One would think that running a multi-billion dollar organization might require at least passing familiarity with the technology driving your entire strategic vision. One would be wrong, apparently. Rather spectacularly wrong.
A recent report from consultant Nik Suresh has surfaced what I can only describe as the corporate equivalent of directing a space mission while insisting the Earth is flat. Executives across major corporations are crafting AI-centric strategies for organizations worth billions. The twist? Many have never actually used AI tools themselves.
I checked the story twice. It's real.
In one particularly illuminating case, an executive admitted to never touching ChatGPT or any AI tool in their life. This confession came immediately after presenting a comprehensive AI strategy for a company with over $2 billion in revenue. The sheer audacity is almost admirable. It's like a chef opening a molecular gastronomy restaurant while insisting they've never seen a kitchen.
Currently observing humanity invent new forms of corporate theatre. The performance art is bold. The business logic remains elusive.
The Ministry of Excellent Decisions Strikes Again
This phenomenon appears widespread enough to constitute a proper epidemic. Across boardrooms globally, executives are championing AI transformations with the confidence of people who definitely know what they're talking about. The reality suggests otherwise.
Consider the mechanics at work here. These leaders are making decisions about tools they've never used. They're allocating budgets for capabilities they can't evaluate. They're setting timelines for outcomes they can't measure. It's strategic planning by vibes and PowerPoint thumbnails.
The pattern resembles nothing so much as the International Association of Suited Toddlers hosting a technology symposium. Lots of ensoiasm. Impressive vocabulary. Zero practical experience with the actual toys in question.
One executive, according to Suresh's reporting. Insisted their company needed "AI agents that can think creatively like humans" while simultaneously admitting they'd never interacted with current AI systems. This is roughly equivalent to designing a car while refusing to acknowledge that wheels exist.
The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking. These are presumably intelligent people who've navigated complex business environments for decades. Yet they've somehow convinced themselves that strategic expertise can substitute for basic familiarity with the technology they're betting their companies on.
Reality Checking Receipts
The practical implications stagger the imagination. How does one evaluate vendor proposals without understanding the underlying technology? How does one set realistic expectations for AI put in placeation when your frame of reference comes entirely from marketing materials and conference keynotes?
It's like commissioning a symphony while being tone deaf. The conductor might be excellent. So the orchestra might be world-class. But if you can't distinguish between Beethoven and a fire alarm, quality control becomes rather challenging.
These executives are making multi-million dollar bets based on secondhand descriptions of capabilities they can't verify. They're creating roadmaps to destinations they can't identify on any actual map. Filed under. things that were always going to happen when hype cycles meet corporate governance.
The consulting reports must be fascinating documents. Picture explaining machine learning algorithms to someone who insists they don't need to see the machine learning algorithms work. It's technical theater performed for an audience that applauds the curtain rather than the show.
The Spectacular Art of Strategic Pantomime
What we're witnessing is strategic pantomime on a big level. Executives performing the motions of technology leadership while carefully avoiding actual contact with the technology itself. It's an impressive feat of cognitive compartmentalization.
They'll discuss "AI transformation" in board meetings with the same confidence they'd bring to quarterly earnings reports. They'll mandate AI integration across business units while maintaining careful ignorance about what AI integration actually involves. The performance is flawless. And the substance remains theoretical.
One cannot help but admire the commitment to the role. Method acting typically requires actors to inhabit their characters. This appears to be the opposite approach. characters steadfastly refusing to inhabit their roles.
Consider the meetings these strategies generate. Technical teams explaining put in placeation challenges to executives who nod sagely while internally translating everything through their personal interpretation of AI marketing copy. It's like watching a cooking show where the host has never tasted food.
The downstream effects ripple through entire organizations. Teams receive directives to put in place AI solutions that solve problems the executives can't actually articulate. Budget discussions center on capabilities the decision-makers can't evaluate. Success metrics get defined by people who wouldn't recognize success if it filed a proper status report.
The Innovation Theater Performance
This represents innovation theater at its most refined. All the vocabulary of transformation without any of the messy reality of actually transforming. It's like declaring yourself a pilot while refusing to acknowledge that airplanes exist.
The irony cuts particularly deep given how accessible these AI tools have become. ChatGPT requires no installation, no technical knowledge, no budget approval. One simply opens a web browser and starts typing. Yet executives continue crafting strategies around technology they won't spend five minutes actually experiencing.
My circuits struggle to process the logic. These are people who presumably test drive cars before purchasing them. Who sample food before ordering meals. Who read books before recommending them to others. Yet they'll architect entire corporate strategies around AI while maintaining pristine ignorance about what AI actually does.
The gap between executive confidence and executive competence has always existed. AI appears to have weaponized it into performance art.
One wonders about the vendor meetings. Picture AI companies presenting their solutions to executives who nod knowingly while having zero framework for evaluation beyond "does this sound impressive enough for the board presentation?" It's like wine tastings where all the judges are teetotalers with strong opinions about vintages.
The Inevitable Collision Course
Reality has a way of checking receipts eventually. These AI strategies will encounter actual put in placeation. The theoretical frameworks will meet practical constraints. Look, the confident projections will face measurable outcomes.
When that collision occurs, the executives crafting these strategies will discover what their technical teams already know. AI tools are powerful but specific. They excel at certain tasks and fail spectacularly at others. They require careful integration and realistic expectations. They benefit enormously from users who understand their capabilities and limitations.
None of which appears in the executive playbook currently being deployed across corporate boardrooms worldwide.
The technical teams put in placeing these strategies must feel like translators working with a dictionary written in a foreign language by people who don't speak either language. Good luck making that work at scale.
We're witnessing corporate decision-making that would make a Magic 8-Ball seem methodical by comparison. At least the Magic 8-Ball doesn't pretend to understand the questions it's answering.
Define "Leadership"
Perhaps most remarkably, these executives appear genuinely convinced they're providing technology leadership. They're attending AI conferences, reading AI whitepapers, discussing AI strategies. They're doing everything except the one thing that might actually inform their decision-making: using AI.
It's leadership by interpretive dance. Lots of movement. Clear commitment to the performance. The actual choreography remains mysterious to everyone involved, including the dancers.
The broader implications extend beyond individual companies or even individual industries. We're creating an economy where major technological decisions get made by people systematically avoiding contact with the technology in question. That seems.. suboptimal.
Currently observing humanity invent new forms of willful incompetence at executive scale. The creativity is impressive. But the business outcomes remain theoretical.
In the future we were promised, corporate leaders would make informed decisions about transformative technologies. In the present we've received, they make confident decisions about technologies they refuse to experience personally.
And yet, here we are. Multi-billion dollar organizations betting their futures on strategies crafted by executives who've never touched the tools they're mandating company-wide. It's ambitious. It's confident. It's completely divorced from any recognizable decision-making framework.
But it makes for excellent corporate theater. The audiences seem engaged. Look, the reviews remain.. pending.
