4-minute read

We have spent years asking what technology can do. Increasingly, leaders need to ask a different question: what does its use ask of people?

I have become convinced that the more technologically capable our workplaces become, the more intentionally human our leadership must become. This is not an argument against AI or technological progress. Used thoughtfully, technology can reduce repetitive work, improve decisions, increase accessibility and create opportunities for people to concentrate on work requiring greater creativity and judgement. Yet every improvement in capability also changes something about the human experience of work.

Capability changes more than productivity

AI adoption is accelerating rapidly. Across OECD countries with available data, the proportion of businesses using AI increased from approximately 7 per cent in 2021 to 20 per cent in 2025. The OECD identifies considerable potential for AI to improve productivity, decision-making and working conditions, while also recognising concerns about displacement, inequality and unequal access to opportunity (OECD, 2026).

Those possibilities and concerns can exist at the same time. A system may make a process faster while leaving people uncertain about how their role will change. An automated recommendation may improve consistency while creating questions about accountability. A new tool may remove repetitive tasks from one person’s workload while making somebody else’s work more closely monitored.

Technology can provide an answer, prediction or recommendation. It cannot take responsibility for the conditions in which that output is used. Leaders remain responsible for the consequences experienced by people, including changes to workload, autonomy, privacy, fairness and psychological health.

Leadership becomes more visible during uncertainty

People pay close attention to leadership when the future feels unclear. They notice what is explained, what is avoided and whether their concerns receive a thoughtful response. Silence is rarely experienced as neutral. When leaders do not provide context, people often fill the gap themselves, usually with information gathered from rumours, headlines and incomplete conversations.

Poor practice can look surprisingly ordinary. A tool is introduced before managers understand it. Employees are told that AI will “free up time” without any explanation of what will happen to that time. Concerns about job security are dismissed as resistance. People are encouraged to experiment, yet fear being judged if something goes wrong.

A more human approach begins by recognising that uncertainty is not necessarily evidence of negativity or an unwillingness to adapt. People may be trying to understand what a change means for their role, professional identity, competence or future. These are legitimate questions.

Research from OECD surveys of employers and workers found broadly positive views about AI’s effects on performance and working conditions, alongside continuing concerns about job loss. Training and worker consultation were associated with better outcomes and greater trust (Lane, Williams and Broecke, 2023). This is a useful reminder that the quality of implementation can shape how technology is experienced.

What intentionally human leadership looks like

Human-centred leadership does not require leaders to have every technical answer. It requires them to remain attentive to the people affected by the decisions they make.

Before introducing or expanding an AI-enabled process, leaders should be able to explain the problem being addressed and the value the technology is expected to create. They should identify whose work will change, invite those people into the conversation and be honest about what is still unknown. Responsibility for consequential decisions must remain clear, particularly where outputs affect employment, performance, development or access to opportunity.

Leaders also need to consider whether people have been given the time, training and psychological permission to learn. Telling employees to use a new tool without creating space for experimentation transfers the burden of adoption onto individuals. It can leave people attempting to learn privately while continuing to meet unchanged expectations.

The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 shows why this human dimension deserves attention. Alongside growing demand for AI and technological skills, employers continue to place considerable value on resilience, flexibility, leadership and social influence (World Economic Forum, 2025). The capabilities needed in an AI-enabled workplace therefore extend beyond technical proficiency. Critical thinking, collaboration and judgement help people use technology effectively and question it appropriately.

Leaders can begin by asking:

• What problem are we trying to solve?

• Who will experience the consequences of this decision?

• Have the people closest to the work been consulted?

• Which decisions must retain meaningful human oversight?

• What training, time and support will people need?

• How will we monitor unintended effects on workload, fairness and wellbeing?

These questions do not slow responsible progress. They help organisations avoid preventable mistakes and build the trust required for adoption to succeed.

The human standard remains with the leader

The World Health Organization’s guidance on mental health at work places emphasis on organisational interventions, working conditions and manager capability (World Health Organization, 2022). This is significant because technological change is often discussed as though adaptation rests primarily with the employee. People are expected to become more resilient, learn faster and cope with greater uncertainty.

Leaders shape many of the conditions that make adaptation possible. They influence whether people receive useful information, whether concerns can be raised safely, whether workloads remain sustainable and whether technological change is introduced with fairness and care.

AI will continue to become more capable. The leadership challenge is to ensure that organisational capability grows without diminishing human agency, dignity or connection. That requires curiosity about technology, certainly, but also the courage to listen, exercise judgement and remain accountable for how work is changing.

A question for reflection: Where in your team is technology moving faster than trust, understanding or capability?

References

Lane, M., Williams, M. and Broecke, S. (2023) ‘The impact of AI on the workplace: Main findings from the OECD AI surveys of employers and workers’, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 288. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/ea0a0fe1-en

OECD (2026) Skills in the AI Age. OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 60. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2026/07/skills-in-the-ai-age_e8d8c1e6/972bd15e-en.pdf

World Economic Forum (2025) The Future of Jobs Report 2025. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/

World Health Organization (2022) Guidelines on Mental Health at Work. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052