“This isn’t an ending — it’s a transition. Your role isn’t disappearing; it’s evolving into something that no longer requires you” … or something like that. Any leader with an LLM is one click away from sending this message.
Generative AI has transformed the way we interact and the way we lead. When prompted, our co-pilots provide us with resources, ready-made conversations, and convincing answers to some of the most challenging questions we ask ourselves every day. This raises concerns regarding AI’s impact on the future of jobs and skills. Leadership itself is being challenged by AI: algorithms are increasingly involved in strategic decision-making, some companies have even appointed what they call AI CEOs, and leaders themselves rely on generative AI to assist them in their daily leadership activities.
At first, one could think that AI makes leadership easier, and in some ways it does. But it simultaneously makes it harder, because it is easy to fall into the trap of convenience and accept AI outputs without questioning them. Human-centric leadership means not taking the path of least resistance: leadership is now more demanding, because it requires intentionality throughout the whole journey. Human-centricity makes the whole difference at four touchpoints: attention, connection, friction, and hope.
The first touchpoint is attention to people. Human interactions require attention. For a leader, it is a matter of listening and making people feel seen. At a time when all interactions are fragmented, giving your undivided attention to someone becomes a key indicator of respect. AI can simulate attention, but it cannot genuinely give it. Similarly, leaders can convince themselves that they are giving attention when they are not: a glance at a notification, a reply already forming, a summary of the conversation left to a tool. Genuine attention requires effort, commitment, and training.
The second touchpoint is connection. Organizations function as systems, and technology has increasingly transformed those social systems into technical ones: the relationships are being replaced by information flows, and the interactions between humans are being replaced by interactions with agents. While this still efficiently transmits data, it can create challenges in terms of belongingness. Human-centric leadership is thus about creating those connections between people, some that are obvious, some that are less conventional and require more effort. It takes knowing people, putting yourself in their shoes without assuming their situation, and genuinely caring.
The third touchpoint is friction. A key component of leadership is about orchestrating participation of people, with their own interests, goals, and perspectives. A human-centric approach is one that creates the environment for fruitful friction and constructive disagreement to reach better decisions that encompass multiple perspectives. This is true at the collective level, but also at the level of the individual leader, where the human advantage lies in the holistic, first-hand experience of being in a situation and its context. Understanding the depth of an organization’s reality, being able to deal with the uncertainty, and accepting that some situations cannot be resolved just yet: these are frictions that AI tends to overlook, and that is where human-centric leadership can thrive by embracing discomfort.
The last touchpoint is hope. In times marked by uncertainty and instability, leadership should aim at guiding people through troubled waters. In that respect, infusing hope does not mean the shallow optimism of sycophantic large language models. It means being honest about the efforts and concessions ahead and bringing people on board. This, too, takes effort, as it requires understanding what people are going through and what can be promised.
These touchpoints all point in the same direction: the genuine, first-hand experience of being in the situation. Leadership is always embedded in a specific organizational and collective context, with its history, its people, and their perspectives. AI draws on statistical patterns and can only know that context second-hand. A human-centric leader can connect dots and genuinely feel what is at stake.
Paradoxically, the more capable AI becomes, the more pressing human-centric leadership is. When everyone has access to the same tools, providing standardized outputs is within reach of anyone. Human-centric leadership depends on what AI lacks, and that is where the leader’s first-hand experience of being in the situation kicks in: knowing what to ask, what the answer overlooks, what it will mean for the people who receive it, and being able to accept friction and discomfort. Relying on that experience is a critical advantage, especially when AI offers an easy way out: skipping the listening, the connecting, the disagreement, and the honest conversation. The message that opens this piece is a symptom of that: it is flawless, and that is exactly what is wrong with it. The employee whose role is about to change does not need a perfect message. They need a leader who is actually there, living it with them, imperfections included.
