Why Employees Prefer AI Over Their Managers: The Impact On Leadership

I once had a boss who thought he was clearly communicated. Each week on Zoom, he developed what he wanted us to work. I listened carefully, but I often didn’t feel sure what he meant. When I asked for clarity, he would answer with: “If you had just listened to what I said during the meeting …” His sneaky tone bored me, especially since I listened. The problem was that his words were vague. I started to type everything he said in word so that I can review the notes later and try to give them meaning. Before a long time, the rest of my team asked me for these notes because they were also confused. If I had access to AI at the time, I could have downloaded my notes and ask: “What does he mean by that?” It would have saved hours of frustration. So it doesn’t surprise me almost Half of the workers of the Z generation Suppose they count more on AI tools like Chatgpt to get advice than on their managers. This supports what I have experienced, and when employees prefer AI, it is a signal for leadership to make changes.

Why do employees prefer AI instead of their managers at work?

Employees choose AI because it offers something that they lack in their human interactions. They want clarity, speed and space without judgment to ask questions. The AI ​​gives them an answer without fear of being ridiculed for asking. In many workplaces, people hesitate to raise their hands because they do not want to seem unprepared. With AI, they can ask for anything, at any time, without worrying about what their boss will think.

When employees describe AI as easier to approach than their leaders, this reflects a cultural problem. He tells us that organizations may have created involuntarily where questions are not safe. Managers can be too precipitated, too defensive or too clear to create confidence. The AI ​​exposes where culture is broken.

What does it say about leadership when employees prefer AI?

When people get around their managers to ask for AI, they send a message that their managers are not accessible or the cost of demand is too high. This shows if leadership has created a relationship where employees feel comfortable being uncertain.

A strong leader recognizes that clarity listens more than speaking and ensuring that people can repeat what they have heard to feel confident what they have heard. If the leaders note that their teams go elsewhere to get advice, they should ask: am I accessible? Do I have to invite questions? Do I have to make people feel safe when they need clarity?

The problem is that I doubt that my chief who was not clear answer these questions in the same way as me. I think he would say yes to the three. Therefore, it is also important to obtain an external perspective. Daniel Goleman, a psychologist known for his popularization of the concept of emotional intelligence, told me that he thought that the best results come from a 360 assessment. Self-assessment does not always reveal what we should know. By looking for someone’s comments outside the team, managers can acquire a different perspective from theirs.

How can leadership react when employees prefer AI to managers?

Managers can take practical measures to meet the transition from their understanding of their understanding of AI. The first is to normalize the questions. One thing simple to say to their team could be: “I realize that you have a unique perspective concerning this problem, so there is a part that requires more explanations?” This allows people to admit confusion more easily. Instead of assuming silence means an agreement, managers can create a clarification space.

The second step is to contact the structure. Instead of giving a long list of vague tasks, managers can summarize key points at the end of the meetings. This reinforces not only clarity, but also reduces dependence on employees who must scribble the notes so that the word decodes later.

The third step is to replace the defensive with curiosity. When someone asks for clarification, the instinct to say: “I have already explained this” closes the door. The instinct to say, “Let me try again” opens it. This small change signals to the employees that their manager values ​​the understanding of their ego.

It is important to teach teams to paraphrase what they think they heard. Even if they think they understood, if they stop supposing and starting to reformulate what they believed to have heard, that solidifies understanding. It is a skill that I teach my students, and it works both in the office and in the class. Help them to learn to say things like: “What I think you want from this project is XYZ, is that exact?”

Can leadership rebuild confidence if employees prefer AI to obtain answers?

Confidence can be rebuilt by constant effort. Managers who show vulnerability by admitting when they could have been clearer sending a powerful message. To say: “I realize that I was not as clear as I should have” shows humility. Over time, these little thanks accumulate confidence.

Managers can also rebuild trust by modeling what they want from their teams. When an employee takes the risk of asking for help, the leader’s response shapes if this risk will be resumed. If the answer is disdainful, the risk will not be repeated. If the response is respectful and encouraging, this leads to the construction of a culture that embraces out of the thought of the stat-quo.

Another way to rebuild confidence is by monitoring. After giving instructions, managers can check a day later with: “How is this project going?” Do you have what you need? ” This gesture gives employees a second chance to raise questions that they could have reluctant to ask in a group.

How should leadership adapt when employees prefer AI to get advice?

Managers must adopt what makes them human. AI can provide facts, summaries and interpretations, but it cannot offer empathy. He cannot notice the expression on someone’s face who says: “I’m lost.” He cannot feel the tension in a room after unclear instructions and potentially give incorrect instructions. Managers can provide these human forces.

One way to adapt is to become more curious. Instead of focusing only on the story, the leaders should train to ask. Questions like: “What challenges do you meet?” Or “What would it facilitate this?” Invite conversations and report interest in the person.

Another adaptation is to create time for more clarity. In occupied organizations, the leaders rush into the instructions without stopping. Building in a few minutes at the end of the meetings to clarify the questions shows that understanding is a priority. He also models patience, which reduces fear of judgment.

Finally, leaders can position AI as a partner rather than a competitor. Instead of worrying that employees prefer AI, managers can say, “If you use AI to get ideas, bring them back so that we can discuss how they integrate into our work.” This approach gives permission to use AI as a complement to leadership rather than substitute.

Bring it back to leadership when employees prefer AI

Employees will go to AI for quick responses, and this may be correct as long as they are exact answers and always involve managers and managers. If people feel safe, clear and appreciated, they will see AI as a useful tool and not to replace leadership. Rather than looking at when employees prefer AI as a threat, consider it as a call for stronger, clearer and more human interactions. The leaders who react with opening, patience and curiosity will constitute teams that appreciate human connection. If you are a leader who finds you to say: “If you have just listened to what I said at the meeting …” You have already sent your people to look elsewhere for answers.