3 Signs We’re Waking Up from the AI Fever Dream

3 Signs We’re Waking Up from the AI Fever Dream

You could practically hear the soaring, triumphant anthem playing over a scene of unwashed yet unbowed humans crawling out of hiding as the machines’ ominous hums slowed and the evil tech overlords realized that their reign was ending.

“Ford’s AI Hiccups Lead Carmaker to Rehire ‘Gray Beard” Engineers’ the Bloomberg headline proclaimed.

It was only one company, but the news was received as if winning this battle foretold winning the war.

Sure, other companies, like IBM, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and Klarna, rehired humans after AI-motivated layoffs. But the Ford decision just hit different because of the honesty that accompanied the announcement: “Mistakenly we thought that by just introducing artificial intelligence and ingesting the design requirements that we had, that that would produce a high-quality product.”

It’s the honesty, more than the action, that signals a new era emerging.

 

 

The fever dream takes hold

Since ChatGPT burst onto the scene in November 2022, companies scrambled to “adopt AI” and cram it down employees’ throats in the most striking demonstration of the Red Queen hypothesis since Lewis Carroll penned the words, “Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”

The past three years saw a lot of running (and spending) with not a lot of progress. MIT reported earlier this year that 95% of AI pilots fail and even published an article titled, “What leaders still get wrong about AI” listing the following;

  1. Treating AI as something you do, not a tool to get results
  2. Starting AI projects without a clear path to value
  3. Getting stuck in pilots instead of scaling
  4. Overlooking how AI changes the business itself
  5. Mistaking productivity gains for value

Two months after publication, there are signs that leaders are starting to get things right.

 

Signs we’re waking up

After spending $2.5-$3T between 2022 and 2025, companies’ approach to AI isn’t going to change overnight. But there are indications that leaders are learning and adopting new strategies for AI adoption and implementation.

Executives are admitting mistakes.

After boldly committing to AI and promising step-changes in efficiency, innovation, and earnings, executives are moderating their tone and even admitting their mistakes:

  • “Artificial intelligence is a fantastic tool, but it’s only as good as the information you use to train it.” Charles Poon, VP Vehicle Hardware Engineering , Ford
  • We “did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations…we should have been more thorough in our assessment of the roles required.” CBA announcing its reversal of AI-related job cuts
  • “Really, investing in the quality of human support is the way of the future for us,” Sebastian Siemiatkowski, CEO of Klarna, when rehiring 700 customer service agents

Managers are changing who they hire

After years of layoffs, recent analysis indicates that technical jobs aren’t going away. They’re changing what’s required for success.

In a review of 2.85 million job descriptions posted between June 2025 and June 2026, researchers found a dramatic increase in skills related to “judgment, design, and accountability,” and a decrease in skills related to routine work like “boilerplate coding” and manual testing.

Companies are engaging employees

With 70% of large companies monitoring employee AI activity, it’s no surprise that fatigue and anxiety are increasing, trust is plummeting, and employees are resisting.

But in a switch from the authoritarian, top-down, “because I said so” AI implementation model of the past, companies are starting to engage employees as advocates and trainers. Some are going a step further and shifting their approach from “use AI” to “what tools, including AI, do you need to become the professional you aspire to be.”

 

 

Slow then fast

Just like waking up from a dream or crawling out of hiding after the apocalypse, the shift from “AI IS EVERYTHING!” to “AI is a tool” will take time. But the process is beginning.

Emotional Contagion is the Real Driver of Change’s Success

Emotional Contagion is the Real Driver of Change’s Success

For eight days, the Tartan Army filled Boston’s streets with kilts, bagpipes, and the constant refrain of “No Scotland. No Party.”  Bars ran out of beer, traffic cones adorned statues, and resident’s souls were healed.

Now, some are saying corporate managers should have the same effect on the people around them (presumably without consuming all the beer in the office).

The possibility of collective effervescence

Collective effervescence is everywhere right now: in New York at the Knicks’ championship parade, the Tarps Off shirtless section at baseball games, at every unexpected draw or win at the World Cup.

It’s the “emotional electricity or excitement that lifts people outside of themselves and makes them feel like they’re connecting to something transcendent,” explains Christina Simko, and associate professor of sociology at William College. “They (members of a crowd) have to have a common focus and a common mood, and through that physical interaction, they generate something … greater than the sum of its parts.”

Greater than the sum of its parts.

Where have a I heard that before?

Could it be in every press release announcing an acquisition, all-hands meeting kicking of a transformation, and email confirming a re-org?

Which explains why I’m reading about the need for executives to create collective effervescence to ensure the success of transformational initiatives.

Seventy percent of transformations fail and one of the leading causes of failure is insufficiently high aspirations. Collective effervescence is sufficiently high but setting that as a metric of success will only drive up the failure rate.

The probability of emotional contagion

Emotional contagion is also everywhere: in the laugh that spreads through a room, the frown that moves around a conference table, the yawns that can’t be suppressed in meetings.

It’s the “phenomenon in which a person unconsciously mirrors or mimics the emotions of those around them” through nonverbal, conversational, or behavioral cues. It can be positive, like smiles and laughs, or negative like frowns or the tension from a tough conversation.

That’s good news for executives.

Leaders are “emotional amplifiers” because team members are more likely to mirror the leader’s tone than their peers. Research out of USC also indicates that, historically, positive emotions are more contagious than negative ones.

It’s also bad news for executives.

The emotional amplifier role cuts both ways and research shows that people tend to “overperceive” negative cues from leaders, even magnifying small emotional cues well beyond what a leader intended.

That means the frown everyone on the company-wide Zoom was most likely interpreted as disagreement, even opposition, to what was being discussed. And not that your shoes are too tight.

 The reality of leading humans through change

Leading people through change is hard. It’s even harder when you’re under a microscope and every smile, frown, sigh, cough, and eye roll is scrutinized and interpreted as if it were a secret code foretelling the future of thousands.

It’s not. But your team believes it is.

And perception is reality.

Here’s how to start shaping reality to make the changes happen:

  • Start with self-awareness. What is your mood right now? If it’s useful to the team, spend time with them. If it’s not, reschedule the meeting or send a proxy.
  • Make direct eye contact with people. According to the research, eye contact during verbal communication activates brain regions that help us understand what someone is saying and what they mean. Just don’t stare. That’s creepy.
  • Neutralize the negativity publicly. A bit of skepticism can be healthy for teams going through change but too much easily crosses over into pessimism and even hostility that spreads throughout the team. So stop the spread by publicly and patiently calling out the behavior and seeking to understand the root cause.

You don’t need collective effervescence to successfully lead change.

You do need spread the belief that change is possible and beneficial.

And you can do that without wearing a kilt.

What Leaders Can Learn From Lobsters (Or, The Importance of Asking Why)

What Leaders Can Learn From Lobsters (Or, The Importance of Asking Why)

Up and down New England’s coastline you’ll find lobster (pronounced “lob-stah”) shacks.  These weathered wood structures produce the freshest lobster and crispiest fried seafood anywhere, enjoyed on picnic tables as the sun beats down and the waves crash against the rocky shore.

It was at one of these shacks that, many years ago, I learned priceless lesson.

As my friends and I placed our orders, I asked that the head of my lobster be removed before serving. The waitress looked at me like I had nine heads but wrote down my request and returned to the kitchen. A few minutes later she reappeared and announced that the kitchen refused to decapitate the lobster prior to serving.

“I don’t like making eye contact with my food,” I stammered.

She nodded and walked away.

When she returned with our lobsters, they all had heads but one was noticeably different. It was wearing “sunglasses” made of olives and toothpicks.

“Here,” our waitress said. “Now you don’t have to make eye contact with it.”

 

 

A short-term “solution”

As VUCA-ness (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) accelerates, C-suite executives do everything possible to create certainty and construct safety. After all, if the company doesn’t survive the short-term, even the best long-term plans don’t matter.

Evidence of this approach is everywhere:

When these decisions land on your desk, you sigh, knowing they are short-sighted but understanding the rationale. Then, you go implement them, knowing unintended consequences are coming.

 

 

Unintended doesn’t mean unpredictable

In fact, because you are on the frontlines of your business, striving to deliver today and build tomorrow, you can predict what those consequences will be:

It’s frustrating to see the problems coming but feel powerless to avoid them.

But what does any of this have to do with a lobster wearing sunglasses?

 

 

When you know the Why, you can choose the How

When directives land on your desk, don’t sigh and roll them out. Ask for the Why behind the What.

  • Why are employees being forced back to the office? Did productivity decrease? Are mission-critical operations not occurring? Are top-performers leaving for in-person roles?
  • Why are experienced people being let go? Is the work being outsourced or has it genuinely gone? Why are you no longer hiring entry-level people? Are they too expensive to train? Is retention genuinely poor?
  • Why are innovation initiatives being cut? Is the core business in that much trouble? Do we lack the talent? Are we pursuing growth through other means?

Each directive’s Why is different which means you have more options than you realize for delivering the How. Understanding the outcomes the company needs, reveals options for delivering it while minimizing the unintended consequences.

 

 

Don’t decapitate the lobster. Find opportunities for sunglasses.

The kitchen could have easily removed the head from my lobster, but they foresaw the unintended consequences of a disappointing dining experience. When they understood my why, they created a spectacular how.

You don’t control the system so asking “Why?” feels scary, hostile, even mutinous.

You do control your piece of it. You know it better than anyone, so there’s no one better to determine the how.

“Do More with Less” Without Burning Out in 3 Practical Steps

“Do More with Less” Without Burning Out in 3 Practical Steps

We have entered the “do more with less” era of management edicts.

And, just like the eras of “fail fast,” “synergy,” and “we’re a family,” the phrase is met with eye rolls, silent groans, and a deepening certainty that management is completely out of touch with the reality on the ground.

But what if doing more with less is possible without the extra hours and stress that lead to burnout?

 

(Re)Define “more.”

When we hear “more,” we naturally think of work. More meetings. More emails. More Slacks, texts, Zooms. For most of my career, I believed the more emails I received, meetings I attended, and documents I wrote, the more valuable I was.

Volume does not equal value.

“More” can’t (and shouldn’t) mean more work. It must mean something else.

More value creation. Less box checking.

More progress. Less process.

More meaningful work. Less meaningless activity.

What is the “more” you want from your team? Define it or you’ll get more emails, meetings, and documents. Name it (value, efficiency, progress), and your team will figure out how to do it.

 

Experiment with “less.”

A client’s team stopped sending meeting summaries. They didn’t send shorter ones, change the distribution list, or even share the link to the AI note-taker. They just stopped.

No one noticed.

Six months later, a new team member asked if they would send a meeting summary. The team leader said no but offered to recap next steps before everyone left the room. No one argued. Everyone left the meeting with clarity on what they needed to do next.

Activity does not equal achievement.

 Our days are filled with BS work, tasks that we do because we’ve always done them, because they feel important, and because we worry what happens if we stop.

Documents don’t ensure that people are informed, aligned, or are ready to act.

Meetings don’t guarantee that everyone has thoughtfully considered and agreed on a decision.

Meeting summaries don’t make people complete their next steps.

It doesn’t mean we don’t need documents, meetings, or meeting summaries. But “less” is possible.

Ask your team what you can do less of. Stop doing things and see if people notice. If you can’t stop something completely, ask what less of it looks like. Instead of a meeting summary, send next steps. Instead of a presentation, write a one-page summary. Instead of a spreadsheet build a visual dashboard.

 

Rethink “indispensable.”

The managers in my client’s training program were in roles that everyone called the most pivotal in the company. They didn’t feel pivotal. They felt reactive and overwhelmed, with no control over their own calendars.

The COO’s fix was simple. Just stop attending.

It surprised him that they wouldn’t. They couldn’t. The fear of missing something kept them in every room, including the ones that ran fine without them.

You’re in every meeting because you’re good at your job. Being good got you invited into every decision, and somewhere along the way no one uninvited you. Now you stay out of habit, not need. The permission to step back is usually there. You just haven’t tested it long enough to know what happens.

 Presence does not equal performance.

Look at your calendar for the meetings you sit in out of habit. Pick one this week to not attend. Resist the urge to instructions. Simply tell the team lead you won’t attend and that you trust them to keep things moving.

Your absence isn’t dropping the ball. It’s demonstrating that you trust the team and empowering them to do their jobs. It’s the rare version of less that gives you more time and your team their autonomy.

 

“Do more with less” isn’t a demand to work harder

The constraint isn’t going anywhere. Volume isn’t value. Activity isn’t achievement. Presence isn’t performance. It’s a reason to finally drop what doesn’t matter.