Vijf leiderschapsbeslissingen die AI nooit moet nemen

Samenvatting

As AI rapidly augments decision-making across organizations, not all decisions are appropriate for automation. Some choices define an organization’s values, allocate irreversible consequences, interpret ambiguous signals, set ethical boundaries, and determine what to stop so other priorities can succeed. While AI can inform and optimize, it cannot legitimately trade off competing values, bear accountability, interpret context beyond patterns, establish moral limits, or exercise political courage in prioritization. These decisions must remain human because they involve judgment, responsibility, and meaning that are central to credible leadership. Strong leadership in the AI era preserves human judgment where it matters most, ensuring technology amplifies, not replaces, reasoned authority and accountability.

My view: AI is not about technology – it is about leadership

AI has sharpened my interest not because of what it can automate, but because of what it forces leaders to confront. As AI becomes more embedded in organizational decision-making, it brings to the surface questions about values, accountability, and legitimacy—areas where leadership cannot be delegated, automated, or hidden behind technology. Some decisions may be informed by AI, but they cannot be made by it without eroding trust and authority. This post explores five leadership decisions that must remain human, precisely because they define what leadership is when consequences are real and responsibility cannot be outsourced.

As AI becomes more capable, a subtle but dangerous question keeps surfacing in leadership teams: If AI can inform almost every decision, where should leadership still intervene?

The wrong answer is: “Where AI isn’t good enough yet.”
The right answer is: where legitimacy, accountability, and meaning are at stake.

AI can optimize. It can predict. It can recommend. But some decisions must remain human, not because AI lacks intelligence, but because leadership cannot be delegated.

Below are five such decisions. If leaders relinquish these, they don’t just lose control, they lose credibility.

1. Trade-offs between competing values

Example: Choosing between cost reduction and employee well-being during a restructuring.

AI can model the financial impact of layoffs, forecast productivity changes, and compare scenarios. What it cannot do is decide which value should dominate. That decision defines what the organization stands for, especially under pressure.

Is short-term financial relief more important than long-term trust?
Is resilience built through cost discipline or through people?

These are not analytical questions. They are value judgments.

When leaders hide behind AI recommendations in these moments, employees don’t experience neutrality, they experience avoidance. And avoidance erodes trust faster than a difficult but owned decision.

2. Accountability for irreversible consequences

Example: Approving a large-scale layoff, plant closure, or market exit.

Some decisions cannot be reversed. Once taken, they reshape lives, communities, and organizational identity. AI can calculate risk. It cannot carry responsibility. When consequences are permanent, accountability must be personal and explicit. A leader must be able to say: “This was my decision, and I own the outcome.”

If that sentence cannot be spoken without referencing a model, leadership legitimacy collapses. People don’t accept hardship because it was “optimal.” They accept it, reluctantly, because someone took responsibility.

AI cannot do that. Leaders must.

3. Interpretation of weak or conflicting signals

Example: Deciding whether early warning signs point to a real strategic threat or temporary noise.

AI excels at detecting patterns. But leadership rarely fails because signals were absent. It fails because signals were misinterpreted. Early warnings are messy: incomplete, contradictory and politically inconvenient

Sensemaking under ambiguity, deciding what matters now, requires context, experience, and judgment that extend beyond data. Leaders who defer these calls to AI don’t become more objective. They become slower and less trusted. Organizations don’t need perfect foresight; they need leaders willing to interpret imperfect signals and act.

4. Ethical boundary setting

Example: Determining how far automation should go in hiring, performance management, or customer interaction.

AI can tell you what is technically possible. It cannot tell you what is acceptable. Should hiring decisions be fully automated? Should performance feedback be AI-generated? Should customer complaints be resolved without human contact? These are not efficiency questions. They are ethical commitments.

When leaders treat ethical boundaries as optimization problems, they outsource morality. And when morality is outsourced, trust follows shortly after. Defining limits, even at the cost of efficiency, is a leadership act. AI can inform the debate, but it cannot set the line.

5. Prioritization under constrained capacity

Example: Choosing which strategic initiatives to stop so others can succeed.

AI can rank initiatives by ROI, risk, or probability of success. What it cannot do is decide what to stop in a political, human system. Stopping work:

• creates winners and losers
• disrupts careers
• challenges prior commitments
• exposes power dynamics

That requires courage, organizational awareness, and ownership of second-order effects.

Leaders who let AI decide priorities without owning the consequences don’t gain efficiency, they lose alignment. Teams don’t resist prioritization because it’s wrong; they resist it when no one stands behind it.

The deeper pattern

These five decisions share something important. They are not about prediction. They are about legitimacy.

AI can inform leadership. It can sharpen insight. It can improve speed. But it cannot replace judgment where values, responsibility, meaning, and trust are involved.

When leaders hand these decisions to AI, explicitly or implicitly, they don’t reduce risk. They create it.

A quiet challenge to leaders

As AI capabilities expand, the real leadership question is no longer: “What decisions can AI support?”

It is: “Which decisions must we explicitly keep human, and are we willing to stand behind them?”

Organizations that answer this question early don’t slow down AI adoption. They prevent AI from exposing leadership gaps later, in public, under pressure, and at scale. And that, increasingly, is the difference between AI strengthening leadership and quietly undermining it.

A final note on leadership responsibility

In my work with leaders and leadership teams, I rarely start with AI itself. I start with the decisions that feel uncomfortable, the trade-offs that remain implicit, and the moments where accountability quietly shifts to systems, processes, or committees.

AI tends to surface these moments faster than organizations expect. Not because leaders are unwilling, but because leadership systems were not designed to make judgment, ownership, and ethical boundaries this explicit.

Supporting organizations in this space is therefore less about implementing AI and more about creating clarity where it matters most: how leaders decide, how they explain those decisions, and how they remain accountable when consequences are real and irreversible.

When that groundwork is in place, AI becomes an asset rather than a stress test. When it is not, AI simply reveals what leadership has not yet confronted. That difference is where leadership work now begins.

This article is part of a broader exploration of how AI reshapes leadership, decision-making, and organizational legitimacy, not through tools, but through exposure.

Further reading on this subject: AI doesn’t replace leaders. It exposes them. – salomons.coach