2 Comments
User's avatar
Alexander Stewart's avatar

Competition may force adoption, but the internal principal-agent problem helps explain why spending can rise while redesign stalls. The managers asked to eliminate coordination layers may be evaluating a system that weakens their own authority, so ‘AI adoption’ becomes a safer substitute for changing decision rights. The real unit of transformation may be the decision boundary: who decides, who verifies, and who absorbs failure. What governance structure have you seen overcome that incentive without turning redesign into a permanent committee?

Anton Biletskiy-Volokh's avatar

Thank you — I think this gets to the core of it. The hard part is not adopting AI, but changing who can make decisions and who is accountable when something goes wrong.

A structure that may help is to give small cross-functional teams a clear, limited decision area, with measurable outcomes and an explicit human escalation path. That makes experimentation safer, while preventing every change from becoming a large approval process. The goal is not to remove managers, but to move their role from controlling each step to setting boundaries, incentives, and accountability.