The debate about AI revolves largely around what it can do: take over tasks, work faster, produce more. Sometimes it is about what it does to the individual: intellectual laziness creeping in, cognitive overload, the fatigue of constantly learning new systems.<\/p>\n
But the pattern that is rarely named is this: nine out of ten organisations that say they use AI do not meet their expectations. The technology rarely falls short. The human question is rarely asked. Strategy does not die in the boardroom. It dies in the corridor, with the people who have to carry the change without ever having really been consulted.<\/p>\n
Wonder is not a strategy. Whoever thought about what they wanted to do with the technology had direction. That was true with the CD player. It is true with AI.<\/p>\n
If you are the DJ: how do you use AI so that you keep and strengthen your own inventiveness?<\/p>\n
If you are the technician: how do you learn to understand how it works so that you know its limits and know when human judgement is indispensable?<\/p>\n
If you are the listener: how do you enjoy the productivity gain without forgetting that someone has to keep making the music?<\/p>\n
And if you are a manager: how do you help your team make that choice consciously, instead of watching everyone press play and hope it turns out well?<\/p>\n
That last question is the hardest. Because while you think about strategy, the organisation is already silently growing in two directions. Employees who already use AI do more than their role formally asks. Colleagues who don’t grow more slowly. The official organisation chart and the actual organisation are no longer in sync. Whoever does not actively close that gap makes it bigger.<\/p>\n
I believe in asking a double question. How can AI improve our productivity? And how can we make sure that the time freed up is really used to work together meaningfully, to think, to connect?<\/p>\n
Because if AI only means we do the same thing faster, something has gone wrong. The gain is not in the pace. It is in what you do with the space that opens up.<\/p>\n
That space is exactly where leadership begins. Leadership is about giving meaning. About direction: knowing where you are working towards as a team and why that is worth the effort. And about appetite: feeling that your contribution counts, that it matters whether you do it.<\/p>\n
Technology speeds up processes. Direction and appetite grow elsewhere: in the conversations people have together, with friction and doubt and eventually conviction. Whoever automates those moments away also automates the meaning out of it.<\/p>\n
A European company replaced its entire customer service with AI a few years ago. Cost-efficient, introduced quickly. A year and a half later they were hiring people again. What had gone wrong? The question. They had asked: how do we replace people? Instead of: how do we improve our customers’ experience? The same technology, a different question: a completely different outcome.<\/p>\n
AI is good at carrying out tasks, processing information, recognising patterns. That is real and welcome productivity gain.<\/p>\n
Alongside it exists something else. The tension of a disagreement that is nonetheless voiced. The doubt someone says out loud. The trust that grows because you have seen each other struggle. You do not build those things in a summary. They grow in the process, and that process needs people.<\/p>\n
Investing in people is not a sentimental choice. It is the choice for what sets organisations apart in the long run: the ability to handle complexity together, to judge where data falls short, and to give direction where the machine waits for instruction.<\/p>\n
I use AI. I find it rewarding to work with. Going along with the hype is something else.<\/p>\n
The question that occupies me is bigger than productivity. Do I want to live in a society where I no longer know my neighbours because an app already predicts their needs? Do I want to work in organisations where people no longer have to clash because AI smooths away conflicts before they can grow?<\/p>\n
Technology acquires meaning when it strengthens people. The question is who is the servant and who is the boss. As a manager you have a role in that. Not by waiting for a policy memo, but by choosing every day which conversations you have, which space you make, which questions you ask.<\/p>\n
Technology does not make organisations distinctive. The choices leaders make do.<\/p>\n
Stay Human.<\/strong><\/p>\n I am Kobe. I trained as a psychologist. As director of a reception centre for refugees at Fedasil, as a trainer and consultant in Ethiopia, and now as Executive Director of Outward Bound Belgium. What drives, connects and sometimes holds people back: that is what I like to stay curious about. From boardroom to rock face, the common thread in my life is how we can remain human in a world that is spinning out of control.<\/em><\/p>\n Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n McKinsey & Company (2025). The State of AI: How Organizations Are Rewiring to Capture Value. <\/em>mckinsey.com\/capabilities\/quantumblack\/our-insights\/the-state-of-ai<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n PwC (2026). 29th Global CEO Survey: Leading Through Uncertainty in the Age of AI. <\/em>pwc.com\/gx\/en\/ceo-survey\/2026.html<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Siemiatkowski, S. (2025). Quoted in Bloomberg, May 2025. <\/em>mlq.ai\/news\/klarna-ceo-admits-aggressive-ai-job-cuts-went-too-far<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Hoogland, P. (2026). Briljante Strategische Plannen Sterven in de Gang. AI5050, 31 March 2026. <\/em>ai5050.com\/timetable\/event\/briljante-strategische-plannen-sterven-in-de-gang\/<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Diverchy, F. (2026). What Did We Lose When We Gained ChatGPT? AI5050, 31 March 2026. <\/em>ai5050.com\/timetable\/event\/what-did-we-lose-when-we-gained-chatgpt\/<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Buyssens, V. (2026). Navigating Intelligence. AI5050, 31 March 2026. <\/em>ai5050.com\/timetable\/event\/navigating-intelligence\/<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n