Over the years, we have explained the current disorientation by dealing with complexity, speed or uncertainty. The world is changing fast, maps are changing, rules are being rewritten. Now there is a more convenient temptation: to attribute this sense of lost noise to artificial intelligence, because hubiera technology quickly introduced a deception that did not exist before. However, data and experience point in a different, more uncomfortable direction. Artificial intelligence does not create disorientation. This is something more disturbing: the rotation is visible and accelerating.
AI will not disrupt the system. Act as a catalyst. It amplifies previous dynamics, accelerates existing habits and reveals deficiencies that have been latent for a long time. Where there is clarity, there are more possibilities. Wherever a criterion is proposed, multiply the noise. And that’s the difference – between people who are able to use AI and people who feel like others – It is not anecdotal. Use it as structural.
One of the big myths surrounding artificial intelligence is that it will reduce labor and free up time for more valuable areas. A recent ethnographic study published in Harvard Business Reviewbased on three months of direct observation in a European technology company, shows the opposite. Adopting AI herramientas does not reduce workload. He turned it up. Employees worked at a faster pace, took more leeway, and extended their work hours into the day, many times before anyone even noticed. No explicit fee. Here is more: the feeling that more could have been done now.
When the friction disappears, the action accelerates. But acceleration is not the same as orientation. On the contrary. Without a clear criterion of what should be done, capacity turns into pressure. AI makes task entry easier, reduces time to blank page and offers instant feedback. This is stimulating, even rewarding. The problem will appear later. The silent expansion of work erodes limits, reduces cognitive recovery spaces, and worsens the quality of decisions. Not due to excessive exertion, except for a short break. Not because of lack of talent, but because of the clarification of the criteria.
This phenomenon does not affect the whole world equally. This is where a gap emerges that requires attention. Recent global information confirms this. Studies Global Workforce Hopes and Concerns 2025 from PwC, based on a survey of 50,000 workers in about five countries, shows that only a minority use artificial intelligence intensively in their daily work. This group – around 14% – report higher productivity, a greater sense of job security and even better salary prospects whether people use it occasionally or not. No, if it’s just about efficiency. It is about the perception of professional value.
Gallup polls in 2025 and 2026 point in the same direction. Leaders and professionals with more autonomy use AI much more often that other collectives within the same organizations. In this case, most employees declare that they should never use IA tools in their work, neither for ideological reasons nor for lack of training, trust or real integration into the work flow. The implication is clear: while some feel that artificial intelligence enhances their capacity, others experience the transformation as an augmented amenity.a race that accelerates without you deciding how to run it.
Here it is best to introduce the basic pencil. Artificial intelligence does not exclude direct employees. So I pick “ganadores” and “losers” for the same reason. What we are doing is precipitating the consequences of failure before the underlying question: the criterion. In an area where everything can happen faster, who doesn’t know how to decide if it matters or not. Who knows if he can.
The same reader is reproduced on an organizational scale. Another recent article Harvard Business Review analyze why many established companies aiming to reverse an aggressive form of artificial intelligence are achieving only marginal improvements. The cause is not false in vision or cultural resistance, as is usually stated. It is something deeper and less visible: the architecture of the work. Companies incorporate AI to optimize areas, but keep basic work unity and coordination mechanisms intact. They accelerate the existing one without designing the system.
The examples are telling. Adobe and Figma offer similar features but provide different design work. Adobe follows organized around the archive; Figma redefined the unit of work to simultaneously editable components. Many brands continue to operate in the fashion industry at the time; I reduced the work unit to continuous micro-experiments in the market. in both cases the wind comes not from better use of technology, but from redefining how work is organized, how it is learned and how decisions are made.
When organizations do not change this architecture, AI doesn’t transform: it gets stronger. Increases speed in the same labyrinth. He never did much. He didn’t make many decisions. The action multiplies, but the direction remains dull.
This tension is not new. He described philosophy in other words. Aristotle warned that the act was sinful teloswithout a clear purpose, it leads to distraction. Experts distinguish between what depends on one and what does not, noting that control over action does not require internal management. Hannah Arendt warned against the possibility of separating the juicio action: when no one decides the truth, no one answers the truth. And Heidegger pointed out that the genius of technology does not lie in the herramientas until they are translated into the meaning of what is being interpreted.
Artificial intelligence is placed squarely in this report. It does not impose a decision. Avoid our certain questions. Why do we do this? For what? What is the space for? Why shouldn’t it speed up? When everything is possible, it’s hard not to make it happen, but to give up.
This is where the leader naturally changes. Over the decades, you will be associated with leaders who will make faster decisions, have more information and more control. Today, AI is on the rise around the world, leader impieza to think more about another thing: to protect the collective criterion. Introduce intentional pauses to systems that support acceleration. Define explicitly what is not automatic. Manage rhythms, not just results.
The same applies to individual levels. AI does not replace intuition. He puts it to the test. Intuition — understood not as an irrational impulse but as an expert synthesis of experience, values and context — it becomes more necessary when data is insufficient and possibilities multiply. Without trained intuition, speed is disorienting. With it, the speed is amplified.
And here it is better to circle the idea that will be found in the debate. The opportunities that arise are extraordinary. We have probably never seen a comparable expansion of capacity. Artificial intelligence allows us to learn faster, create more, explore professional and vital territories that were previously inaccessible. Tops are more searchable than ever.
But moving faster does not guarantee better progress. The story is full of technology that expanded the power before we learned to control the feeling. when it happens acceleration does not increase; missing.
Without it burning, I can’t wait to be quiet. It goes forward in circles. Without intuition, information becomes dark. Without a criterion, speed should be converted to velocity. Artificial intelligence does not condemn us to disorientation. We are forced to look at it from the front.
And we have a quiet but decisive election: use this unprecedented power to rise with feeling or stop our speed if we don’t know where to go. Because the question you are asking is not what AI can do. The question is, yes, in the middle of such a capacity, we will be able to decide where we want to be and why it is worth attaching the tops.
***Paco Brea He is a professor at Deusto Business School, Advantere School of Management and an advisor at Innsomnia Business Accelerator
Leave a Reply