To be honest, I was exhausted half way through reading this.
While I agree massively on most of your points in the piece, I find that it is leaning heavily on a future hyped by biggest AI developers and the large consultancies. I think that the AI development has - for now at least – plateaued. Just look at Open AI's disappointing ChatGPT 5 launch. We also have to look at the very real threat of model collapse. At least when talking LLMs, the models are well underway to eating their own tail, if they don’t get fresh human-generated material to train on. The next year will be interesting - but I think this might be the break that we all need, to think and build new strategies.
And yes, there will always be a chance of business and sector disruption, especially from fresh thinkers wielding new technology and yes, you should always at least try to imagine what those kind of alternative innovation paths look like. Especially from more nimble upstarts at the edges. I would love to see radical experimentation build into organisations and not just in relation AI. This is also why foresight should always be part of strategy. Sadly, the field has been so watered out that it has become a joke. Every futurist regurgitating the same ‘models’ and truisms, is exactly why the reports are used as bookends and not in the strategy or innovation... but that is a different story. I too, am weary of the tired trope of AI efficiency being the holy grail in strategy for its implementation into organisations. Your urgent call for building the right foundations is spot on and I couldn’t agree more on your points of what (human) skills are needed in tomorrow’s organisations. But since I am of the school ‘less but better’, I just dont fit into this corporate mindset of efficiency and growth above everything else anyway, so I'll see myself out. I'll be out there looking for the people trying to break the mould (and I'll probably be unemployed - especially since I am one of those pesky futurists ^^). Thank you for your always inspiring thinking and writing.
Your distinction between incremental automation and transformational strategy is the question organizations need to grapple with now. When leaders lack clear vision beyond efficiency gains, they miss the deeper opportunity to rethink business models, value creation, and human purpose. This requires both courage and clear communication about what the organization is becoming. https://elevatingwhatworks.substack.com/
Hi Zoe, I’ve had an intellect-crush on your thinking for years ( I think I may have told!) and this piece is exactly why. You manage to cut through the noise with such clarity and courage, naming the blind spots most leaders would rather avoid.
I love how you’ve framed efficiency as a trap, not a strategy. That distinction alone is going to save some people a lot of wasted cycles.
Grateful you keep putting work like this into the world. It’s sharp, generous, and urgently needed.
Love the thinking in this, and love the way you describe doing war games with Ai thats a great way to help scenario planning. One thing we need to do though is take those results with a pinch of salt, I've not yet seen AI predict as it uses old data, we still need to human to make those leaps to what could be possible... so as long as we work with the AI to get there I think thats bloody great.
I laughed out loud here: Because the worst thing you can do is give people chatbots and faster PowerPoint generation through Microsoft Copilot and call it transformation.
Hi, What you’re describing isn’t primarily a technology issue. It’s a leadership and governance issue. Artificial intelligence exposes the limits of existing organisational structures faster than those structures can adapt. Incremental improvement feels safe because it fits inside current control mechanisms, budgets, reporting cycles, performance metrics, and approval hierarchies. Fundamental re-architecture doesn’t, so it rarely even enters the conversation.
That’s where the real risk sits. Organisations aren’t avoiding action; they’re avoiding decisions. Optimisation becomes a substitute for choosing what to let go of. Efficiency gains create movement without direction. Strategy turns into a series of improvements that never question the underlying model.
Your point about early wins creating a trap is particularly important. Those wins don’t just deliver value, they reshape what is considered “reasonable” to discuss. Once progress is defined as being 10% or 15% better, anything that questions the frame itself starts to look reckless. Over time, this quietly locks organisations into improving approaches whose relevance is already eroding.
The competitive danger here isn’t that others use the technology better. It’s that others use it to imagine different operating realities altogether. While some organisations optimise inside familiar assumptions, others explore futures where those assumptions no longer hold. By the time those alternatives become visible in the market, the ability to respond has largely disappeared.
I also agree that this can’t be solved by spinning up innovation teams or running more workshops. Fundamental questions about structure, authority, coordination and value creation can’t be delegated away from leadership. They require the same people who approve investments and set direction to confront scenarios that make today’s success uncomfortable.
What does work is using the tools already being introduced to examine not only how current processes can be improved, but how they might disappear entirely. Modelling extreme but plausible futures, and then working backwards to identify which capabilities would be required, forces clarity about what matters and what doesn’t. It turns abstract disruption into concrete choices.
Running incremental improvement and radical exploration in parallel isn’t optional. But they need different success criteria and protection from each other. Otherwise the optimisation agenda will always dominate, until the environment shifts and it no longer matters.
If a strategy for this technology is only about efficiency, it isn’t really a strategy. It’s a timer.
Kickass provocative piece. Reminded me of the power of the question over the assumption of the answer. (Berger's "A More Beautiful Question") What-If thinking. Leading to WTF doing. Radical thinking. Begetting more Radinkers. Changing not the world...(It's not the world that charges)...but us. Who we are. What we do. Why we care, kill, heal, share, steal, build, break, rebuild. Love.
It's important not to get too bogged down by vendor narratives; they are selling what they can in an accelerating market. "Now" benefits will always dominate. It would be naive to think that CxO and world leaders are not discussing, planning and exploring the potential scenarios of AI in the very near future.
There’s no ‘what if’ I don’t think, I believe it’s simply a matter of when. EA Abbot’s ‘Flatland’ written in the 1890s might be worth a read as a companion piece on this topic. 👽
I think there will be a different % breakdown of "AI strategy" depending on the priorities of each brand. For most now, I think over-thinking or over-investing in building their own AI is a misplaced strategy. Partnerships are a smarter path in this rapidly-changing period in time.
That said, yours is one of the clearest calls we've seen for rebalancing the AI conversation... from efficiency-first to futures-first. There's a real tension we see playing out in media, retail, and beyond: everyone’s racing to win small improvements while the real opportunity lies in reimagining things entirely.
At Genuin, we think about this a lot. Not just in terms of how brands use video, but in how they rethinking generative video-centric experiences using infrasstructure... engagement across channels to be radically adaptive. When cognitive work is infinite and cheap, the way you orchestrate content, user experience, and monetization has to change (not just improve).
The 70/30 split you outlined is fine for targets, but really could be a much different split once you think about build vs buy vs partner. Use AI to shore up what works now, but also carve out protected space for what might work next. IMO the most dangerous future isn’t one where AI fails but one where your strategy succeeds in a paradigm that no longer exists. Big companies don't have the ability to adapt quick enough, which is why "partnership" with tech may be the best bet for many or most...
No matter what, the real unlock isn’t the tool... it’s the willingness to model a future where the rules are rewritten. Lets gg go go.
This line right here is the thesis of a lot of my thinking and writing lately: “What if we stop hiring for task-based skills and start hiring purely for judgment and creativity?“ When AI flips everything on its head, what is the role that only humans can truly fill? For me, it’s discernment.
For me, the killer thought in here is start with an idea and work backwards. The idea will probably come from a human brain, not AI. It may well be a political idea not a business model. It could be an idea about a post-work-as-we-know-it world. It could be an idea about universal income. It could even be as utopian as fully-automated luxury communism. Then use the AI tools to build the strategy for getting there. That strategy would by necessity change the dna of business.
Don't let it keep you awake at night! I dont think the framework around whats happening is as unprecedented as you may believe. For me that framework is basically the story told by Jim Collins in his book Good to Great. Look at 100 successful companies at the start of the 20th century and see how many were still successful at the end of the period... maybe 5% if you're lucky. He goes on to describe what you're sort of describing, he called it a flywheel, but it was a the ability to radically pivot to new technology or consumer demand while keeping the core engine of your business ticking over long enough to make the jump. Not just tough, statistically unlikely. And one of the main reasons is businesses promote successful people in their core activity. To expect those people who are great at the core to innovate outside conventional thinking is incredibly hard. Its why people like Steve Jobs are regarded so well, because they're so rare. For every Netflix, there's a Pan Am, Motorola, Blockbuster, and Kodak. I guess my point is: your "what ifs" aren't things that might happen, they will happen. Innovating to maximise them cant be done in the established businesses, that will happen outside the establishment, old businesses will die, new ones will arise - and this is the way of business since the printing press.
To be honest, I was exhausted half way through reading this.
While I agree massively on most of your points in the piece, I find that it is leaning heavily on a future hyped by biggest AI developers and the large consultancies. I think that the AI development has - for now at least – plateaued. Just look at Open AI's disappointing ChatGPT 5 launch. We also have to look at the very real threat of model collapse. At least when talking LLMs, the models are well underway to eating their own tail, if they don’t get fresh human-generated material to train on. The next year will be interesting - but I think this might be the break that we all need, to think and build new strategies.
And yes, there will always be a chance of business and sector disruption, especially from fresh thinkers wielding new technology and yes, you should always at least try to imagine what those kind of alternative innovation paths look like. Especially from more nimble upstarts at the edges. I would love to see radical experimentation build into organisations and not just in relation AI. This is also why foresight should always be part of strategy. Sadly, the field has been so watered out that it has become a joke. Every futurist regurgitating the same ‘models’ and truisms, is exactly why the reports are used as bookends and not in the strategy or innovation... but that is a different story. I too, am weary of the tired trope of AI efficiency being the holy grail in strategy for its implementation into organisations. Your urgent call for building the right foundations is spot on and I couldn’t agree more on your points of what (human) skills are needed in tomorrow’s organisations. But since I am of the school ‘less but better’, I just dont fit into this corporate mindset of efficiency and growth above everything else anyway, so I'll see myself out. I'll be out there looking for the people trying to break the mould (and I'll probably be unemployed - especially since I am one of those pesky futurists ^^). Thank you for your always inspiring thinking and writing.
Your distinction between incremental automation and transformational strategy is the question organizations need to grapple with now. When leaders lack clear vision beyond efficiency gains, they miss the deeper opportunity to rethink business models, value creation, and human purpose. This requires both courage and clear communication about what the organization is becoming. https://elevatingwhatworks.substack.com/
Hi Zoe, I’ve had an intellect-crush on your thinking for years ( I think I may have told!) and this piece is exactly why. You manage to cut through the noise with such clarity and courage, naming the blind spots most leaders would rather avoid.
I love how you’ve framed efficiency as a trap, not a strategy. That distinction alone is going to save some people a lot of wasted cycles.
Grateful you keep putting work like this into the world. It’s sharp, generous, and urgently needed.
CB
Love the thinking in this, and love the way you describe doing war games with Ai thats a great way to help scenario planning. One thing we need to do though is take those results with a pinch of salt, I've not yet seen AI predict as it uses old data, we still need to human to make those leaps to what could be possible... so as long as we work with the AI to get there I think thats bloody great.
I laughed out loud here: Because the worst thing you can do is give people chatbots and faster PowerPoint generation through Microsoft Copilot and call it transformation.
Great read, thank you
Hi, What you’re describing isn’t primarily a technology issue. It’s a leadership and governance issue. Artificial intelligence exposes the limits of existing organisational structures faster than those structures can adapt. Incremental improvement feels safe because it fits inside current control mechanisms, budgets, reporting cycles, performance metrics, and approval hierarchies. Fundamental re-architecture doesn’t, so it rarely even enters the conversation.
That’s where the real risk sits. Organisations aren’t avoiding action; they’re avoiding decisions. Optimisation becomes a substitute for choosing what to let go of. Efficiency gains create movement without direction. Strategy turns into a series of improvements that never question the underlying model.
Your point about early wins creating a trap is particularly important. Those wins don’t just deliver value, they reshape what is considered “reasonable” to discuss. Once progress is defined as being 10% or 15% better, anything that questions the frame itself starts to look reckless. Over time, this quietly locks organisations into improving approaches whose relevance is already eroding.
The competitive danger here isn’t that others use the technology better. It’s that others use it to imagine different operating realities altogether. While some organisations optimise inside familiar assumptions, others explore futures where those assumptions no longer hold. By the time those alternatives become visible in the market, the ability to respond has largely disappeared.
I also agree that this can’t be solved by spinning up innovation teams or running more workshops. Fundamental questions about structure, authority, coordination and value creation can’t be delegated away from leadership. They require the same people who approve investments and set direction to confront scenarios that make today’s success uncomfortable.
What does work is using the tools already being introduced to examine not only how current processes can be improved, but how they might disappear entirely. Modelling extreme but plausible futures, and then working backwards to identify which capabilities would be required, forces clarity about what matters and what doesn’t. It turns abstract disruption into concrete choices.
Running incremental improvement and radical exploration in parallel isn’t optional. But they need different success criteria and protection from each other. Otherwise the optimisation agenda will always dominate, until the environment shifts and it no longer matters.
If a strategy for this technology is only about efficiency, it isn’t really a strategy. It’s a timer.
t reminds me of Rory Sutherland: The opposite of a good idea is another good idea
Kickass provocative piece. Reminded me of the power of the question over the assumption of the answer. (Berger's "A More Beautiful Question") What-If thinking. Leading to WTF doing. Radical thinking. Begetting more Radinkers. Changing not the world...(It's not the world that charges)...but us. Who we are. What we do. Why we care, kill, heal, share, steal, build, break, rebuild. Love.
This. All of it. 'The long and the short' of AI is here. Or at the very least it's en route—and heading our way fast...
It's important not to get too bogged down by vendor narratives; they are selling what they can in an accelerating market. "Now" benefits will always dominate. It would be naive to think that CxO and world leaders are not discussing, planning and exploring the potential scenarios of AI in the very near future.
There’s no ‘what if’ I don’t think, I believe it’s simply a matter of when. EA Abbot’s ‘Flatland’ written in the 1890s might be worth a read as a companion piece on this topic. 👽
Bang on - I love the amount of “what ifs” you highlight
Shits about to change big time
I think there will be a different % breakdown of "AI strategy" depending on the priorities of each brand. For most now, I think over-thinking or over-investing in building their own AI is a misplaced strategy. Partnerships are a smarter path in this rapidly-changing period in time.
That said, yours is one of the clearest calls we've seen for rebalancing the AI conversation... from efficiency-first to futures-first. There's a real tension we see playing out in media, retail, and beyond: everyone’s racing to win small improvements while the real opportunity lies in reimagining things entirely.
At Genuin, we think about this a lot. Not just in terms of how brands use video, but in how they rethinking generative video-centric experiences using infrasstructure... engagement across channels to be radically adaptive. When cognitive work is infinite and cheap, the way you orchestrate content, user experience, and monetization has to change (not just improve).
The 70/30 split you outlined is fine for targets, but really could be a much different split once you think about build vs buy vs partner. Use AI to shore up what works now, but also carve out protected space for what might work next. IMO the most dangerous future isn’t one where AI fails but one where your strategy succeeds in a paradigm that no longer exists. Big companies don't have the ability to adapt quick enough, which is why "partnership" with tech may be the best bet for many or most...
No matter what, the real unlock isn’t the tool... it’s the willingness to model a future where the rules are rewritten. Lets gg go go.
This line right here is the thesis of a lot of my thinking and writing lately: “What if we stop hiring for task-based skills and start hiring purely for judgment and creativity?“ When AI flips everything on its head, what is the role that only humans can truly fill? For me, it’s discernment.
For me, the killer thought in here is start with an idea and work backwards. The idea will probably come from a human brain, not AI. It may well be a political idea not a business model. It could be an idea about a post-work-as-we-know-it world. It could be an idea about universal income. It could even be as utopian as fully-automated luxury communism. Then use the AI tools to build the strategy for getting there. That strategy would by necessity change the dna of business.
Don't let it keep you awake at night! I dont think the framework around whats happening is as unprecedented as you may believe. For me that framework is basically the story told by Jim Collins in his book Good to Great. Look at 100 successful companies at the start of the 20th century and see how many were still successful at the end of the period... maybe 5% if you're lucky. He goes on to describe what you're sort of describing, he called it a flywheel, but it was a the ability to radically pivot to new technology or consumer demand while keeping the core engine of your business ticking over long enough to make the jump. Not just tough, statistically unlikely. And one of the main reasons is businesses promote successful people in their core activity. To expect those people who are great at the core to innovate outside conventional thinking is incredibly hard. Its why people like Steve Jobs are regarded so well, because they're so rare. For every Netflix, there's a Pan Am, Motorola, Blockbuster, and Kodak. I guess my point is: your "what ifs" aren't things that might happen, they will happen. Innovating to maximise them cant be done in the established businesses, that will happen outside the establishment, old businesses will die, new ones will arise - and this is the way of business since the printing press.