Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Nonreligious
Careers, Workplace and Religion
Why Most Organizations Are Getting AI Adoption Wrong

Why Most Organizations Are Getting AI Adoption Wrong

Last updated on: September 16, 2026 at 8:23 pm by Gleb Tsipursky

0 Comments

Why Most Organizations Are Getting AI Adoption Wrong 2026-09-16T20:23:42-04:00 Gleb Tsipursky

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Getting AI Adoption Wrong

Most organizations are asking the wrong question about AI. They want to know whether the model is good enough. The sharper question is whether the worker knows when they are not. A new Management Science peer-reviewed study by Andrew Caplin and colleagues makes that point with unusual clarity: AI helps most when people have an accurate read on their own limits. In other words, the future of human performance may depend less on raw talent than on calibrated judgment.

In the experiment, 732 participants judged whether people in photos were over age 21, sometimes with an AI confidence score and sometimes without it. The headline result is easy to grasp and hard to ignore. AI improved average accuracy, and it helped lower-ability participants more than stronger ones. But the decisive variable was calibration: people who understood how good or bad they actually were captured more value from the machine. That finding fits a broader pattern in the AI-at-work literature. In a landmark Science study on generative AI and professional writing, Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang found that AI raised productivity most for weaker performers. In the field, Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey Raymond found that AI assistance boosted customer-support productivity by 15 percent on average, with the largest gains going to less experienced workers.

The real bottleneck is self-knowledge

The Caplin team’s contribution is to separate skill from self-awareness. Plenty of workers are wrong about their own competence, and that error changes how they use AI. Overconfident people ignore good advice. Underconfident people defer when they should trust themselves. Either way, the collaboration breaks down.

That sounds intuitive, but it matters because most companies still frame AI adoption as a technology rollout, not a behavioral one. They benchmark models, negotiate licenses, and build workflows, then assume workers will naturally learn when to rely on the tool. The practical implication is stark. Two employees with equal skill can get very different returns from the same system simply because one has a more realistic sense of personal accuracy.

That insight should change how leaders think about training. Firms have spent decades trying to raise worker capability through more instruction, more certification, and more process. AI may make a different lever more valuable: teaching people to judge uncertainty well. The worker who can say, “I’m shaky here; the model probably sees this better,” is suddenly a high-leverage collaborator.

Why AI narrows gaps, but not as much as it could

The optimistic story about workplace AI is that it democratizes expertise. Recent research keeps pointing that way. Noy and Zhang showed large gains for less skilled writers, and the QJE field study of customer-support agents found that AI especially helped newer workers by diffusing the tacit practices of top performers. Caplin and coauthors add an important twist: AI reduces inequality, but miscalibration prevents it from doing the full job.

Their counterfactual is the most policy-relevant result in the study. With actual human behavior, AI reduced performance inequality substantially. With perfect calibration, the reduction would have been nearly twice as large. That means the distributional effects of AI are not fixed by model quality alone. They depend on whether workers can read their own confidence with any accuracy.

This is a crucial distinction for executives and policymakers now debating whether AI will widen or narrow labor-market inequality. David Autor has argued that the best use of AI is to rebuild middle-skill work by embedding expertise in tools that broaden access to capability. The Caplin findings support that vision, but with a caveat: augmentation works best when workers know when to lean on the machine. Without that, the same system can leave value on the table and preserve avoidable gaps in output.

Calibration may be trainable, which changes the policy picture

The most encouraging part of this story is that calibration does not look like a fixed trait. Decades of judgment research have shown that feedback can improve probabilistic reasoning, and newer work suggests that even brief interventions can help. A 2024 study on calibration training using an interactive app reported measurable reductions in overconfidence in under 30 minutes. Older work by Sarah Lichtenstein and Baruch Fischhoff reached a similar conclusion long before anyone talked about copilots and foundation models.

That opens a more practical path for organizations than the usual either-or debate between “train the worker” and “deploy the AI.” In many settings, the better answer may be to train workers in how to work with AI: how to estimate confidence, how to recognize edge cases, how to spot when the model is likely right, and how to challenge it productively when it is not. This is especially attractive in domains where deep upskilling is slow or expensive. A hospital, law firm, insurer, or call center may not be able to turn novices into experts quickly, but it may be able to make them much better judges of when to trust assistance.

That is also why managers should be cautious about reading AI performance metrics in isolation. A tool can look excellent in aggregate and still disappoint inside a team if workers are badly calibrated. The missing KPI may not be model accuracy. It may be whether employees know the difference between confidence and competence.

AI is often described as a force multiplier. The phrase is too vague. The better metaphor is a mirror that also advises. It reflects the worker’s strengths and weaknesses back at them, then offers a recommendation. The people who benefit most are not simply the smartest. They are the ones who can look into that mirror without flinching. As companies race to embed AI into everyday work, that may be the most underrated competitive advantage in the building.

Key Take-Away

Getting AI adoption wrong means focusing on better AI instead of better judgment. Organizations gain the most when employees understand their own limits and know when to trust or challenge AI, unlocking stronger performance and wider productivity gains… >Click to tweet

Image credit: ZBRA Marketing/unsplash

Originally published in Disaster Avoidance Experts

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, called the “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times, helps tech-forward leaders stop overpaying for AI while boosting engagement and innovation. He serves as the CEO of the AI consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his forthcoming book with Georgetown University Press is The Psychology of Generative AI Adoption (2026). His most recent best-seller is ChatGPT for Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI (Intentional Insights, 2023). His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, Th e New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.

Business, Finance and Religion

Getting AI Adoption Wrong

hybrid work

leadership

wise decision maker

About Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

Known as the Disaster Avoidance Expert, Dr. Gleb Tsipursky is on a mission to protect leaders from dangerous judgment errors known as cognitive biases, which devastate bottom lines and bring down high-flying careers. His expertise and passion is developing the most effective and profitable decision-making strategies, based on pragmatic business experience and cutting-edge behavioral economics and cognitive neuroscience, to empower leaders to avoid business disasters and maximize their bottom lines. You can learn more here https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/glebtsipursky/ The bestselling author of several books, Dr. Tsipursky is best known for his national bestseller on avoiding disasters and achieving success in business and other life areas, The Truth Seeker’s Handbook: A Science-Based Guide. His next book, Never Go With Your Gut: How Pioneering Leaders Make the Best Decisions and Avoid Business Disasters, is forthcoming with Career Press in November 2019. It’s the first book to focus on cognitive biases in business leadership and reveal how leaders can overcome these dangerous judgment errors effectively. After that he’s publishing The Blindspots Between Us: How to Overcome Unconscious Cognitive Bias and Build Better Relationships with New Harbinger in April 2020, the first book to focus on cognitive biases in professional and personal relationships and illustrate how we can defeat these dangerous judgment errors in our relationships. See more information here https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/author-page/ Dr. Tsipursky’s cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 400 articles he published and over 350 interviews he gave to popular venues that include Fast Company, CBS News, Time, Scientific American, Psychology Today, The Conversation, Business Insider, Government Executive, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Inc. Magazine, and many others, as you can see here https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/media/ Dr. Tsipursky's expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, speaking, and training for businesses and nonprofits. He serves as the CEO of the boutique consulting, coaching, and training firm Disaster Avoidance Experts, which uses a proprietary methodology based on groundbreaking research to help leaders and organizations maximize their bottom lines by addressing potential threats, seizing unexpected opportunities, and resolving persistent personnel problems. His clients include Aflac, Balance Employment Assistance Provider, Edison Welding Institute, Fifth Third Bank, Honda, IBM, International Coaches Federation, Ohio Hospitals Association, National Association of Women Business Owners, Sentinel Real Estate, The Society for Human Resource Management, RealManage, The Columbus Foundation, Vistage, Wells Fargo, the World Wildlife Fund, and over a hundred others who achieve outstanding client results. You can learn more about that here: https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/about Dr. Tsipursky also has a strong research and teaching background in behavioral economics and cognitive neuroscience with over 15 years in academia, including 7 years as a professor at the Ohio State University and before that a Fellow at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. His dozens of peer-reviewed academic publications include journals such as Behavior and Social Issues, Journal of Social and Political Psychology, and International Journal of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy. His civic service includes over 4 years as the Chair of the Board of Directors of Intentional Insights, an educational nonprofit advocating for research-based decision-making in all life areas. He also co-founded the Pro-Truth Pledge, a civic project to promote truthfulness and integrity for individual professionals and leaders in the same way that the Better Business Bureau serves as a commitment for businesses. He serves on the Advisory Board of Canonical Debate Lab and Planet Purpose, and is on the Editorial Board of the peer-reviewed journal Behavior and Social Issues. A highly in-demand international speaker, Dr. Tsipursky has over two decades of professional speaking experience across North America, Europe, and Australia. He gets top marks from audiences for his highly facilitative, interactive, and humor-filled speaking style and the way he thoroughly customizes speeches for diverse audiences. Meeting planners describe Dr. Tsipursky as "very relatable," as "a snap to work with," and as someone who "does everything that you would want a speaker to do." Drawing on best practices in adult learning, his programs address the wide spectrum of diverse learning styles, as attested by enthusiastic client testimonials and references. He regularly shares the stage with prominent leaders, for example recently speaking on a roundtable panel with the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Elhadj As Sy, Chancellor of Austria Brigitte Bierlein, CEO of Penguin Random House Markus Dohle, and billionaire philanthropist and Chair of the Bertelsmann Management Company Liz Mohn. You can learn more about his speaking and see videos here: https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/speaking/ Dr. Tsipursky earned his PhD in the History of Behavioral Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2011, his M.A. at Harvard University in 2004, and his B.A. at New York University in 2002. He lives in and travels from Columbus, OH. In his free time, he enjoys tennis, hiking, and playing with his two cats, and most importantly, he makes sure to spend abundant quality time with his wife to avoid disasters in his personal life. Learn more about him at https://DisasterAvoidanceExperts.com/GlebTsipursky, contact him at Gleb[at]DisasterAvoidanceExperts[dot]com, follow him on Instagram @dr_gleb_tsipursky and Twitter @gleb_tsipursky. Most importantly, help yourself avoid disasters and maximize success, and get a free copy of the “Assessment on Dangerous Judgment Errors in the Workplace,” by signing up for his free Wise Decision Maker Course at https:// DisasterAvoidanceExperts.com/Subscribe You can read more about the author here.

Previous Post

September 7, 2026

AI Adoption Looks Widespread Until You Measure It

Next Post

September 23, 2026 AI Job Diffusion Is Outrunning Every Tech Wave Before It

Thrown into a muddy cistern for prophesying doom, I sank into the mire until rescued. What was my crime?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Treason False prophecy Blasphemy Prophesying Jerusalem's fall