Collection
What AI does to leadership work: which decisions are due, what leaders actually do, where they get things wrong and what shifts in roles, teams and responsibility.
For working with your own AI assistant. How it works
From 147 handpicked podcast episodes published since 16 August 2024, we have distilled 440 insights. These ten key findings show how AI is changing leadership and which questions about responsibility, decisions and collaboration keep coming up.
The image of a magnifying glass comes up independently in several conversations: AI shows weak leadership in full sharpness instead of replacing it, and exposes cracks in the foundation that no technology can close.
The organizational counterpart is just as recurrent: a dysfunctional organization does not get better with AI, it becomes dysfunctional faster, and a broken process does not fix itself by putting AI on top of it.
A failed rollout in customer service is explained in exactly these terms: the AI tool arrived, the decision rights stayed the same.
Status: unchanged
Supported by these conversations, 8 of them from the last three months
Several conversations call this an integrity or understanding gap with the team, and the difference is measurable: at Cisco, according to an internal study, employees use AI twice as often when their leader uses it.
Without their own practice, leaders accept unchecked whatever is put in front of them, according to an AI strategist at Korn Ferry. The way AI is used also rubs off: when CEOs send strategy memos that are recognizably written by AI, outsourcing one's thinking is seen as acceptable.
What is meant is personal practice, not an expert role, and at the top first: the executive management of Advantage Solutions trained for more than ten hours at the keyboard. Proper use cannot be ordered, and announced measurement produces performative use.
Status: unchanged
Supported by these conversations, 18 of them from the last three months
Very different roles report the same thing: admitting one's own uncertainty builds trust rather than costing authority, and honest uncertainty with a clear direction beats sham competence.
The mechanism behind it is psychological safety: only when the leader visibly learns and names mistakes does the team gain permission to do the same.
The qualification that is repeatedly added matters: openness does not replace direction. Openly naming uncertainty and still making decisions belong together.
Status: unchanged
Supported by these conversations, 11 of them from the last three months
With a subscription
With a subscription you read all 10 with their sources and download them as a text file.
The complete collection
147 conversations, ordered from newest to oldest.
Sophie Gacs and Juliane Naumann, founders of The Agile Habit, use their practice study of 101 interviews to explain why AI that has been rolled out often goes unused in daily work.
With a subscription
With a subscription you open all 147 conversations of this room with their insights, search the catalogue and download the files.
0 conversations added · none removed
10 unchanged
With a subscription you see which conversations, findings and recommendations changed.
Compared with V3 · 07 Oct 2026.
