Just a week ago, a case described in the Harvard Business Review showed a scene that sounds more common than it seems. The biotech company has launched an ambitious transformation process. Six weeks later, data shows a 40% drop in employee compromise and a doubling of turnover. What was relevant wasn’t the worst. Management didn’t see him coming. With them, everything is going as expected. There is no visible conflict, no open opposition, no obvious signs. But that’s why the organization was disconnecting.
This type of situation is no exception. Various international analyzes have been conducted over the years and show a consistent pattern; the vast majority of transformations do not meet their goals, and in a recurring form, the human factor appears to be the main point of failure. It’s not a problem of ambition or technology. It’s a problem of understanding. Most exchange processes do not fail because of a bad vision, or because of a strategic weakness, or because of technical flaws. They break up over something far more inconvenient; highly prepared leaders who do not like the person who searches before them. You are confusing silence with alignment. Interpret ausencia de fricción as acceptance. Read your fears as resistance. The problem is not a lack of intelligence. It’s a perception gap.
According to the idea that arises in the organization, this violation cannot be overcome; if it gets stronger. In the beginning levels, execution allows you to quickly verify that something is working. But in upper management, where decisions are more abstract and consequences more varied, the fact must be obvious and must be interpreted. All actors are competent. Todos maniejan información. Everyone has experiences. And yet the decision does not depend only on the quality of the argument. If this happens as with each actor, then the impact of this argument in its own context. What is he counting on, what position is he protecting, what risks is he trying to avoid.
This is where one of the great paradoxes of the present moment appears. We never have as much information, as much analytical power, or as much hardware to model complete scenarios. And yet organizations still fail at something fundamental. Keeping more data is not the same as understanding reality better. Artificial intelligence can process information, generate hypotheses, optimize processes and speed up decision-making cycles. But no guarantee of understanding. It enhances the ability to analyze, but does not replace the ability to interpret.
One of the least visible effects of artificial intelligence is precisely this. As technical friction decreases, the pressure on the human dimension increases. When generating options is easier, deciding whether they are more difficult. When everything can be done faster, the question is whether it is possible and it comes down to what is felt. I wonder if you will respond with information. If you respond with something less tangible but more decisive; criterion.
This criterion does not arise in a vacuum. It is constructed over time as a synthesis of experience, context, values and learning. We can call it many forms, but it is particularly useful for understanding its function in complex environments. Internal compass. Not as an inspirational metaphor, but as an actual orientation system when data is insufficient and context is unstable.
This point is particularly important in the context of a multigenerational workforce. Over the years, many organizations have prioritized speed, technological adaptation and operational efficiency as the main vectors of competitiveness. Everything is necessary. However, this process tends to underestimate another critical dimension. The capital of experience is accumulated as an orientation ability, not only as an accumulation of knowledge. The ability to detect mathematics, interpret subtle signals, predict reactions and understand human dynamics that do not appear in formal indicators.
It is not about contrasting generations or idealizing experiences. It’s about understanding how decisions actually work in complex systems. Michael Polanyi put it precisely. Let’s learn more about what we can explain. Much of the relevant knowledge is not explicit, not codified and not easily transferable. Work in this space where information ends and interpretation begins.
Donald Schön added an operational head to this idea. Professional experts do not apply mechanical rules. They reflect on the action. They interpret unique situations in real time, adapt their behavior and make decisions in contexts where ambiguity is structural. Not because they ignore data, but because they know that data does not reveal reality.
Y Herbert Simon definitively dismantled the illusion of absolute rationality. Let’s not make decisions with all the available information until we are able to interpret it. Our rationality is limited. Let’s simplify, filter, prioritize. In stable environments this can be compensated for by systems. In the surrounding complexes, the criterion matters.
When these perspectives are combined, the conclusion seems difficult to ignore. A leader is not a computational exercise; It’s an orientation exercise. And this orientation depends not only on external information, but on this inner clarity that allows you to decide when there is uncertainty, when the data is ambiguous, or when the consequences are not completely predictable.
Here, generational diversity has a clear meaning. Not as a representative concept, but as an architecture of complementary capabilities. Younger generations bring speed, technological mastery and openness to change. Generations with a longer lead time bring something that is more likely to happen. Orientation ability. The ability to place context where there is only information, to introduce pause where there is only urgency, and to maintain direction when everything leads to distraction.
The organizations that perform best are not those that optimize one of these dimensions. They are the ones that integrate the parts of the intentional form. Because complex systems cannot be controlled by speed or experience alone. They are managed by a combination of abilities. Tecnología y brujula. Dates and criteria. Execution and feel.
Artificial intelligence amplifies this need. As technological capacity increases, so does the risk of confusing efficiency with progress. If you can do it faster, automate more processes and generate more alternatives. However, none of this answers only the basic strategic question. What is worth doing and what we want to do. Please note that the system cannot be completely outsourced.
Therefore, the real management strategy in this new era is not only about incorporating technology into redesign processes. It is more demanding and less visible. Close the gap between what leaders think is happening to them and what is actually happening to them. This distance is where the most costly mistakes occur. Where alignment is possible until no one announces it. From where the organization is disconnected without a trace.
The transformation fails when the plan is incorrect. Do it when the people drawing it don’t understand how lifelike it will be for people if they process it well. And in a context where everyone can meditate, analyze and optimize, the most difficult event to replicate will not be technological. He will be human.
Because in the last instance, those who have more data and those who make decisions faster will not notice the difference. It should be noted that you are able to understand people better when there is enough data. And that will be the most difficult to replicate in a more automated world.
***Paco Bree He is a professor at Deusto Business School, Advantere School of Management and an advisor at Innsomnia Business Accelerator.
Leave a Reply