Is the implementation of AI like fortune-telling? Does the project succeed if leaders are sincere and fail if they aren't?

“When the previous leader was in charge of our company's AI project, they invested millions of yuan and developed a bunch of software. However, no one used it, and the servers were almost left idle. At the beginning of this year, a new leader took over. This guy is extremely superstitious about AI. He keeps an eye on employees to use it every day and deducts performance if they don't. Guess what? In just three months, everyone started using it!”

This is the exact words of a person in charge of the information department of an enterprise in the group. Finally, he added another sentence: “I now think that implementing AI in an enterprise is similar to fortune - telling. It all depends on whether the boss is sincere.”

Joking aside, this issue is worth pondering. Why does a system, a set of logic, and the same team yield completely different results when the leader changes? At this point, some people may ask: If the implementation of AI really depends on “sincerity brings success,” then what's the use of the technical team? What about data governance, process optimization, and organizational change? Why not just invite a master to bless it?

Does it seem quite funny here? AI is actually associated with metaphysics. Lao Yang believes that this statement is full of strong satire and black humor. We can understand it this way: The success or failure of an AI project does not depend on technology, data, or processes, but on the boss's “belief.” If the boss believes and gets personally involved, it works; if the boss doesn't believe and only gives verbal promises without actual action, it doesn't work. Does this feeling seem familiar? It accurately reveals the root cause of the repeated failures of digital transformation or AI implementation in traditional enterprises: the misalignment of leadership and cognition, rather than the incompetence of technology.

What exactly did the “sincere leader” do right?

Lao Yang believes that leadership is the key variable for AI implementation. We often see this sentence: Digital transformation is a top - down project! That is to say, without the continuous attention, resource allocation, and determination to break down departmental barriers from the boss or senior management, any digital or AI project is doomed to fail. However, the “sincerity” of many enterprise bosses today has been distorted: Digital or AI projects are not based on a scientific understanding and firm investment, but blind belief based on personal preference or “fortune - telling.” If the boss thinks AI is great, they blindly launch the project, hoping to achieve intelligence in just three days; if the boss thinks it doesn't work, they immediately stop it. This causes the project to be affected by the boss's emotional value and there is no scientific decision - making, only personal will. In fact, this is a manifestation of “insincerity,” mainly in the following three aspects:

Not caring (insufficient investment): Only assign tasks without providing budget, manpower, and time. Expect miracles to happen with “zero cost.”

Not getting involved (refusing to participate): Don't try it personally, only listen to PPT reports, and let the IT department “figure it out.”

Not being patient (expecting quick results): Require “going live in three days and seeing results in a week,” and turn a blind eye to the law of long - term iteration.

What about a “sincere” boss? They will do the following three things right:

First, provide money and resources without hesitation

A sincere leader approves the budget without bargaining. If the project needs five million yuan, they give five million; if it needs ten people, they provide ten. When the project encounters departmental barriers, the leader makes phone calls to coordinate personally. When the leader invests real money, the people below naturally know that this is a serious matter.

Second, tolerate mistakes

If the AI pilot fails, the model is inaccurate, and users complain. A sincere leader's first reaction is not “You are incompetent,” but “What's the problem? Is the data insufficient? Are the rules not clear? Try again.” Only when the team is not afraid of making mistakes can they really take action.

Third, lead by example

A sincere leader uses AI to take meeting minutes during meetings, uses AI to generate the first draft of reports, and asks AI first when looking up information. They show everyone: “I use this, so what reason do you have not to use it?”

Doing the above three things is not “superstition,” but what a leader who understands management, dares to take responsibility, and is patient should do. Currently, there are very few bosses who can do the above three things. CIOs can only console themselves with daydreams. What about those “insincere” leaders? They always cut the budget when approving it, shift the blame to the team immediately when problems occur, never use it themselves, but keep asking “When can we use AI to lay off employees and how many?”

So, it's not hard to see that “sincerity brings success” is not metaphysics, but management science. It reflects a cruel reality: In many enterprises, the success or failure of digital or AI projects does not depend on whether the technology is mature, the data is clean, or the team is professional, but on the cognitive level and determination of the boss or leader. This is not an AI problem, but a management problem. However, it should be noted that the boss's “sincerity” is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one: With the boss's firm support, the project success rate will be significantly improved. But “sincerity” alone is far from enough. It also requires a scientific methodology, a solid data foundation, and a professional execution team.

What is the purpose of enterprises implementing AI?

A joint study by Huawei and IDC points out that one of the biggest risks for organizations in AI implementation is the difference in the understanding of AI value between leadership and employees. What's more terrifying than “insincerity” is that some enterprise leaders publicly say: “We implement AI just to lay off employees!”

Is there a problem with this statement?

Saying such a thing is not only stupid but also evil!

It exposes “managerial laziness” and “opportunism”:

1. Lazy in process optimization:

What can truly reduce costs and increase efficiency is process re - engineering, but this requires changing the organizational structure and management habits, which is too difficult! So, laying off employees is the simplest and most direct way, and it can also gain credit in front of the boss.

2. Lazy in talent cultivation:

Training existing employees, improving their abilities, and achieving human - machine collaboration require time and patience. Replacing people with AI directly is faster and more worry - free.

3. Lazy in taking responsibility:

Shifting the blame of “laying off employees” to “technological development” is the most convenient excuse for many managers to avoid their management responsibilities.

This kind of practice will also bring a serious “backlash effect.” For example, when employees know that “teaching AI is equivalent to teaching someone to take away their jobs,” they will use all means to “passively resist” the implementation of AI and even sabotage it secretly; when leaders say they will use AI to lay off employees, it has already made everyone in the enterprise feel insecure and trust has collapsed. No one is willing to share knowledge or take the initiative to innovate. Everyone is only thinking about “how to keep their own jobs” instead of “how to make the company better.” And those who are the most excellent and understand AI best are the “potential targets” for layoffs. They either leave or hide their abilities. At this time, who is really suffering?

Finally, let's summarize:

From the above, it's not hard to see that the statement “Implementing AI is like fortune - telling, depending on whether the boss is sincere” is not satirizing AI, but enterprise management.

When the digital process of an enterprise depends on the personal will of the leader rather than being guaranteed by the system, it means that the management of this enterprise is still in the “rule - by - man” era of agriculture. No matter how advanced the AI is, it's hard to change this situation. Those leaders who publicly say “using AI is just to lay off employees” are actually lazy and ignorant in management. A truly successful enterprise in implementing AI will not “tell fortunes,” but “build a system”; they won't keep shouting “lay off employees,” but think about “how to make their employees stronger in the AI era.” This is the dividing line for enterprise managers in the AI era.

This article is from the WeChat official account “Xiangjiang Digital Review” (ID: benpaoshuzi), written by Lao Yang and published by 36Kr with authorization.