AI is already on the team. The question is whether leaders are shaping how it works.
At our seventh I Spy AI Executive Roundtable, we gathered again with business leaders to talk about how AI is changing the way organizations think, work, decide and lead.
The conversation started with a simple but provocative idea: every organization now has a shadow org chart.
AI may not appear in the official boxes and lines. It may not have a title, a manager or a seat at the Monday morning meeting. But it is already influencing how people research, write, analyze, create, summarize, solve and decide. In some companies, AI is being treated like a tool. In others, it is starting to behave more like a team member. And in many organizations, it is being used quietly, inconsistently and without much shared language around what “good” looks like.
That was the heart of the discussion: AI adoption is no longer just a technology question. It is a leadership question. A culture question. And, increasingly, a philosophy question.
The shadow org was inevitable.
As Tim Brunelle reminded us, AI is not just another software upgrade. It represents a fundamentally different way of computing, one that is faster, more conversational, more adaptive and more embedded in daily work.
That means AI is entering organizations from every direction. Through sanctioned enterprise tools. Through individual experimentation. Through vendors, platforms, workflows and personal habits. In many cases, it is already doing meaningful work before the organization has officially decided how it should be used.
The challenge for leaders is not whether AI will become part of the organization. It already has. The challenge is whether leaders will define its role intentionally.
AI needs culture, not just governance.
Policies matter. Security matters. Procurement matters. But the deeper work is cultural.
Leaders need to help their teams understand not only what tools are allowed, but what AI should be used for in their organization. What it should help accelerate. What it should never replace. What requires human judgment. What counts as knowledge. What counts as a decision. And when AI must defer to a person.
One of Tim’s strongest points was that organizations need to ask what may sound like rudimentary questions:
- What is AI for here, and what is it not for?
- What counts as knowledge?
- What counts as a decision?
- When must AI defer to a human?
These questions may feel philosophical, but they are also intensely practical. Without answers, people will create their own rules.
AI may change the unit of work.
For decades, much of business has been organized around deliverables: the memo, the deck, the report, the brief, the plan.
But AI is beginning to shift attention from the deliverable itself to the decision the deliverable was meant to support. In other words, the work is not just the artifact. The work is the thinking, judgment and alignment behind it.
That idea sparked an important conversation for leaders. If AI can help produce the deck, summarize the research or draft the first version, then the value of the human contribution becomes even more important, not less.
The question becomes: What decision are we trying to make? What context matters? What judgment is required? What trade-offs are we willing to make?
AI can accelerate the mechanics of work. Leaders still need to protect the meaning of the work.
Critical thinking is not going away.
A recurring theme in our I Spy AI conversations is that AI does not eliminate the need for human judgment. It raises the stakes for it.
One executive made an important point in that spirit: critical thinking will not be replaced by AI. If anything, the more powerful the tools become, the more important it is for people to question, interpret, challenge and decide.
A CEO added another helpful perspective. When the conversation turns anxious, especially around AI and jobs, it helps to remember that there will never be a point when humans have nothing to do. Work will change. Roles will change. Some tasks will disappear. New ones will emerge. But the human role in creating meaning, building trust, applying judgment and imagining what comes next is not going away.
That felt like an important counterweight to the fear-based narrative. The point is not to pretend nothing will change. The point is to lead through the change with more clarity, not less.
Leaders have to write the rules.
Perhaps the most important takeaway was this: AI will follow rules. The question is whose rules.
If leaders do not define how AI should be used in their organizations, the defaults will come from somewhere else: the tool, the vendor, the platform, the loudest early adopter or the path of least resistance.
That is why this moment requires more than experimentation. It requires leadership teams to articulate the principles that will guide AI’s role in the business.
- What do we value?
- Where do we want more speed?
- Where do we need human oversight?
- Where can AI expand capability?
- Where could it erode trust?
These are not questions for IT alone. They belong in the C-suite, the boardroom and the day-to-day conversations that shape culture.
Big thanks!
Thank you to all of our attendees who brought curiosity, candor and thoughtful perspective to the conversation. And a special thank you to our partner Tim Brunelle, who continues to challenge us to think beyond the tools and ask better questions about leadership, culture and the future of work.
Want more? Below are our recaps from previous I Spy AI Executive Roundtables: