By Al Adamsen | Future of Work Advisors

Myth 4: Ai Will Make Better Decisions for Us

When it comes to artificial intelligence (Ai), a persistent myth has emerged in many boardrooms and strategy sessions: the belief that Ai will not only provide us with better information, but also help us make better decisions, automatically, effortlessly, and without significant human intervention.

This myth is especially attractive in today’s world, where decisions feel increasingly complex, data is overwhelming, and time is scarce. If Ai can synthesize vast amounts of information and offer a clear recommendation, why not just follow its lead?

The reality, however, is more nuanced, and more human.

Good information, timely, relevant, and actionable, still takes time and effort to create. It also takes discernment, context, and shared understanding to evaluate. Ai can certainly help us uncover patterns, surface insights, and reduce cognitive load, but it doesn’t eliminate the need for human judgment, especially when decisions impact people, values, and long-term organizational performance.

Just as troubling is the fact that more information does not guarantee better decisions. In fact, it often leads to decision fatigue, analysis paralysis, or overconfidence. Ai-generated content, especially when confidently stated, can exacerbate these tendencies. Many leaders are already experiencing a flood of dashboards, reports, and ChatGPT-generated briefs from direct reports, peers, partners, and platforms, all competing for attention.

And attention, real, intentional, reflective attention, is what decision-making requires.

The Real Challenge: Decision-Making Is a Process, Not Just an Event

Whether we’re talking about selecting a new vendor, restructuring a team, or shifting strategy in the face of disruption, the decision-making process itself matters. How we define the problem, who is in the room, what mental models are applied, and how dissent is handled, all of these influence whether a decision will succeed in the long run.

Ai can assist in many of these steps, but it cannot yet replicate the subtle dynamics of trust, psychological safety, ethical discernment, or political navigation that shape real-world decisions. Nor should it.

As my colleagues and I have often emphasized: in an age of Ai, human judgment becomes even more valuable, not less.

What to Do: Build Better Decision-Making Systems, Not Just Smarter Tools

Here’s the opportunity, and the responsibility.

Leaders must stop assuming that better data or more Ai equals better decisions. Instead, they must:

• Design decision-making environments that invite diverse perspectives, cross-functional insight, and purposeful reflection.
  
  
• Understand the cognitive biases that individuals and teams bring into the room, and actively work to surface and balance them.
  
  
• Develop shared decision-making frameworks that clarify roles, responsibilities, and processes, including when to trust Ai, when to challenge it, and when to slow down.
  
  
• Prioritize human-tech integration, not tech replacement. This means optimizing workflows where Ai can do what it does best, pattern recognition, summarization, forecasting, and humans can do what we do best: judgment, sensemaking, and leading others through change.

To learn more about the other Myths click here.  And to learn how to assess your organization’s adaptive readiness and, in turn, build executive decision-making processes rooted in timely, relevant, and actionable insight, follow and connect with me here on LinkedIn.  Finally, be sure to subscribe to the Future of Work Advisors Newsletter.