While speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 21, Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said AI could bring about “civil unrest” by destroying jobs, and that businesses and governments need to step…
President Donald Trump’s late-night Truth Social posting spree on Tuesday—doubling down on his Greenland ambitions and threatening any who try to get in his way—also included a flurry of leaked texts from the leaders of NATO, France, Finland, and Norw…
A candid Q&A with Michael Lynton and Joshua L. Steiner on what they’ve learned about recovering from failure.
People know when a brand genuinely cares about well-being—for employees, customers, and humanity at large. In many cases, it’s an intangible truth they can simply feel—in how they’re treated, how decisions get made, and whether a company’s stated valu…
CEOs are confronting a make-or-break test of their leadership. Here’s what successful leaders are doing to get AI right.
We have a growing problem making our institutions work for humans. Across society, and especially in business, humans are increasingly treated as resources to be squeezed rather than as individuals to be served. Employees become “human capital” to be optimized; customers become “users” to be converted or upsold. This tendency predates AI, but AI threatens to accelerate it dramatically—automating the depersonalization, scaling the indifference, and introducing another layer of abstraction that separates real human beings from real human beings.
Yet there is an alternative path. Human-centered design is often dismissed as a soft or unserious discipline, a distraction from the serious business of maximizing the commercial income to be extracted from every interaction. But it is actually the most practical route to value creation available to organizations today. When you design around real human needs—those of both customers and staff—you build the bridge between internal transformation and external results.
The Foundational Principle
In The Design of Everyday Things, design expert Donald Norman articulates a deceptively simple idea: pay close attention to the needs of human users when defining design goals. This principle applies far beyond product design. It is foundational to how organizations create value.
Human-centered design acts as a critical bridge that taps into and connects two groups of humans. On one side, customer experience drives revenue—people buy from, stay loyal to, and recommend organizations that understand and serve their actual needs. On the other side, the employee experience drives execution—staff who feel understood and supported deliver better work and stay in their roles for longer. Neglect either side and value leaks away, no matter how sophisticated your technology or how ambitious your strategy.
Crucially, human-centered design is not a one-time exercise conducted before systems are built. It is an ongoing discipline that begins with observation, continues through implementation, and persists as long as the system operates. Humans change. Their needs evolve. Their contexts shift. A design process that treats initial research as sufficient will produce systems that drift steadily away from the people they are meant to serve. The organizations that sustain value are those that build continuous feedback loops, returning again and again to observe, test, and refine.
Why AI Makes This Urgent
AI amplifies the consequences of getting human factors wrong. There are three reasons why human-centered design becomes especially critical in the age of AI.
First, speed and scale. When an AI system interacts with customers or processes employee workflows, its behavior can propagate across millions of touchpoints. A poorly designed interaction that might have affected dozens of people in a manual process now affects thousands or millions. The cost of inattention multiplies accordingly.
Second, the fallacy of confusing humans with machines. Management systems and technical architectures tend to assume that they are dealing with rational actors who process information logically and respond predictably. This is the same fallacy embedded in the economist’s concept of homo economicus—the fictional human who optimizes utility with perfect information and no emotion. Real humans bring biases and emotions to their decisions and interactions; they bring varied cultural contexts and needs that shift depending on circumstances. Different people come to AI from radically different angles, and a system designed for an idealized user will fail actual ones.
Third, the diversity of stakeholder interactions. Not everyone affected by an AI system interacts with it directly. Some draw on its outputs at second or third hand—a manager reviewing AI-generated reports, a supplier responding to AI-optimized orders. Other stakeholders—such as government agencies, labor groups, of consumer rights advocates—have regulatory or social interests in how you implement AI. Miss out any of these groups in your design process and you create friction that erodes the value you are trying to build.
Building Human-Centric AI Systems
Translating these principles into practice requires deliberate choices at every stage of AI development and deployment.
Start with personas designed for context. A single AI system may need to present itself differently depending on who it is interacting with. A customer-facing interaction might require conversational warmth, natural pacing, and even deliberate pauses that make the exchange feel human. An internal communication feeding data to supply chain managers might prioritize speed, precision, and structured formatting. An AI agent participating in a multi-agent orchestration layer might need yet another mode—one optimized for machine-readable clarity. These are not cosmetic differences. The persona an AI adopts shapes whether the humans on the other end can work with it effectively. Design these deliberately, not as afterthoughts.
Embrace the iterative spiral. Norman’s concept of human-centered design follows a cycle: observation, idea generation, prototyping, testing, and then back to observation. This is not a linear checklist to be completed once. Each round of testing reveals new information about user needs that the previous round of observation missed. For example, initial research might suggest that speed is the primary requirement for a customer service AI. But watching real users interact with a prototype might reveal that some customers prefer a “chattier” experience with more interaction, even if it takes longer. The spiral deepens understanding as experiments scale.
Recognize the limits of self-reporting. Users do not always know what they need, and they are often not well-placed to articulate their desired outcomes even when they do know. Customers might tell you they want human agents, but longer-term behavioral analysis may reveal a preference for AI solutions that eliminate waiting times. Subject matter experts and scholarly research are invaluable supplements to direct observation. The goal is to understand what actually serves people, not merely what they say they want. (This point is made particularly well with reference to the medical context in Joseph and Pagani’s Designing for Health: The Human Centered Approach.)
Build in human audit layers. The temptation with AI is to automate completely—to remove humans from the loop in pursuit of efficiency. Resist it. Introduce human checkpoints that look for systemic biases, catch edge cases, and intervene where required. This is not a failure of automation but a recognition that partnership between humans and AI produces better outcomes than either alone.
The Orchestration Challenge
As organizations deploy multiple AI agents—handling sales, compliance, operations, customer service—a new challenge emerges. These agents can conflict. Gartner predicts that 40% of enterprise applications will use multi-agent systems by year-end, and a common failure mode is already apparent: agent deadlock, where agents with different objectives provide contradictory instructions and freeze the workflow.
The solution is not purely technical. Orchestration layers can help resolve conflicts algorithmically, but they cannot substitute for human judgment in ambiguous cases. Human-centered design here means designing the human role in the system, not just the AI components. Someone must be empowered to adjudicate when the sales optimization agent and the regulatory compliance agent cannot agree. That role requires clarity about authority, access to relevant context, and the judgment to weigh competing priorities. Organizations that neglect this human layer will find their sophisticated multi-agent systems grinding to a halt.
Practical Steps
Five actions can move human-centered design from abstraction to operation:
1. Map your human touchpoints. Before any AI initiative, document every human who will interact with or be affected by the system. This includes direct users, indirect data consumers, and those with regulatory or reputational stakes. If you cannot name the humans involved, you are not ready to build.
2. Observe before you build. Spend time with actual users before defining requirements. Watch what they do, not just what they say. The gap between stated preferences and revealed behavior is where design insight lives.
3. Design your personas deliberately. For each AI system, specify how it should interact differently with different stakeholder types. Document these choices and revisit them as you learn more.
4. Build in human audit points. Identify where human judgment must remain in the loop and design those roles explicitly. Specify what authority they have, what information they need, and how their interventions feed back into system improvement.
5. Don’t stop—cycle. Treat testing as the beginning of observation, not the end of development. Build feedback mechanisms that allow continuous refinement as human needs evolve.
Conclusion
Human-centered design is not a constraint on AI ambition. It is what allows that ambition to create real value. Technology alone creates nothing—financial value emerges only when capabilities provide value that is meaningful for humans. Human-centered design is the discipline that makes that meeting possible, the bridge between what your systems can do and what actually matters to the people you serve.
As we move into 2026, it’s time to examine the subtle behaviors that undermine our professional impact. As someone who works with mid- to senior-level leaders, I see and hear the ways in which communication behaviors and patterns get in their wa…
For years, leaders have been told that ”being true to themselves” and “ignoring what others think” represent the gold standard of effective leadership, a kind of moral and emotional north star. But in practice, this type of advice often gets leaders into trouble.
For a vivid illustration, consider how two famous fictional (yet hyper-realistic) characters, namely Don Draper (Madmen) and Michael Scott (The Office) embody these two mantras. Draper clings to a rigid, unchanging identity, using “this is who I am” as armor to avoid confronting his insecurities, while Scott approaches management with unfiltered candor, oversharing, and acting on impulse. Both believe they are being true to themselves, so others should appreciate it, but in reality they are trapped behind a rigid self-protective shield that excuses poor judgment and blocks growth.
The real problem arises not so much from being untrue to themselves, but rather, from mis-calibrating how they show up, mistaking self-expression for effectiveness. Leaders who are reduced to this kind of pattern routinely erode trust, exhaust their teams, and undermine their own influence while sincerely believing they are acting with genuineness and integrity.
As psychological research shows, every leader carries internal narratives shaped by early experiences about how to stay safe, earn belonging, or manage uncertainty. These narratives result in behavioral patterns that were once adaptive. But over time, they harden into identity (“this is just who I am”) and limit leaders’ flexibility and versatility.
Leaders are therefore presented with a difficult psychological choice, namely: (a) to resist pressures to conform, and act without consideration for what others think, but, in doing so, risk alienating or antagonizing others; or (b) to adjust their behavior to meet the situational demands—mostly, what other people want and need from them—but risk alienating . . . themselves.
The question, then, is how leaders can skillfully navigate the intricate balance between their self-expression needs and their obligation to others. To this end, here are a few science-based recommendations to consider:
Communicate with greater precision and empathy
Leaders don’t struggle because they speak the truth, but because they speak it without intention, timing, or attunement. Balancing candor with empathy is the discipline of telling the truth in ways that preserve dignity, empathy, and trust. Here’s how:
- Pair honesty with intention. Before speaking hard truths, ask: “What impact do I want this message to have?” Clarifying intent helps you choose language that builds trust rather than simply offloading what’s on your mind. Think of it as an emotional aim: honesty without intention is like firing an arrow without checking what or who is behind the target.
- Slow the reflex. If you feel urgency to “just say it,” pause. Urgency often signals an activated trigger, not clarity. This is your mind’s equivalent of a car engine revving too hot; giving it a moment prevents you from speeding into the wrong lane. Use that pause to let adrenaline fall and cognition rise.
- Practice “empathetic accuracy.” Test your instincts by naming what others might feel, then adjust your delivery in service of effectiveness, not self-expression. Great communicators act like emotional cartographers, mapping the terrain before entering it so they know where the cliffs, rivers, and fragile bridges are.
Regulate emotion before you express it
Vulnerability builds trust only when it is regulated, purposeful, and contained. Grounded vulnerability allows leaders to be real without turning their teams into emotional shock absorbers or co-regulators. Here’s how:
- Share what is useful, not what is unfiltered. Vulnerability should serve others, not the leader’s emotional relief. Raw disclosure is not always courageous; sometimes it is simply an emotional data dump that burdens the listener. Useful vulnerability, by contrast, is like offering a compass: personal, yes, but handed over with the intent to orient others, not to lighten your own load.
- Do emotional processing upstream. Use peers, mentors, or therapists as your primary space, not your colleagues. This preserves your team’s psychological safety while still giving you the support you need. Upstream processing allows you to show up composed, thoughtful, and ready to metabolize complexity on behalf of others rather than through them. For example, employees often report feeling “emotionally hijacked” when leaders vent openly about board pressure or uncertainty, unsure whether they are being informed or enlisted as emotional support.
- Replace unloading with grounding. Before sharing, ask: “Is this helpful to them? Or helpful to me?” Grounding yourself first allows you to express vulnerability as perspective, not pressure. Think of grounding as fastening your oxygen mask before assisting others: when you regulate your own emotional state, your words become stabilizing rather than contagious. Leaders who ground themselves create a conversational climate where honesty feels safe instead of sharp.
Balance identity with adaptability
Many leaders confuse integrity with sameness. True reliability comes not from repeating the same behaviors, but from expressing the same values with greater responsiveness and emotional range. Here’s how:
- Redefine consistency. Anchor to values, not behaviors. Values stay largely steady; behaviors can evolve. When leaders treat consistency as performing the same behaviors in every situation, they confuse predictability with rigidity. True consistency comes from being reliably guided by the same principles even as contexts shift.
- Try 10% adjustments. Micro-flexibility builds confidence without threatening identity. A modest shift in tone, timing, or format can expand your influence far more than sweeping reinventions, demonstrating that authenticity and adaptability can coexist.
- Name what rigidity protects. When you feel resistant, ask: “What part of me feels endangered right now?” Identifying the fear beneath the resistance opens the door to more adaptive choices. This self-reflection keeps self-expression honest while ensuring that protective impulses do not override responsibilities to the people they lead.
Demonstrate values with judgment, not dogma
Strong values don’t require rigid postures. Moral maturity allows leaders to stand for what matters while remaining curious, connected, and oriented toward collective impact rather than personal righteousness. Here’s how:
- Distinguish values from validation. Ask: “Am I standing in a principle or hiding behind it?” This distinguishes conviction from ego. By interrogating whether a stance is truly principle-driven or simply self-affirming, leaders prevent rigid authenticity from becoming a shield for stubbornness.
- Expand the aperture of “right.” Seek nuance in situations that challenge your certainty. Curiosity reduces the need to treat disagreement as a moral referendum. By widening their interpretive frame, leaders move from defending their identity to understanding the system they are operating in.
- Prioritize impact over insistence. Sometimes the most ethical choice is the one that maintains relationships, not the one that wins the argument. Insisting on being right can satisfy the ego but damage the social fabric leaders rely on to get things done.
In short, if you are interested in being a better leader who is true to her/himself, focus on being your best possible self rather than your unfiltered or uncensored self. Why? Because the less you care about your reputation, the more others will care—and not in a good way.
Leadership is fundamentally relational, so leaders’ professional selves must be optimized to the needs of others. People don’t need leaders to share every inner thought but to provide clarity, stability, and a responsible, human presence. Effective leaders prioritize impact over self-expression and treat authenticity as an active, intentional process. By contrast, misguided self-expression creates friction that slows decisions, distorts information, and weakens execution, even in otherwise capable teams.
The best leaders commit to continuous improvement and becoming more effective in their roles. This demands self-awareness and emotional intelligence, recognizing what traits to emphasize or adjust to meet the moment’s demands. Instead of unfiltered self-expression, leaders engage in thoughtful self-presentation tailored to the collective needs of their teams and organizations. As a result, leaders’ professional reputation becomes a practiced skill of managing how to show up powerfully while staying true to core values, not a static identity to be discovered or defended at all costs.
In summary, effective leadership is less about rigid self-identity and more about strategic self-curation aimed at adaptive effectiveness and relational impact. Leaders who understand this evolve beyond trapped patterns and refine themselves to lead with clarity, competence, and integrity.
Four ways to motivate your employees through this moment of technological upheaval and disruption.
Most of us know that job loss is emotionally difficult, but what’s less talked about is the experience of knowing you will be terminated without knowing when. This process can be drawn out and draining—a form of anticipatory grief—an emotional respons…
