Ethan Mollick, Associate Professor at The Wharton School and author of Co-Intelligence, recently posed a compelling question on LinkedIn that exposes a significant gap in organisational leadership: despite the growing adoption of artificial intelligence, why has no major firm articulated a clear vision for how highly intelligent systems and autonomous agents will transform their operations? His question cuts to the heart of a critical concern for employees: what does AI mean for their roles, responsibilities, and futures?

Far from being a mere communications gap, this silence signals a deeper challenge of leadership in the AI era. While executives often champion AI for its potential to enhance efficiency and spark innovation, few seem prepared to address the complexities of workforce transformation, ethical considerations, and the balance between automation and human creativity. Without a cohesive vision or transparent roadmap, employees are left to interpret the silence as uncertainty—an ambiguity that risks eroding trust, morale, and organisational resilience.

Mollick’s question sparked a dynamic exchange of perspectives, shedding light on why leaders might hesitate to engage openly. Kaj van de Loo, a Product and Technology Executive with expertise in Enterprise SaaS and AI/ML, noted that many leaders avoid discussing AI’s future implications because of their own uncertainties. “Many leaders don’t want to admit that they don’t know what the future will look like for their teams,” he observed, reflecting the paralysis that often accompanies profound technological change.

This reticence was echoed by Paul Estes, a former Microsoft executive and advocate for human potential in the AI age. He framed the issue more critically: “CEOs are dodging the real conversation because they’re still figuring it out themselves.” His comment points to a broader organisational unpreparedness—an inability to provide the frameworks for decision-making or accountability that employees increasingly expect.

The human toll of this ambiguity was also highlighted. Taryn Hughes, a globally recognised expert on AI’s impact on mental health, warned of the growing emotional strain on employees left to navigate these changes alone. “AI adoption will reshape roles, but without transparency, employees feel like they’re being left to compete in a game where the rules are changing—and no one’s telling them how.” Her insight underscores the urgency for leadership to move beyond vague promises of efficiency and engage in a more transparent, inclusive dialogue about the future.

The Silent Gap in Leadership

The insights from leaders like Kaj van de Loo and Paul Estes underscore a critical issue: AI’s rapid evolution has outpaced organisational readiness. Yet, while these observations are incisive, they hint at a deeper, more systemic challenge—leaders are not just avoiding the AI conversation out of uncertainty; many lack the structures to even begin imagining their AI-enabled futures.

This is where my critique lies. It’s not merely a case of unpreparedness; it’s about a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI adoption entails. For example, the idea of “efficiency” as a panacea fails to acknowledge the existential anxiety it creates for employees. Efficiency, in this context, often translates to layoffs or role diminishment—a narrative that alienates rather than inspires.

Taryn Hughes’ concern about mental health is particularly prescient. As roles shift or disappear altogether, organisations must prioritise psychological safety alongside technological integration. Yet, we see little evidence of this happening. Instead, the focus remains myopically on technological capability rather than human adaptability.

Furthermore, as Hughes and others have noted, AI integration is not a top-down directive alone—it’s a cultural shift. Leaders who fail to involve employees in the conversation risk more than just talent attrition; they jeopardise the very trust on which organisational cohesion depends.

Defining the Path Forward

This leads to a second critique: the reluctance to embrace transparency. Kaj van de Loo’s point about leaders admitting “they don’t know” resonates here. There’s a fear that revealing uncertainty might undermine authority, but the opposite is true. Employees respect leaders who acknowledge challenges and involve them in shaping the solutions.

For organisations to bridge this silent gap, they must treat AI integration not as a technology problem but as a human one. As Paul Estes suggests, “System thinking is critical.” Yet, how many organisations are truly equipping their leaders—or their employees—with the frameworks to think in systems, adapt, and thrive?

The absence of clear articulation around AI’s role in organisations reflects a deeper issue than simply a lack of preparedness. It exposes a fundamental vulnerability in leadership: the ability—or inability—to provide structure in the face of unprecedented change.

Historically, moments of technological upheaval, from the advent of assembly lines to the rise of personal computing, were anchored by clear leadership narratives. These narratives provided more than operational roadmaps; they offered employees a sense of purpose and direction. Yet today, as AI reshapes the contours of work, this clarity is absent.

Take, for example, Salesforce’s quiet move to reduce its hiring of software engineers, citing AI productivity gains. Is this the shape of things to come, where efficiency masks a systemic shift toward automation at scale? Or consider the comments from industry observers, such as Stephen Moffitt, who remarked on the need for scenario-building to address the shifting landscape. His call for leaders to articulate potential futures highlights an urgent need for organisations to grasp the enormity of the changes AI is bringing—not just in workflow but in culture and values.

Without this foresight, companies risk losing control of their own narratives. Employees, left to fill the gaps with speculation, may perceive AI as a threat rather than a tool. This erosion of trust not only destabilises morale but could also undermine the very innovations organisations hope to harness.

Leadership in this moment isn’t about having all the answers. It’s about acknowledging the magnitude of change and engaging with the workforce in shaping a collective vision. The question isn’t simply, “How will AI make us more efficient?” but, “What kind of organisation do we want to become, and how do we want to get there?”

By addressing this silent gap, leaders have an opportunity to transform uncertainty into collaboration and fear into innovation. It’s not just an organisational imperative—it’s a moral one.