For most of our careers, the quality of someone’s work has been a useful, albeit imperfect, signal of their capability. Someone who consistently produced strong analysis probably knew how to analyze. Someone who repeatedly articulated strategy in a compelling way was probably developing executive-level judgment.
The questions we hear executives asking are good ones. “How should AI change our business model?” “Which processes could an agent run?” “Where can we reduce costs?” Those are the right questions to be asking, and most of the companies we work with are starting to get real answers.
The question we hear far less often is, “What might these efficiency gains cost us in the long run?”
Here’s the caution — leaders can capture near-term efficiencies that improve the business today, while unintentionally disinvesting in the growth of the people who will differentiate it tomorrow.
Leaders would never make this tradeoff on purpose. It happens because the efficiency gain is visible immediately and missed talent development stays hidden for years.
The work can improve faster than the person
A person can now produce work considerably more sophisticated than their experience would have allowed a few years ago. That is a real productivity gain, and we should want it. However, the work can improve much faster than the person producing it.
Let’s say two people have the same laptop setup, the same assignment, and the same hour to complete it. One asks AI what to think and then edits what AI provides. The other develops a point of view and then brings in AI to attack it, look for what they missed, and change their thinking when the evidence warrants it. Both people use AI. Both may produce acceptable work. From the outside, the two workflows look nearly identical. In the short term, these efficiencies appear harmless.
