The Human Edge in an AI world: Not Just a Junior Problem, and it Needs the Right Environment

Awareness around the need to build human skills for an AI-driven workplace is growing, but that shouldn’t manifest as a one-off training mandate for juniors only. Any soft skills training is also effectively pointless if the environment doesn’t let those skills surface: people can’t think critically, challenge ideas, or show willingness to think outside the box in an environment where disagreement is discouraged, and mistakes are punished. Martina Doherty discusses.

I talk a lot about the human edge in an AI world. The idea that as AI takes on more routine work, it’s our human skills that will differentiate between output and value; skills such as critical thinking, judgement, problem-solving, curiosity, the ability to challenge an assumption before it becomes a mistake, and communication that actually lands. Deep expertise sits alongside that, as Colin covered in his recent Last Look piece, discussing how the efficiencies promised by AI can’t replace the proactive, first-principles judgment that traders need for genuine risk-taking and execution – especially in fast-moving or Black Swan events.

I also regularly quote Deloitte’s 93/7 statistic; how organisations investing in AI tend to invest 93% into the tech and software, and only 7% into the humans who use it. A pretty shocking imbalance but from recent press coverage, it does seem that big financial and professional services firms are starting to correct that by focusing on human skills training within their workforces – especially in early career professionals. There’s a similar push in business schools to develop the human skills to ensure that graduates are perceived as more work-ready.

All of this is encouraging. But it also leaves me with two observations. Firstly: whose skills, exactly, need developing?

I find it interesting – and more than a little biased – that the discussion about building human skills tends to focus primarily on early-career professionals i.e. the assumption that it’s the younger generations that mostly lack human skills, simply because of their lack of experience in the workplace. 

I get where this thinking comes from, early in a career you’re still building your expertise and skillsets, but this also assumes that years of service means you regularly demonstrate all the soft skills that are so important – good communication, empathy, good questioning skills, the ability to listen well etc. I can tell you categorically that it does not – and there are a number of reasons for that. 

AI is impacting all of us, and regardless of role or seniority, we need to excel in interpersonal relations, communication and our ability to deliver value and impact in an increasingly output-driven world

Early in your career it’s acceptable – expected, even – to ask questions. You also have to constantly explain yourself to managers, clients, colleagues learning alongside you, because not everyone shares the same understanding or perceptions as you. In doing so, that’s how your curiosity and communication muscles get built.

But the more senior and specialist people become, the more their working world narrows to people who appear to speak their language. The curious questions stop, because the underlying assumption becomes that everyone already understands, and if you don’t understand, you don’t want to risk exposing that.  Questions also take on a whole different meaning – perceived as potentially antagonistic or trying to catch someone out, rather than a genuine need to fill an information gap.

I’ve also lost count of the presentations I’ve sat through from so-called experts subjecting an audience to death by Powerpoint – reading word for word from slides packed with acronyms and jargon that mean nothing to most of the room. This is because the presenter, experienced as they may be, has forgotten how to communicate with an audience that doesn’t necessarily speak the same language.

Even something as basic as running a meeting well is not a skill that every senior leader automatically has.

A lot of this is to do with the fact that interpersonal, relational and human skills are not fixed human traits. They are not assets you have or don’t have, and are more like behavioural muscles that can and should be trained, honed and developed throughout a lifetime. Just because you have two legs, doesn’t make you a world-class runner without training, practice and the self-discipline needed to keep at the top of your game. In the same way, being able to speak doesn’t make you an excellent communicator. That also takes training, practice and a willingness to evolve and improve as your role and audiences change.

And skills work like muscles, if you stop using them, they deteriorate, no matter how much expertise or tenure sits behind them. So, if you think it’s the younger generations that need to work on developing their human skills, think again. We all do – especially in a world that is changing faster than any of us can keep up.

My second observation is this: Skills need the right environment to surface

You can have the best coaching and training in the world to develop your critical thinking, communication or interpersonal skills, but if the environment then doesn’t allow these to surface, they are effectively worthless. You cannot be a critical thinker or challenge the narrative in a room where agreement is valued more than genuine debate. Nor can you consider taking risks if the cost of being wrong is public embarrassment or long-term career damage.

Without psychological safety, in other words, an environment where people feel they can ask questions or challenge an idea without fear of embarrassment or retribution, the human skills needed for an AI world won’t surface, no matter how ‘human’ or talented an individual.

How will you know? A quick and easy way to assess is by asking yourself one of some of these questions after your next meeting:

1. Who speaks? Does the most senior person speak first and everyone else subsequently agrees?
2. Does anyone challenge? Are alternative views actively invited, or does disagreement disappear once the leader has expressed an opinion?
3. What happens after a challenge? If issues or challenges are raised and ignored, people will eventually stop raising them.
4. What happens when someone makes a mistake? Do people focus on learning, or on who was responsible?
5. What happens when someone says “I don’t know”? Is that perceived as honesty or incompetence (with a bit of eye-rolling or side-eyeing involved?)?
6. What happens to bad news? Does it travel upwards quickly, or do people soften/filter it before the boss hears it?

If there are some uncomfortable answers here, then you need to think of what environment you and your team have created – and what you might need to change.

I will always strongly champion the need for developing human skills in an AI world, but this is not and will never be in the context of a one-off learning mandate for early career professionals. AI is impacting all of us, and regardless of role or seniority, we need to excel in interpersonal relations, communication and our ability to deliver value and impact in an increasingly output-driven world. 

Just as importantly, for human skills to thrive, the environment needs to be right. If not, it’s akin to planting a sunflower in a desert and expecting it to thrive – it might have the sunshine it needs, but it will die from intense heat and lack of water.