As AI helps shape workplace decisions, how do we keep human judgment, accountability, and care at the centre of those decisions? TallSky Associate Meredith Campbell-Jess answers this timely question in her latest blog.
In the organizations I work with, I’m seeing people try to make sense of where AI fits into their work. There’s curiosity and excitement, but there’s also fear. In an economy where people are already worried about job security, conversations about efficiency and automation can leave them wondering what this means for their own future.
I’m also noticing how readily AI is being brought into decision-making, and how much trust is sometimes placed in its recommendations. That’s what has me taking a beat to think more carefully. I see opportunities for these tools to support good thinking, but I also see the risk of accepting an answer without enough questioning. When decisions affect people’s roles, livelihoods, and working relationships, I want us to be asking: what context is missing, whose perspective haven’t we heard, and have we given this the human consideration it deserves?
That distinction matters when we move from using AI to draft an email to relying on it to guide a hiring decision, assess someone’s performance, or recommend how to restructure a team. These decisions deserve careful thought and context.
A polished answer can feel like a well-considered answer. Those aren’t always the same thing. We need to ask what information went into the response, what might be missing, and whether the recommendation holds up when we look beyond what we typed into the prompt. Would we reach the same conclusion if we spoke directly with the people involved?
I understand why leaders turn to it. When you’re carrying a heavy workload and facing a difficult decision, a clear answer can feel like relief. There’s something comforting about a tool that responds immediately and sounds certain. But that is precisely when we need to pause. Confidence in the wording shouldn’t become our reason for trusting the conclusion.
For leaders, this adds another layer to the responsibility of introducing AI at work. People deserve clarity about how it is being used, particularly when it helps shape decisions that affect them. They need opportunities to provide context, question assumptions, and speak to someone who can explain and take responsibility for the decision.
“Claude recommended it” is hardly a reassuring leadership statement.
In an economy where people are already feeling vulnerable, trust matters. We build it through honest conversations, thoughtful decisions, and a willingness to explain our reasoning. We weaken it when people feel their circumstances have been reduced to a prompt, or when nobody seems willing to own the outcome.
I want us to stay curious about what AI can offer. I also want us to stay willing to challenge it, verify what matters, and recognize when a conversation with a person will tell us something a generated response cannot.
The balance requires us to remain actively involved: asking better questions, considering different perspectives, and taking responsibility for the choices we make.
As you bring AI into your work, where is it helping you think more carefully, and where might you be letting it do the thinking for you?
You can also follow more of Meredith’s fabulous writing on her Substack.