When the server walked past our table, my hand shot upward like a high schooler eager to answer the teacher’s question.
“Can we get two more of the same, please?” I asked upon getting his attention.
“Another round of espresso martinis? I g…
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a woman with a family and a career is in want of more hours in the day. However, despite this, typically conversations around gender inequity at work focus on a pay gap, rather than the consequences of what…
Eva Longoria, 51, has come a long way from being a Desperate Housewife on Wisteria Lane over 20 years ago. After becoming a star on the hit show, she says she’s continued to rely on hustle, passion and versatility to be wildly successful in a range of…
Below, co-authors Joshua Steiner and Michael Lynton share five key insights from their new book, From Mistakes to Meaning: Owning Your Past So It Doesn’t Own You.
Joshua has worked in government, finance, and the nonprofit sector. After servin…
Your upper chest could be the key to your long-term health. A new study found a correlation between the health of a human’s thymus and the likelihood of cardiovascular disease or cancer.
Published on Wednesday in the science journal Nature, resear…
“And a cascade of lace here, here, and here.” I thwacked my pen against the notepad to emphasize each word while my cousin nodded vigorously. At 8 and 10, we carefully reviewed our wedding dress designs as if our big days were just moments away. While…
For nearly four years now, the conversation about generative AI has revolved almost exclusively around productivity, threatened jobs, automatable tasks, efficiency, and competitiveness. But there is a largely underestimated dimension to this revolution: its cultural effects. AI is not just transforming how we work; it is transforming how we are together, how we trust each other, how we communicate, and how we organize ourselves.
To measure this, it helps to borrow a framework from Erin Meyer, a professor at INSEAD whose book The Culture Map identifies eight dimensions along which the cultures of the world differ. Applied to artificial intelligence, Meyer’s eight dimensions reveal a series of cultural shifts that are more profound than we know.
1. How We Communicate: AI Is Training Us to Say What We Mean
Generative AI demands clarity. An effective prompt is an explicit one. There’s no room for body language. This constraint is gradually reshaping how we communicate with each other, too. Cultures that have traditionally relied on what is left unsaid—where reading between the lines or sensing the mood in the room is a valued skill—are being pushed toward greater explicitness. As AI mediates more exchanges, the richness of implicit communication erodes.
And there is the curious rehabilitation of the typo. For decades, a spelling mistake in a professional message was a sign of carelessness, even disrespect. Not anymore. A typo is increasingly read as proof that you wrote it yourself—that you took the time, that you cared enough to type it out without outsourcing the task. Imperfection has become a signal of authenticity.
2. How We Give Feedback: AI as a Cultural Mediator and Sugar-Coater
Large language models are not built to be brutal. They begin by finding something to praise, soften their critiques, and close on a constructive note. After thousands of interactions with tools that say “great question” before correcting your mistake, even cultures accustomed to blunt, direct feedback begin absorbing a more diplomatic register.
But AI also has a more positive effect on collective evaluation: It excels at finding the common denominator. In a multicultural team where some members practice direct feedback and others avoid confrontation entirely, AI can serve as a neutral translator—reformulating, synthesizing, and smoothing out cultural friction.
3. How We Persuade: It’s No Longer About the Argument. It’s About the Person Making It
AI produces inductive responses: examples, bullet points, concrete cases. This results-first logic is gradually permeating cultures that traditionally valued deductive reasoning, like in France, for example, where the art of the dissertation (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) was a deep cultural marker. Presentations are getting shorter and more pragmatic.
But the real shift goes beyond a simple victory of American-style storytelling over European-style argumentation. What is actually happening is that human embodiment is becoming the primary source of persuasion. When anyone can produce a well-structured argument in 10 seconds, formal argumentative quality stops being differentiating. What convinces people is presence, authenticity, and the personal commitment of the person speaking.
4. How We Lead: From the Lone Expert to the Collective Orchestrator
The flattening of knowledge access generated by AI undermines leadership models built on the hoarding of expertise. The manager whose authority derived from mastery of a technical domain sees that competitive advantage eroding.
Also, as AI becomes more pervasive, the very source of leadership becomes structurally more collective. AI models are trained on aggregated human work. They are, in a sense, the distillation of millions of anonymous contributions. To use AI is to mobilize a collective intelligence that no single person authored. This should dismantle the myth of the lone brilliant leader. Hence, the leadership of tomorrow may be more about collective discernment and knowing what to do with the output.
5. How We Decide: When the Algorithm Recommends, Do We Still Really Choose?
AI compresses decision-making time. In seconds, it produces an analysis, a comparison, a recommendation. And increasingly, we rely on algorithmic recommendations, like HR scoring systems, sales prioritization tools, and project management assistants. Many decisions are made on our behalf. Often, we endorse them without examining them.
In cultures that value collective consensus-building before any decision is made, this delegation can feel like a welcome relief. In cultures where strong unilateral decision-making is a mark of leadership, it produces a strange dispossession: The decisive executive finds himself rubber-stamping a recommendation he did not construct. Are we actually still deciding?
6. How We Trust: When All Outputs Look the Same, Relationships Become Everything
Here is perhaps the most paradoxical reversal. One might have expected AI to strengthen trust based on the quality of work, since now anyone can produce polished, well-structured deliverables. Instead, the opposite is happening. When all outputs look alike, they lose their power to distinguish. Cognitive trust erodes precisely because AI has made it commonplace. What becomes valuable is the affective, the personal relationship, the two-hour lunch, the intimate conversation. Receiving a proposal that is manifestly generated without human effort sends a signal: You were not worth my real attention.
As AI takes over routine interactions, what remains—genuine attention, real presence—acquires extraordinary value. We all crave sincere human contact. The affective dimension of trust is likely to become more precious than ever.
7. How We Disagree: The Risk of a World Where Everyone Agrees
AI models avoid confrontation by design. They don’t flatly contradict. They “offer a complementary perspective.” They “acknowledge the nuance.” This algorithmically engineered softness, repeated at a massive scale, may be reshaping the norms of disagreement.
In cultures already inclined to avoid open conflict, AI reinforces the tendency to sidestep. In cultures where direct disagreement is seen as healthy and productive, AI introduces a veneer of diplomatic language that can mask real tensions. The danger is organizations where everyone appears to agree—the humans out of politeness, the AIs out of design—and where real problems never surface. A world of frictionless AI-mediated communication will do away with the friction that makes organizations resilient.
8. How We Relate to Time: When a Two-Hour Response Feels Slow
AI responds in seconds. That standard of immediacy, internalized across thousands of interactions, is reshaping our tolerance for human response time. A colleague who takes two hours to reply to an email now seems sluggish. A meeting that “takes time” to build consensus feels inefficient. The AI’s instantaneousness has become the invisible benchmark against which all human pace is judged.
Cultures that already organize work sequentially and value strict scheduling are accelerating further. Cultures with a more fluid, relational relationship to time—where adaptability matters more than the clock—face growing pressure to conform to responsiveness standards that are foreign to them. The AI has, in effect, exported one particular cultural relationship to time and made it feel universal.
The Overlooked Dimension: Gender and the Digital Matilda Effect
The numbers are striking. Women are between 20% and 25% less likely than men to use generative AI tools, according to a Harvard Business School meta-analysis. Women are hesitating because they are calculating the risk of being seen using AI. A study found that when engineers submitted identical AI-assisted code for review, women received competence ratings 13% lower; men, only 6% lower.
It’s a sort of digital Matilda effect. The historical Matilda effect is the phenomenon by which women’s intellectual contributions are attributed to their male colleagues. When a woman uses AI, observers tend to assume the tool did the thinking. When a man uses the same tool, he is credited with the strategic intelligence to deploy it well. Women who have spent careers navigating this double standard know how to read the room correctly.
In thinking with machines, we are changing our codes, our expectations, our relationships, and our hierarchies. Perhaps it’s still too early to fully comprehend the cultural revolution induced by generative AI. But somewhere between the typos we now leave on purpose and the feedback we no longer dare to give, a deeper transformation is already underway—and we have barely begun to notice it.
As you have probably heard, most of human history, civility was not the default setting. Societies were rougher, hierarchies more brutal, and interpersonal interactions often governed by blunt displays of power and overt physical aggression rather than kind or cordial exchanges. In medieval societies, for instance, everyday interactions were far less restrained by norms of politeness. Status determined how you were treated, and those with power often exercised it quite openly. Rudeness, intimidation, and direct confrontation were not social faux pas so much as ordinary features of life in rigidly stratified societies.
Fortunately, we have come a long way. Today, success in modern organizations often depends on the ability to at least appear or seem gentle, collaborative, and emotionally intelligent. Few people openly insult their colleagues or shout at meetings. Instead, most professionals understand that being likable, agreeable, and tactful helps them influence others, build alliances, and advance their careers. Even individuals who enjoy enough power to care less about how they impact others – say, senior leaders and executives – know that their reputation will take a hit if they don’t practice the art of seeming humble, empathetic, and kind.
As I noted in my latest book, this civility requires a great deal of performance. Being “professional” often means managing one’s impulses, editing one’s reactions, and presenting a socially acceptable version of oneself. The result is that modern workplaces reward a kind of controlled or strategic authenticity: people must come across as sufficiently real while at the same time acting in sufficiently other-oriented and empathetic ways so that they can be trusted. Needless to say, this is mostly a good thing, especially compared with the alternative: open hostility, egocentrism, or rudeness. In other words, civility is by and large what makes collaboration and living in a well-functioning society possible.
Too much of a good thing?
Despite the wide-raging benefits of kind politeness and civility, like any trait that is rewarded, it can be taken too far.
When politeness becomes excessive, it morphs into something else: political maneuvering, extreme conflict avoidance, and carefully managed insincerity. Instead of speaking candidly, people learn to say what sounds agreeable while thinking something entirely different. They nod in meetings but undermine decisions afterward. They compliment you publicly but criticize you privately. They avoid open disagreement yet quietly obstruct progress. As Kim Scott compellingly illustrated in her book about the benefits of workplace candor, at some point, civility stops being a lubricant for cooperation and starts becoming an inhibitor.
In personality psychology, one of the traits associated with this behavior is called leisurely, a dark-side tendency closely related to passive aggression. People high on this trait appear cooperative on the surface but resist demands indirectly. Rather than confronting conflict directly, they express dissatisfaction through subtle obstruction, delays, sarcasm, or behind-the-scenes criticism.
Passive-aggressive behavior thrives precisely because it is difficult to call out. Unlike openly hostile colleagues, passive-aggressive individuals maintain plausible deniability. They can always claim they were misunderstood or that they were “just trying to help.” They rarely say anything explicitly offensive, yet their actions consistently undermine others. If you think of colleagues or coworkers who never say anything during meetings, they just silently smile and nod and pretend to be interested and aligned, but then, when you think of it, you never really know what they think, who they are, and they rarely deliver anything or produce much at all. Once you start noticing it, you will probably realize how common it is.
Telltale signs
Consider a few familiar workplace scenarios or indicators:
a) A colleague praises your proposal enthusiastically in the meeting. “Brilliant idea,” they say, nodding vigorously. Days later, they circulate a follow-up email to senior stakeholders listing six “small concerns” that were mysteriously absent while you were in the room.
b) A team member repeatedly volunteers to “take ownership” of a task, only for the task to disappear into a bureaucratic Bermuda Triangle. Weeks later they resurface with an apology, three new complications, and a helpful reminder that they had “always worried the timeline might be ambitious.”
c) Someone compliments your presentation with almost theatrical enthusiasm. “Fantastic analysis,” they say. Later you learn that they have spent the afternoon telling half the organization that the data was “interesting, but probably incomplete.”
d) Then there is the meeting minimalist. They sit through ninety minutes of discussion smiling politely and contributing nothing except the occasional “fine by me.” Two days later they start to secretly sabotage the project.
e) Or the colleague who agrees with every decision but implements none of them. Their calendar is immaculate, their tone supportive, but their productivity is basically non-existent. Their time and focus is devoted to avoid having to do any work, which is a full-time job in itself.
f) And finally the true virtuoso of passive aggression: the person who ends every conversation with “happy to help,” while always ensuring that the help never actually arrives or crystallizes.
Unlike openly difficult colleagues, these individuals rarely cross a line that can be clearly challenged. That is precisely why the behavior persists. They remain outwardly polite, professionally agreeable, and quietly useless.
Leisurely non-compliance or resistance often emerges in environments where direct disagreement feels risky. In highly political organizations (or cultures that overemphasize harmony) people may feel safer expressing resistance indirectly rather than confronting issues openly. The problem, of course, is that in the long-term passive aggression erodes trust. When people say one thing and do another, collaboration becomes exhausting, as teams waste time deciphering signals rather than solving problems.
So, how can you best deal with passive-aggressive colleagues?
1) The first step is to bring behavior into the open without escalating conflict. Passive aggression thrives in ambiguity. Calmly clarifying expectations and commitments, makes indirect resistance harder to sustain and work.
For example, if a colleague expresses support in a meeting but later undermines the decision, you might say: “In the meeting you mentioned you were comfortable with this direction. Is there something we should discuss openly before moving forward?” Framed this way, the question invites transparency rather than accusation.
2) Second, document commitments clearly. Written follow-ups after meetings (summarizing decisions, responsibilities, and timelines with precision) create accountability. Passive-aggressive behavior often relies on vague agreements that can later be reinterpreted.
3) Third, reward candor when it appears. If someone finally expresses disagreement directly, treat it as constructive input rather than insubordination. One reason passive aggression flourishes is that people fear negative consequences for open dissent.
4) Fourth, focus on explicit behavior rather than implicit motives. It is tempting to label someone as manipulative or dishonest, but doing so rarely improves the situation. Instead, address specific actions. Saying “we agreed on X but the deliverable was Y, can we please clarify expectations?” is more productive than accusing someone of sabotage.
5) Finally, consider the possibility that passive aggression sometimes signals a deeper organizational issue. If people feel unable to speak openly, because of hierarchy, politics, or fear of consequences, they may resort to indirect resistance as a coping mechanism. In that sense, passive aggression is more likely a symptom of cultural dysfunction than merely an individual flaw. If this is the case, you may want to evaluate whether your own behavior meets the criteria for leisurely passive avoidance or aggression.
In short, the best way to combat passive aggression is through skilled, strategic, and tactically astute passive aggression, rather than overt confrontation or active emotional aggression or reaction. To be sure, at the organizational level, the long-term solution is not to eliminate disagreement but to try to normalize it.
Constructive dissent
As Amy Edmondson has illustrated in her programmatic and comprehensive research on psychological safety, healthy teams allow people to challenge ideas without being seen as disloyal. They encourage constructive dissent and reward honest feedback. In such environments, there is little incentive for passive aggression because people can express concerns directly.
Human civilization has come a long way from the days when power determined who spoke and who stayed silent. Modern workplaces aspire to something better: collaboration grounded in trust and professionalism. But professionalism should not mean politeness without honesty. In the end, the most effective teams are not those where everyone is endlessly agreeable. They are the ones where people mean what they say, and say what they mean, all in the interest of boosting team performance and organizational effectiveness, which is rarely incompatible with having a healthy culture.
Your team is busier than ever. Calendars are packed, inboxes are overflowing, and everyone is racing from one meeting to the next. So why aren’t the breakthroughs happening?
Here’s the paradox: We’ve optimized for activity, not cr…
Recently, one of us was guest-teaching a humanities class on artificial intelligence. He asked students a simple question. Had they noticed themselves becoming more “attached” to their favorite chatbot? “For example,” he asked, “do you find yourself s…
