- The study reveals that 42% of managers identify as AI skeptics with exaggerated expectations
- The skeptics are concerned about the financial, psychological and physical risks of the adoption of the AI
- Realists indicate clear advantages, including better quality of work and temporal efficiency
Artificial intelligence has reshaped workplaces around the world with the promise of efficiency, smarter decisions and new commercial opportunities.
However, as adoption is accelerating, the evidence suggests that not all leaders adopt AI tools with equal confidence.
Recent research from the adaptavist group reveals an increasing gap between those who trust the complaints of the AI of their business and those who fear that technology will be over-typical.
A fracture between skeptics and realists
The report revealed that almost half (42%) of the leaders identify themselves as “skeptical” of the AI, believing that the assertions of their business are exaggerated, while 36% consider themselves “realists”, confident that expectations are realistic.
For skeptics, the adoption of tools like AI writers is often with discomfort: 65% fear that the approach of their organization puts customers at financial, psychological or physical risks.
Almost half of skeptical leaders fear being wrongly accused of having addressed AI, and 42% hide their use of AI at work to avoid repercussions.
Realists report much lower levels of anxiety, showing that perception plays a central role in training the workplace experiences with AI and LLM technology.
In companies where skeptics dominate, the adoption of AI is more motivated by the obligation than measurable results.
Eighty-four percent of skeptical leaders encourage the use of AI because they believe that they should, rather than because it offers a specific value.
Expenditure remains high, with more than a third investing between 1 and 10 million pounds sterling in AI initiatives in the past year.
However, insufficient pressure and training (59% do not report any formal IA education) continue to limit efficiency.
In comparison, realists promote experimentation, provide training and measure the results in a way that supports both technology and people.
The leaders of organizations led by realists report lighter AI advantages, including improvements in the quality of work, the efficiency of time and production.
Ethical concerns such as plagiarism, biases and hallucinations are much less pronounced: only 37% of realists reported ethical risks against 74% of skeptics.
They also spend less time correcting AI outputs, reflecting more solid advice and support.
These results aligned with the recent pretended to be MIT that 95% of the generative pilots of the AI fail, which suggests that organizational culture and preparation are decisive factors for the success of the AI.
The rapid proliferation of AI tools aggravates the ditch. Seventy-four percent of the skeptics feel overwhelmed by too many tools too quickly, while the realists remain confident in the value of the AI.
“The contrast between the leaders confident in the course of the AI of their organization and those who are struggling with bad results, the implementations precipitated and a reluctant workforce are austere,” said Jon Dead, CTO of the adaptivist group.
“To unlock the true value of AI, organizations must be quick to experiment but take the time to deploy in a thoughtful way by investing in training and creating an environment where people and technology can prosper.”
