Where humans excel over AI
In our current socio-economic and political climate, it’s easy for me to feel overwhelmed and wishing I had a crystal ball to see into the future – even into next week would be great! There’s a lot going on. If I tease out one thread throughout all the change, it’s the impact of AI.
I read a study recently, When It Comes to Creativity, AI Doesn’t Always Have the Answer by Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management, which provided a refreshing reminder that it’s humans who excel in creativity, not computers.
Kellogg professor Brian Uzzi used the Divergent Aptitude Test (DAT) in a simple experiment. Participants generated ten words that are as different from each other as possible (e.g., cat and road). AI did the same, and across thousands of scores, humans consistently matched or outperformed AI. AI tools generate ideas by drawing on patterns in existing data, so they naturally have a narrower vocabulary than humans, who can draw on lived experience, context, emotion, and curiosity to make unexpected connections that AI can’t.
Curiosity is the engine of creativity, and it thrives when people are encouraged to explore rather than optimize. A strong culture of learning values collective sensemaking, where teams build on each other’s ideas instead of defaulting to the fastest answer. Most importantly, innovation requires intentional space for experimentation—time and permission to think broadly before narrowing in on solutions.
This research is a useful reminder that creativity is fueled by curiosity and collective thinking, not just individual effort or technological efficiency. When people have space to explore ideas together, learning becomes part of the work rather than an add-on. Innovation emerges not from having the “right” answer quickly, but from a team culture that encourages exploration, shared insight, and thoughtful experimentation.
For leaders, this study provides a useful pause point. Creativity rarely survives constant urgency, and it doesn’t respond well to being rushed toward quick, tidy answers. Leaders influence this more than they might realize by asking questions, setting a pace that allows time for reflection and discussion, and giving permission to explore ideas that may not immediately translate into results.
Where might the push for speed and efficiency be narrowing your team’s thinking?
We Can do Hard things
A couple of years ago, I received a link to watch Megan Washington’s TED Talk, Why I live in mortal dread of public speaking. I was awestruck at her courage and her beautiful voice. Megan is a singer-songwriter in Australia who shares how she has learned to live and perform with a lifelong stutter by adapting how she speaks and, at times, by singing what she cannot say.
I was watching something recently and remembered Megan’s TED Talk after all these years. It’s a good reminder that we can do hard things. Megan turned her difficult thing – her stutter – into her superpower. It wasn’t just Megan’s courage getting up on stage, but how she embraced her stutter rather than trying to erase it. What could have remained a limitation became part of how she connects with people. The vulnerability did not disappear. It became a source of depth, presence and connection.
There is something quietly instructive here for leaders. Mental health is persistently on the rise. I’ve been learning about neurodiversity. People rarely do their best work when they feel pressured to show up in one narrow way. They tend to thrive when there is room to work differently, to adapt, and to bring more of themselves into the work. When leaders create space for that, differences often become sources of originality, resilience, and trust.
Doing hard things rarely looks dramatic in real life. More often, it shows up as choosing to keep going, finding new ways forward, and allowing ourselves and others to be human along the way.
Where do you ask others to smooth over what is difficult rather than work with it? What might change if that difficulty were treated as a source of insight instead?
Org Chart for AI implementation
Gosh, I like Tom Fishburne’s illustrations. He’s more focused on marketing, but his cartoons often apply to leadership, learning, and development too.
In this illustration, AI Org Chart, AI appears everywhere. It’s layered into roles, functions, and teams across the organization. On the surface, it looks decisive and forward-thinking. Everyone has access, and everyone is involved. In reality, it’s chaotic, filled with discomfort and challenges.
The instinct is to view AI as a tool and distribute it quickly rather than consider the ecosystem and how AI should be used. What gets missed in the rush is not the technology itself, but the thinking around it. Who is responsible for learning how AI should support the work? Where are people encouraged to experiment, reflect, and share what they are noticing? Without those conditions, AI risks becoming another layer of activity rather than a source of real leverage.
For leaders, the question is less about where AI sits on the org chart and more about how learning is supported alongside it. When space is made for reflection, dialogue, and shared understanding, tools can strengthen the work instead of causing fear.
Which of Tom’s boxes could you check off for your organization? How does that contribute to chaos and fear vs curiosity and learning?
Illustration source: https://marketoonist.com/2026/03/ai-org-chart.html
In case you missed it
I’ve shared some additional posts online. Here they are, in case you missed them.
- Leadership coaching for healthy conflict (video link)
- Skills to speak up and have healthy conflict (video link)
