When the map is no longer enough: leadership’s new role in the AI era
Leadership has long been described as the ability to create clarity: to analyse a situation, formulate a plan and then mobilise the organisation around it. But what happens when reality changes faster than the plan can be implemented? In AI transformation, it is rarely enough to formulate a complete plan first and then put it into practice. The change affects how work is carried out, which skills are needed, how decisions are made and, ultimately, how organisations create value. Although some initiatives can be defined as traditional change projects, the overall transformation needs to be led as an ongoing process, with a clear direction but with choices and decisions open to reconsideration as the organisation learns.
From map to compass
In a stable environment, a map is a powerful leadership tool, describing the destination, the route and the key milestones. But a map assumes that the terrain is reasonably well known. In the AI era, the terrain changes as we move through it, making the compass a more valuable tool.
An organisational compass needs to answer three questions:
What is our direction, and what future are we trying to create?
Why can we not wait?
Which principles should guide our decisions when the plan no longer reflects reality?
The compass needs to translate into observable choices. A direction only becomes meaningful in practice when it helps determine which initiatives take priority. What levels of risk are acceptable? Who is authorised to make which decisions? Which outcomes and KPIs does the organisation monitor? Otherwise, the compass risks becoming an appealing metaphor with no power to guide action.
This is not about abandoning strategy or analysis, but about distinguishing between three types of uncertainty and addressing them differently:
Uncertainty that can be resolved through analysis. This calls for more facts, better evidence and clearer information to support decisions.
Uncertainty that only diminishes through action. This calls for experiments in real workflows, because the answer does not exist until someone has tried.
Uncertainty that cannot be resolved at all. This calls for resilience: choices that remain sound across several possible futures, rather than optimisation for a single scenario.
The third category is particularly difficult to address. When organisations try to analyse away uncertainty that fundamentally cannot be resolved, they risk spending a disproportionate amount of time on forecasts rather than building the ability to operate across a range of possible outcomes.
“As AI becomes better at bringing together information and presenting options, the human contribution of leadership becomes clearer: direction, judgement, responsibility, trust and learning. Competitive advantage will come from using technology without relinquishing our responsibility as leaders.”
The individual leader: from answers to context
For individual leaders, this means shifting from being expected primarily to have the answers to creating a context in which others can act. Leaders still need to make decisions, contribute expertise and take responsibility, but their credibility does not rest on certainty alone. It also rests on clarity about direction, assumptions and choices. Saying “this is what we believe, for these reasons, and this is how we will find out whether we are wrong” can inspire greater trust than projecting a certainty that does not exist.
This requires a combination of courage and humility: the courage to act without complete information and the humility to change one’s mind and revisit decisions as new knowledge emerges. This is closely aligned with the shift described by several organisations, including McKinsey, from leading through control to creating context, clear values and decision-making authority. As AI increasingly contributes analysis and information to support decisions, responsibility for difficult trade-offs must not be delegated to technology. Trust does not arise from the tool or technology itself, but from how leaders explain decisions, allocate authority and take responsibility for the consequences.
There is also a less widely recognised consequence. As AI takes over parts of analysis, research and initial drafting, some of the situations in which judgement was previously developed may change or disappear. An executive team working through a strategic decision paper together did not simply learn facts: it tested assumptions and weighed risks against opportunities. At the same time, AI can create new opportunities to develop judgement, for example by bringing more alternatives and counterarguments to light. The organisation therefore needs to make deliberate choices about which parts of the process can be made more efficient and which must be preserved or redesigned to continue developing judgement.
—> Continued reading: Where will tomorrow’s judgement be developed as AI changes work?
The executive team: from strong individuals to collective capability
As information becomes more accessible, the value of the executive team also changes. Its most important contribution increasingly lies in interpreting change together, weighing competing interests and making decisions where there is no obvious right answer. Functional reporting may still be needed, but it should not dominate meetings at the expense of shared strategic work. This places greater demands on collective judgement and on the executive team’s ability to function and perform as a team, rather than simply as a group of strong individuals. The executive team needs to take responsibility for its shared remit, challenge ideas without attributing motives to individuals, and regularly reflect on how the group works together.
In the AI era, the executive team is not just a decision-making body, but also the architect of organisational learning. This means choosing which problems lend themselves to experimentation, ensuring that results are documented, deciding which lessons to apply more widely, and ending initiatives that fail to create value or remain within agreed risk limits. It also needs to demonstrate that a change of direction is not a failure when it is based on new knowledge.
Leadership behaviour influences which behaviours are seen as desirable and possible within the organisation. When leaders try new tools themselves, openly share what they learn and adapt their ways of working, they can make it easier for others to do the same. However, the effect also depends on whether employees have the time, authority, skills and safe boundaries needed to experiment. The executive team’s task is therefore not to become the organisation’s most advanced AI users, but to make continuous learning both visible and practically possible.
The board: from oversight to active strategic engagement
The board’s role also changes as AI affects the business model, skills requirements, risk landscape and competitive environment. The board then needs to ensure that these issues are addressed early in strategic discussions and that management’s assumptions are tested. At the same time, a more forward-looking approach must not mean that the board takes over management’s operational responsibilities.
The board needs to test the organisation’s compass:
Is the vision clear enough to guide decisions the board will never see?
Are there decision-making principles that remain sound when the plan no longer reflects reality?
Does management have the collective capability required, not just the right individuals?
What risks arise if the organisation moves too quickly, and what risks arise if it waits?
The final question deserves more attention than it often receives. The risk of waiting is rarely described in the same concrete terms as the risk of acting, even though postponing action also means postponing learning and slowing the development of capability.
Leadership’s task is not becoming smaller, but more human
The better AI becomes at compiling information and presenting alternatives, the clearer it becomes what leadership actually needs to contribute. Direction. Judgement. Responsibility. Trust. Learning. Future competitive advantage lies in the ability to use technology without relinquishing the human responsibility that leadership entails. Dashboards and algorithms can support engagement and credibility through better information, consistency and transparency, but they cannot create them on their own. What matters is how people use technology, explain decisions and take responsibility for the consequences.
Leadership needs to combine authenticity (being clear, consistent and honest about one’s values, intentions and limitations) with compassion: recognising people’s needs, listening to their perspectives and understanding how decisions affect them. This is how leaders create the trust that enables employees to contribute, challenge and learn, and the engagement that makes change possible. It is also through human judgement that ethical trade-offs can be made when data and algorithms do not provide an unambiguous answer. The map will still be needed. But in times of genuine change, it is the human compass that determines whether the organisation can continue to move forward and do so responsibly.
Questions for leaders, executive teams and boards
Which uncertainty do we need to analyse further, which can only diminish through action, and which must we simply build resilience to face?
Is our direction clear enough for people to act without detailed instructions?
Does the executive team function as a collective decision-making body or primarily as a forum for functional reporting?
Where is judgement developed in our organisation today, and what happens to it when AI takes over parts of the analytical work?
How can the board provide perspective and challenge without taking over management’s responsibilities?
Have we defined where experimentation is permitted, which decisions must never be automated, and what should trigger the termination of an initiative?
About the author
Partner and Senior Consultant, Alumni Global
E-mail
Olof Franck is a Partner and Senior Consultant at Alumni Global in Stockholm. He specialises in executive and board appointments within technology, digital and software, with particular experience of leadership in organisations undergoing growth, transformation and change.
—> Read more
At Alumni Global, we believe that the key to unleash potential in people and organisations is great leadership. Partnering with you, we help equip your organisation to make a difference.
We tailor our wide range of leadership services to your unique requirements, helping your organisation thrive and support your people’s professional development.
Our portfolio of services includes:
Do reach out for a dialogue about your unique situation and requirements.
Contact us
