion--death by a thousand cuts.
The dynamic you describe applies just as much in the corporate world. Organizations also have structural inertia and if your manager is resistant to change, it adds another layer of fear and hesitation. It’ll be interesting to see if the elimination of some middle management roles (not necessarily because they’re the barrier, but because they sit at the crossroads of execution and influence) accelerates adoption. Ultimately, whether in education or industry, urgency may come not from within, but from the people they serve--students or customers--deciding to walk away from institutions that no longer prepare them for what’s next.
Yes, Dee, you're absolutely right. Institutions that have survived may no longer be able to do that. I think it is going to be a reckoning for a lot of organizations. Some in a good way while others will be lost.
This is brilliant and incredibly timely. You’ve articulated precisely what’s been bothering me deeply as someone exploring how organizations can genuinely embrace AI. As I’ve shared in my recent manifesto, ‘Augmentation: The New Strategic Frontier’, AI-driven transformation isn’t primarily about tools or efficiency, it’s about mindset, purpose, and how genuinely safe our people feel to explore and experiment.
Your point about the hidden tensions and unspoken pressures that teams face rings particularly true. Employees won’t truly innovate or lean into AI if they’re uncertain or anxious about their role or future. Creating psychological safety, providing clear pathways, and nurturing human-centered cultures are not optional; they’re fundamental.
Thank you for spotlighting the quiet fears beneath the AI hype and for encouraging us not just to acknowledge the human cost, but to actively design for human flourishing as part of our AI strategy. I’m excited to join you in this important conversation.
This captures the tension so well — AI has incredible potential, but without clarity, trust, and genuine reinvestment in people, it risks becoming just another tool for burnout. Empowerment must be more than a slogan; it needs structure, honesty, and shared intent.
Thank you, Alex. There's tremendous potential in this advanced technology--for both businesses and individuals. It would be a real missed opportunity if, as you so aptly put it, it ends up becoming 'just another tool for burnout.'
Dee, you just described so eloquently and persuasively what I’ve been barking about for sometime. This transformation isn’t just a technical one, it’s ethical too. You also gave words to the emotions that I’ve labeled technostress, which means it’s also human.
Organizations have to come to grips with all of those aspects and create a culture that embodies humanity alongside technology.
Thank you, Paul. Yes, your focus on technostress in the workplace is so needed! I’m discovering more and more of us helping humans transition, responsibly, to this age of AI—so exciting 🙌
I believe AI enables us all to do things that were previously impossible.
- Founders and builders with ideas/projects can execute them without needing a big team and lots of funding.
- Skilled professionals who got laid off can launch their freelance careers without having to do everything by themselves.
- Folks "stuck" in traditional careers can get new skills quickly and launch their own thing or transition into higher paid roles.
All those things I've mentioned have something in common, people taking action and being proactive about their future.
But for those others who are resisting change, going against AI and saying that's all "bad", or trying to keep enforcing an old way of doing things, they'll be having a pretty rough time.
Something similar to those people who want to keep getting paid while doing the least possible.
At the end of the day, it's not a question about AI or not. It's what it's always been about, technology amplifying human nature, the good and the bad.
Good points, Juan. In the best-case scenarios, people do leap--into new skills, new roles, even their own ventures. But it doesn’t always unfold that way. Complacency can stall change, stifle innovation, and block transformation. And yes, AI is already tipping some apple carts--uncomfortable for many, but maybe necessary to shake things loose.
Still, I’m betting on us. I’d rather see human nature amplify tech than let tech rewrite what it means to be human.
Kudos to you, Juan! I'm also deeply focused on helping people cross the AI bridge through thoughtful, responsible risktaking. Funny enough, it was my move into Change Management that got me into meditation--it turned out to be a much healthier alternative to pulling my hair out when working with folks stuck in fear or complacency.
That said, I’ve had some real success nudging people from full-on skeptics to a more open, curious middle ground. But yes--it's definitely more energizing (and frankly, more fun) to work with those already motivated to embrace change.
Loved this line... Over time, that data starts to reshape internal narratives: about value, about viability, about who’s moving forward and who’s falling behind.
I'm curious about where this is all headed. As large companies increasingly rely on AI and lay off workers, what's the optimal level of human involvement? Could we reach a point where a massive company is essentially run by just one person? That seems extreme, but it raises real questions about sustainability, responsibility, and what the future of work looks like.
I am also wondering what happens to young people who cannot get entry level jobs anymore.
Jamie, it’s probably not as extreme as it sounds...I remember talking with people about this 15 years ago—how big companies would eventually be built around a "small core team" (but more than just one person), folks with full-time benefits, while most of the work would be handled by contractors, consultants, and temps without the traditional perks. It really feels like we’re heading that way, into what some call the “augmented workforce.” Maybe it’ll take another decade to fully unfold—but it could move faster.
Like you, I’m thinking a lot about what this means for entry-level workers--I've got a few ideas brewing there.
On a brighter note, I think AI-driven companies might actually be a great fit for neurodiverse talent. These environments often play to unique strengths in ways traditional workplaces haven’t.
Overall, though, I see this as a real chance for companies, big and small, to rethink what a “social contract” with employees looks like. The ones that take this seriously will stand out, especially when it comes to responsible innovation and ongoing workplace transformation.
Bottom line: this is the time to stay curious, try things out, and keep learning wherever you are in the mix. No fence-sitting anymore.
The problem is that if employees don't start embracing these tools, they're going to find themselves in difficult positions when mandates come down.
Organizations that don't move in a more innovative direction are going to find themselves utterly and completely stuck, so far in the past they're going to struggle. I'm really curious how institutions like higher education, K-12, and other organizations that are so slow to adopt anything is going to adapt to this, especially education because it's not just the employee's ability to use it, it's how are they going to teach students?
Because entire curriculums are going to need to change to stay relevant. And in higher ed, where many times faculty hold an enormous amount of power, where administrators can't force them to do anything, and tenure protects them to a large degree. There is no motivation for them to adapt to anything.
Thank you for sharing your insights, Bette. You clearly understand the inner workings of this world and the compounding challenges students face when institutions fall behind. The resistance to change, especially around technology adoption, is deeply ingrained in many faculty cultures. Without meaningful accountability from leadership, it becomes a slow erosion--death by a thousand cuts.
The dynamic you describe applies just as much in the corporate world. Organizations also have structural inertia and if your manager is resistant to change, it adds another layer of fear and hesitation. It’ll be interesting to see if the elimination of some middle management roles (not necessarily because they’re the barrier, but because they sit at the crossroads of execution and influence) accelerates adoption. Ultimately, whether in education or industry, urgency may come not from within, but from the people they serve--students or customers--deciding to walk away from institutions that no longer prepare them for what’s next.
Yes, Dee, you're absolutely right. Institutions that have survived may no longer be able to do that. I think it is going to be a reckoning for a lot of organizations. Some in a good way while others will be lost.
This is brilliant and incredibly timely. You’ve articulated precisely what’s been bothering me deeply as someone exploring how organizations can genuinely embrace AI. As I’ve shared in my recent manifesto, ‘Augmentation: The New Strategic Frontier’, AI-driven transformation isn’t primarily about tools or efficiency, it’s about mindset, purpose, and how genuinely safe our people feel to explore and experiment.
Your point about the hidden tensions and unspoken pressures that teams face rings particularly true. Employees won’t truly innovate or lean into AI if they’re uncertain or anxious about their role or future. Creating psychological safety, providing clear pathways, and nurturing human-centered cultures are not optional; they’re fundamental.
Thank you for spotlighting the quiet fears beneath the AI hype and for encouraging us not just to acknowledge the human cost, but to actively design for human flourishing as part of our AI strategy. I’m excited to join you in this important conversation.
https://aihumanity.substack.com/p/augmentation-the-new-strategic-frontier?r=supoi
This captures the tension so well — AI has incredible potential, but without clarity, trust, and genuine reinvestment in people, it risks becoming just another tool for burnout. Empowerment must be more than a slogan; it needs structure, honesty, and shared intent.
Thank you, Alex. There's tremendous potential in this advanced technology--for both businesses and individuals. It would be a real missed opportunity if, as you so aptly put it, it ends up becoming 'just another tool for burnout.'
Dee, you just described so eloquently and persuasively what I’ve been barking about for sometime. This transformation isn’t just a technical one, it’s ethical too. You also gave words to the emotions that I’ve labeled technostress, which means it’s also human.
Organizations have to come to grips with all of those aspects and create a culture that embodies humanity alongside technology.
Thank you, Paul. Yes, your focus on technostress in the workplace is so needed! I’m discovering more and more of us helping humans transition, responsibly, to this age of AI—so exciting 🙌
I believe AI enables us all to do things that were previously impossible.
- Founders and builders with ideas/projects can execute them without needing a big team and lots of funding.
- Skilled professionals who got laid off can launch their freelance careers without having to do everything by themselves.
- Folks "stuck" in traditional careers can get new skills quickly and launch their own thing or transition into higher paid roles.
All those things I've mentioned have something in common, people taking action and being proactive about their future.
But for those others who are resisting change, going against AI and saying that's all "bad", or trying to keep enforcing an old way of doing things, they'll be having a pretty rough time.
Something similar to those people who want to keep getting paid while doing the least possible.
At the end of the day, it's not a question about AI or not. It's what it's always been about, technology amplifying human nature, the good and the bad.
Good points, Juan. In the best-case scenarios, people do leap--into new skills, new roles, even their own ventures. But it doesn’t always unfold that way. Complacency can stall change, stifle innovation, and block transformation. And yes, AI is already tipping some apple carts--uncomfortable for many, but maybe necessary to shake things loose.
Still, I’m betting on us. I’d rather see human nature amplify tech than let tech rewrite what it means to be human.
Yeah you're right. It has both positive cases and negative ones.
Part of the work I'm doing is to help people get more in to those best-case scenarios you mentioned.
Although complacency is a tough problem to solve. We can't do much when people don't want to do much themselves.
Kudos to you, Juan! I'm also deeply focused on helping people cross the AI bridge through thoughtful, responsible risktaking. Funny enough, it was my move into Change Management that got me into meditation--it turned out to be a much healthier alternative to pulling my hair out when working with folks stuck in fear or complacency.
That said, I’ve had some real success nudging people from full-on skeptics to a more open, curious middle ground. But yes--it's definitely more energizing (and frankly, more fun) to work with those already motivated to embrace change.
That sounds definitely like a healthy practice to not become misanthrope! 😆
I agree with you, there's only so much we can do and better to do it with those who are open and curious.
Also, since you're also helping folks with AI, I'd very much like your take on this particular question:
https://juanfrank.substack.com/p/to-share-or-to-hoard
⚖️ Happy to offer my take on the question posted in your shared link...this weekend :)
Awesome, thank you!
Loved this line... Over time, that data starts to reshape internal narratives: about value, about viability, about who’s moving forward and who’s falling behind.
Thank you, Joel. I appreciate your comment. You know, writing it felt like telling a quiet truth out loud--one I wish didn’t ring so true :(
But sometimes clarity comes at the cost of comfort.
I'm curious about where this is all headed. As large companies increasingly rely on AI and lay off workers, what's the optimal level of human involvement? Could we reach a point where a massive company is essentially run by just one person? That seems extreme, but it raises real questions about sustainability, responsibility, and what the future of work looks like.
I am also wondering what happens to young people who cannot get entry level jobs anymore.
Jamie, it’s probably not as extreme as it sounds...I remember talking with people about this 15 years ago—how big companies would eventually be built around a "small core team" (but more than just one person), folks with full-time benefits, while most of the work would be handled by contractors, consultants, and temps without the traditional perks. It really feels like we’re heading that way, into what some call the “augmented workforce.” Maybe it’ll take another decade to fully unfold—but it could move faster.
Like you, I’m thinking a lot about what this means for entry-level workers--I've got a few ideas brewing there.
On a brighter note, I think AI-driven companies might actually be a great fit for neurodiverse talent. These environments often play to unique strengths in ways traditional workplaces haven’t.
Overall, though, I see this as a real chance for companies, big and small, to rethink what a “social contract” with employees looks like. The ones that take this seriously will stand out, especially when it comes to responsible innovation and ongoing workplace transformation.
Bottom line: this is the time to stay curious, try things out, and keep learning wherever you are in the mix. No fence-sitting anymore.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. keep the posts coming. Very informative for someone like me, who does not work in industry.
Thank you for your kind comment :-D