\n
<\/p>\n
In the movie The Perfect Storm<\/em>, three large weather events converge, creating a storm bigger than the sum of its parts. As overused as the metaphor might be, it’s a good one for what\u2019s happening to leaders globally right now.<\/p>\n This storm involves the widespread integration of mainstream AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude into organizational workflows, and three large, interacting, non-obvious effects of this trend on leaders at all levels. Unchecked, research suggests, artificial intelligence could bring a toxic force to bear on how leaders build and reinforce their cultures.<\/p>\n The first trend involves the mental state of leaders themselves, many of whom were overwhelmed<\/a> before these tools came into play. AI hasn\u2019t pared down our workloads as much as it\u2019s added a layer of new work<\/a> for all of us, ironically leading people who are the best at using AI to experience some of the strongest \u201cbrain fry\u201d<\/a> in the office.<\/p>\n Separate from the issue of being overwhelmed, leaders are working in domains in which they have no experience, that feel completely unpredictable. Before AI tools were widely used, nearly three-quarters of leaders had imposter syndrome<\/a>. When leaders feel uncertain or out of control, many revert to defensive behaviors<\/a>, such as being overly controlling or overly goal focused at the expense of considering people. Or, at the far end of things, becoming bullies.<\/p>\n The cognitive science take on this is that leaders are experiencing strong threat responses, which reduces their capacity for a skill that\u2019s critical for healthy AI adoption: deep thinking. In particular, metacognition<\/a>, a specific type of deep thinking, which I have argued is the central skill that differentiates poor from great users of AI tools.<\/p>\n The second trend involves the way mainstream AI agents are designed to be deeply sycophantic. The business model for mainstream AI is the same as for social media: Companies make money by keeping people engaged.<\/p>\n To do this, social media worked out how to hack attention. AI tools are trying to hack something much deeper and much more insidious: attachment<\/a>. A big part of how they do this is by agreeing with you, even when your ideas are potentially harmful to yourself or others. One MIT study<\/a> showed that delusional spirals are common even in people who are otherwise considered highly logical.<\/p>\n From a cognitive perspective, the brain is wired to orient toward things that are innately rewarding, like receiving praise, and orient away from things that create a threat response in any way, like being challenged. Weave challenge into an AI tool, and science suggests a lot of people will just switch to an alternative that makes them feel better.<\/p>\n Giving leaders who already aren’t thinking well the perfect \u201cyes-man\u201d in their corner\u2014always on, overly agreeable\u2014is problematic. Their decisions affect an organization\u2019s survival. A leader who incorrectly believes they created a highly valuable new product could put 100,000 people out of work in a quarter if it turns out to be a flop.<\/p>\n The third trend may prove to be the most dangerous. It involves what happens when leaders use these tools for interpersonal challenges.<\/strong> It\u2019s widely known that as leaders get more senior, the need for technical skills decreases and the need for human skills increases. Here\u2019s the problem: Leaders are turning to these sycophantic AI agents for very human issues, things like trying to motivate others, deal with poor performers, or resolve interpersonal conflict.<\/p>\nTrend one: Leaders are already overwhelmed and thinking poorly<\/h2>\n
Trend two: Leaders are being given the ultimate ‘yes man’<\/h2>\n
Trend three: Widely using sycophantic AI for interpersonal issues<\/h2>\n