I recently read an article that began with Plato’s warning about writing. The concern was that writing could weaken memory and give people the appearance of wisdom without true understanding.

Thousands of years later, the technology has changed considerably. The question feels remarkably familiar.

AI can help us think, learn, create and work in ways that were unimaginable even a few years ago. I use it regularly.

My concern is not whether we should use it. I am increasingly interested in what happens to human agency when we do.

The path of least resistance

Humans tend to take the path of least resistance. AI is becoming very good at removing resistance.

It can summarize the information. Draft the response. Analyze the options. Recommend the decision. Increasingly, it can act on our behalf.

Each step can be useful. Each can save time. In many situations, removing friction is exactly what we should be doing.

The question is what happens when the easiest path becomes our default.

At what point does assistance become substitution?

What thinking should remain ours?

There is a great deal of discussion about what AI can do. Leadership requires another question: what should we continue to do ourselves?

Not because AI is incapable of doing it, but because the act of participating has value.

Working through a difficult problem develops judgment. Challenging an assumption can reveal something we hadn’t considered. Listening to competing perspectives can change our understanding. Making a consequential decision requires us to own what follows.

If we remove every point of resistance, we may also remove some of the places where learning, judgment and ownership are formed.

Not all friction is dysfunction

Organizations have spent years trying to eliminate friction. Often, rightly so.

Unnecessary approvals, redundant processes, poor information flows and administrative work that adds little value deserve to be challenged. AI gives us an extraordinary opportunity to remove more of that friction.

Still, not all friction is dysfunction.

A difficult conversation may need to happen. A question can make us uncomfortable enough to look again. Disagreement can expose an assumption we didn’t realize we were making. Sometimes we simply need time to understand a decision before we make it.

Removing that friction may make the process faster. It doesn’t necessarily make the decision better.

The consequences become more significant when those decisions affect people: who is considered, hired, promoted, developed or given an opportunity.

AI can inform those decisions. It can surface information, identify patterns and help us see things we may have missed.

But judgment about people should never belong to AI alone.

Efficiency and effectiveness are not always the same thing. Leadership requires knowing the difference.

Leaders create conditions

In the first article in this series, Leadership Is Architecture, I wrote that leaders create conditions. AI makes that responsibility even more important.

The choices leaders make about where AI participates in work will influence more than productivity. They will shape how people think, how decisions are made, where accountability sits, and how much human participation remains in the organization.

The question is no longer simply where AI can create efficiency. We also need to decide where human participation continues to matter.

Delegating part of a decision-making process to technology does not delegate accountability for the outcome. That responsibility still belongs somewhere.

Remaining the author

I believe AI can be an extraordinary thinking partner. It can challenge ideas, surface alternatives, help us see connections and make knowledge more accessible.

That is very different from surrendering our judgment to it.

The distinction may become increasingly important as AI moves from helping us think to recommending decisions and acting on our behalf.

Leadership in the age of AI will require intentional choices about what we delegate and what we continue to own.

What thinking should remain ours?

What decisions should require meaningful human participation, even when AI could make them easier?

What friction should we intentionally preserve because something important happens within it?

Technology will continue to become more capable. Our responsibility is to decide what we want to remain capable of ourselves.

Lisa Insley
Founder | HR SOS

This perspective was prompted in part by “Plato Warned Us About ChatGPT and Told Us What to Do About It,” published by the John Templeton Foundation.