Tagged with: #talent

Workers with genuine AI capabilities command premiums of 28-56%; those targeting AI-exposed roles without substantive skill development face a 29% earnings penalty. The same roles, opposite outcomes, and the difference lies in the quality of capability investment, not access to tools. This article examines why this bifurcation extends to the Boardroom itself, where the IoD now positions AI competence as a core NED responsibility. For Boards, the strategic question becomes: is your workforce developing verification and judgement, or just collecting certifications — and can you tell the difference?

AI’s primary value isn’t replacing people, it’s releasing the intellectual capital trapped in undifferentiated work. Yet in many Boardrooms, workforce reduction remains the default success metric for AI initiatives. This article makes the case for the redeployment dividend: redirecting freed human capacity toward outcome-impacting work, complex judgement, and innovation that AI cannot replicate. For Boards, the strategic question shifts from “how many roles disappear?” to “what valuable work aren’t we doing because our best people are buried in tasks they don’t need to do?”

While organisations transfer decision-making agency to AI systems, accountability remains with humans, yet boards approve AI deployment without investing in the verification capability needed to ensure it. In this article, I demonstrate why this creates a strategic choice with measurable consequences: augmentation preserves expertise pipelines whilst achieving efficiency gains, but replacement destroys capabilities that cannot be rebuilt, turning apparent cost reduction into systematic competitive disadvantage.

As I discussed in my article on building and managing AI-capable teams, organisations face a critical challenge in acquiring the right talent for AI transformation. This reminds me of the early days of cloud adoption, when I advised enterprises on their migration strategies. Back then, I witnessed the same scramble for scarce talent, which led me to advocate strongly for upskilling existing teams rather than relying solely on external hiring.

As organisations adopt artificial intelligence (AI) more widely, a critical challenge emerges: how do you build and manage teams capable of delivering on AI’s promise of increased productivity, enhanced customer experiences, accelerated innovation, and sustainable competitive advantage?

As artificial intelligence (AI) advances into the workplace rapidly, one of the most pressing questions on everyone’s mind is, “If machines can do our jobs faster, more accurately, and at a lower cost, what happens to us?” It’s true that AI is beginning to redefine the very essence of work, raising concerns about the potential displacement of knowledge workers. However, I’d like to propose an alternative perspective—one where those same workers earn the same or more whilst working far fewer hours.