"I keep coming back to something I’ve observed in my own company: the people who are best at AI aren’t the ones who learned the most tools. They’re the ones who understood their own work well enough to know where AI could actually help."
A big 'YES' to this. The way I learnt initially was to take a workflow I knew inside out and then try to do each step with AI. That showed me exactly what I could and couldn't trust AI to do. Obviously, that changes with new models, but I'm convinced it's the best way to learn.
Traditional corporate training can give you an overview of AI, but it doesn't make it relevant to your actual workflow.
The two-tier pattern Anna describes is a question of where companies stop on the adoption curve. Implementation is when the tool enters the company. Adoption is when it enters how people work. Full adoption is when it enters how the team thinks. Most companies measure dashboards and call it done at step one. The "AI elite" is what happens when a few people reach step three on their own initiative, while the rest are stuck at step one because nobody created the conditions for them to move. That is a leadership choice, not a talent gap.
I am seeing this happen to. The elite get access to leadership for exactly the reasons you mention. They can make change happen fast and things that execs were told cannot happen or will take insurmountable effort are now suddenly possible. In many cases the people who are doing things the old way are not even being asked to change their ways of working. They can fall into a false sense of comfort that they are doing what’s expected of them. In reality leadership is working with the elites to build what is next so they need a crew to keep the lights on until then.
There are always some sort of elites closer to the decision makers, let it be the sales & marketing people, the Finance people, the data people, and this time is the AI users.
The leadership ought to have this understanding and carefully think if this is really how they want it, and if it is beneficial for the org - regarding who is being the "elite" now.
"I keep coming back to something I’ve observed in my own company: the people who are best at AI aren’t the ones who learned the most tools. They’re the ones who understood their own work well enough to know where AI could actually help."
A big 'YES' to this. The way I learnt initially was to take a workflow I knew inside out and then try to do each step with AI. That showed me exactly what I could and couldn't trust AI to do. Obviously, that changes with new models, but I'm convinced it's the best way to learn.
Traditional corporate training can give you an overview of AI, but it doesn't make it relevant to your actual workflow.
That's a fantastic process Mariam!!
The two-tier pattern Anna describes is a question of where companies stop on the adoption curve. Implementation is when the tool enters the company. Adoption is when it enters how people work. Full adoption is when it enters how the team thinks. Most companies measure dashboards and call it done at step one. The "AI elite" is what happens when a few people reach step three on their own initiative, while the rest are stuck at step one because nobody created the conditions for them to move. That is a leadership choice, not a talent gap.
I am seeing this happen to. The elite get access to leadership for exactly the reasons you mention. They can make change happen fast and things that execs were told cannot happen or will take insurmountable effort are now suddenly possible. In many cases the people who are doing things the old way are not even being asked to change their ways of working. They can fall into a false sense of comfort that they are doing what’s expected of them. In reality leadership is working with the elites to build what is next so they need a crew to keep the lights on until then.
Isn't it always the case?
There are always some sort of elites closer to the decision makers, let it be the sales & marketing people, the Finance people, the data people, and this time is the AI users.
The leadership ought to have this understanding and carefully think if this is really how they want it, and if it is beneficial for the org - regarding who is being the "elite" now.