AI Is Outpacing Leadership Readiness. HR Has to Close the Gap
Dr. Andrea Adams-Miller of TheREDCarpetConnection.com, LLC says AI has moved from a productivity tool to an influence on decisions. Results look strong on paper, but leadership judgment and accountability aren't keeping pace.
"Artificial intelligence dramatically increases speed, but speed without discernment increases organizational risk," she said. "Leaders are gaining efficiency while quietly losing decision ownership, and that tradeoff becomes visible only when pressure is high and consequences are real." She adds, "AI should amplify human intelligence. The moment artificial intelligence replaces critical thinking, performance becomes fragile."
What HR Is Seeing Right Now
- Professional services: double-digit time cuts on internal reporting with generative tools.
- Finance: faster risk flagging and fewer manual reviews with AI-assisted forecasting.
- Talent acquisition: shorter hiring timelines via automated screening, followed by a return to human review after bias issues surfaced in early models.
These wins are real-and incomplete. Research has warned for years that machine learning reflects the values and biases in its data and design, and that weak governance lets errors scale faster than people can catch them.
The Risk You Don't See on a Dashboard
Adams-Miller points to a cognitive cost most companies never track. "When leaders defer judgment to systems, neural pathways responsible for reasoning, emotional regulation, and strategic evaluation weaken over time," she said. "That erosion never appears on dashboards, but it shows up during crises, litigation, and reputational failures."
Recent reporting calls this "automation complacency"-oversight fades as confidence in outputs grows, even when those outputs are flawed. HR can break that pattern by setting clear decision boundaries and keeping humans responsible for the final call.
HR's 30-60-90 Day Playbook
- Map decisions and set thresholds: Define where AI can recommend, where humans must approve, and where AI is off-limits. Use criticality tiers (low/medium/high impact).
- Make accountability explicit: Create a RACI for AI-assisted decisions. Name the human owner for outcomes that cross departmental lines.
- Track an "override rate": Log when humans accept, edit, or reject AI outputs. If acceptance drifts up while error findings stay flat, complacency is creeping in.
- Run bias and quality audits: Test models for disparate impact, job-relevant validity, and data drift. Document results and re-test after updates.
- Install a two-key rule for high stakes: For hiring, compensation, performance, or termination, require human sign-off and a written rationale.
- Build an incident playbook: Define severity levels, response steps, notification paths, and remediation timelines for AI-related errors.
- Tighten vendor governance: Require model and data documentation, audit access, update notifications, and a sunset plan.
Guardrails for People Operations
- Hiring: Use structured interviews and job-relevant assessments. Monitor adverse impact ratio. Keep a human review loop for borderline candidates and flagged cases.
- Performance: Don't let AI produce final ratings. Give employees visibility into inputs, allow an appeal, and record human rationale for decisions.
- Learning: Train managers on reflective judgment under speed-short simulations, prompt-checklists, and bias-spotting drills beat long lectures.
- Policy in practice: Randomly sample AI outputs each week. Rotate reviewers. Publish error learnings to normalize correction, not blame.
- Metrics that matter: Time saved, quality lift, exception rate, employee trust scores, bias indicators, and audit pass rates.
What the Research Signals
Academic work has shown that automated systems can spread errors and bias quickly when oversight is weak. See PNAS's analysis of human vs. machine decisions for context: Human decisions and machine predictions (Kleinberg et al., 2018).
For governance scaffolding HR can adapt, review the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and align policies, controls, and audits with your decision tiers.
How Adams-Miller Advises Executive Teams
Her current work focuses on three moves: integrate AI within clear decision boundaries, reinforce human accountability, and train leaders to maintain reflective judgment at speed and scale. Organizations that sustain performance treat AI as an augmenting instrument-not the decider.
Dr. Andrea Adams-Miller is available for individual and group advising and training, applying neuroscience methods to strengthen decision-making and excellence in AI-integrated workplaces.
Quick Next Steps for HR
- Pick one high-impact workflow (e.g., candidate screening). Define decision tiers, owners, and an override log. Pilot for 30 days.
- Stand up a cross-functional AI review group (HR, Legal, IT, DEI). Meet biweekly. Track issues, fixes, and learning.
- Upskill managers on critical thinking with AI. If you need structured options, explore role-based programs here: Complete AI Training: Courses by Job.
Bottom line: Efficiency is easy. Accountability is the work. HR's edge is building systems where speed serves judgment, not the other way around.
Your membership also unlocks:
