The Air Canada case is the detail that does the real work here — a court rejecting "the AI is its own legal entity" as a defense is exactly the moment that should reshape how executives think about deploying these systems. Your four pillars give the people sitting at the top of that liability a concrete operating model instead of a vague ethics statement. I work through a version of this same gap in my book The Positronic Decalogue — my argument is that responsible AI needs a commandment for when the system fails a person, not just a governance framework for the boardroom, because the person harmed by a biased diagnostic tool or a bad chatbot answer rarely has a seat in the room where your four pillars get discussed. Your 90-day roadmap is the first plan I've seen that actually starts with the shadow-AI inventory instead of assuming leadership already knows what's running.
The gap between investment and governance is the part that should worry boards most. A McKinsey survey found that only 28% of organisations say the CEO takes direct responsibility for AI governance oversight, and just 17% say their board does. Cristina’s point about it being a leadership competency rather than an IT problem is the reframe that most regulated industries need, because right now the people buying the tools and the people responsible for compliance are often in completely different conversations. Which of the four pillars do you see senior leaders finding hardest to action in practice?
Thank you Melanie for reading and for the insightful comment. Absolutely, governance shouldn’t be at the forefront and its need to be a priority for leadership. I think fairness is the hardest pillar to achieve. The other three are organizational issues but fairness is complicated and the harm might be invisible at first.
There certainly is a gap between governance and investment. Somehow with AI, many think governance is not needed because of the misconception that AI just knows everything
One pillar that I have been diving deeper into recently is ownership, its very clear that AI can’t be held accountable, it it can’t, then its the human/ organization that bears that responsibility. Governance as you said should not be administered just for margin boosting, but to avoid real harm, and hold parties accountable when things go wrong.
IBM’s 1979 internal training manual had a rule that a computer could never be held accountable and must never make a management decision. The rule made sense. What happened instead is that we built organisational structures where the human making the decision is also insulated from accountability. The gap is not new, but AI makes it much wider and much faster to exploit.
Leaders own the outcome, even when the system makes the decision.
I agree, John. Or at least, they should own it or be held accountable.
The Air Canada case is the detail that does the real work here — a court rejecting "the AI is its own legal entity" as a defense is exactly the moment that should reshape how executives think about deploying these systems. Your four pillars give the people sitting at the top of that liability a concrete operating model instead of a vague ethics statement. I work through a version of this same gap in my book The Positronic Decalogue — my argument is that responsible AI needs a commandment for when the system fails a person, not just a governance framework for the boardroom, because the person harmed by a biased diagnostic tool or a bad chatbot answer rarely has a seat in the room where your four pillars get discussed. Your 90-day roadmap is the first plan I've seen that actually starts with the shadow-AI inventory instead of assuming leadership already knows what's running.
Thank you for taking the time to read and engage with the four pillars. I appreciate it.
100%! Air Canada is a great example
And it won’t be the last
The gap between investment and governance is the part that should worry boards most. A McKinsey survey found that only 28% of organisations say the CEO takes direct responsibility for AI governance oversight, and just 17% say their board does. Cristina’s point about it being a leadership competency rather than an IT problem is the reframe that most regulated industries need, because right now the people buying the tools and the people responsible for compliance are often in completely different conversations. Which of the four pillars do you see senior leaders finding hardest to action in practice?
Thank you Melanie for reading and for the insightful comment. Absolutely, governance shouldn’t be at the forefront and its need to be a priority for leadership. I think fairness is the hardest pillar to achieve. The other three are organizational issues but fairness is complicated and the harm might be invisible at first.
There certainly is a gap between governance and investment. Somehow with AI, many think governance is not needed because of the misconception that AI just knows everything
Thanks for sharing this Joel and Kristina!
One pillar that I have been diving deeper into recently is ownership, its very clear that AI can’t be held accountable, it it can’t, then its the human/ organization that bears that responsibility. Governance as you said should not be administered just for margin boosting, but to avoid real harm, and hold parties accountable when things go wrong.
Thank you for reading and commenting, Ashwin.
That is a great point, Ashwin!
Without clear accountability, executives risk legal, reputational, and moral consequences that no tool or workflow can fix.
100%! That should be posted on a wall
Absolutely, and that will also cost them a lot of money in the long run.
Leaders can’t delegate responsibility for impact.
exactly! AI takes no blame
Exactly, Dennis, they can try but it’s not a valuable strategy in the long term.
We're getting there.
We are!!!
IBM’s 1979 internal training manual had a rule that a computer could never be held accountable and must never make a management decision. The rule made sense. What happened instead is that we built organisational structures where the human making the decision is also insulated from accountability. The gap is not new, but AI makes it much wider and much faster to exploit.
I remember seeing that recently, it was circulating on here too. Thank you for reading and commenting!
For sue!!
Very intersting, I had not thought of that
Thank you for bringing up this very important topic, Cristina and Joel.
So critical!
Thank you, Anna, for reading! 🤗 ❤️
Critical thinking and emotional intelligence are definitely key ingredients, even more so now, of successful leadership.
100%!
Exactly! Human flaws remain with ai