a month ago
- AI mandates are defended as a necessary tool for coordinating change under tight deadlines, despite widespread dislike among engineers and skepticism from many leaders.
- A mandate functions as a funding mechanism, acknowledging that resources and time must be allocated, allowing for temporary slowdowns and slip-ups in standards.
- Without a mandate and proper funding, initiatives lack priority, leading to increased pressure, uncertainty, and stress among employees, rather than clarity and collective effort.
- Mandates force organizations to define timelines, enablement needs, and trade-offs, ensuring hard conversations about what success looks like and what work is deprioritized.
- Leadership must be consistent: if AI is deemed existential, it must be funded; if it's a nice-to-have, don't blame employees later for lacking expertise.
- Mandates should be a last resort, and if imposed, must be backed by reality quickly to avoid long-term resentment and loss of trust.
- Excessive mandates are problematic; it's crucial to say NO to most good ideas, reserving mandates only for exceptional, fight-worthy causes that are worth significant sacrifice.
- AI adoption in enterprises is fundamentally a change management problem, not just a technical one, requiring careful consideration of strategy and resource allocation.