Aishwarya Shah

expert panel

AI tools are proliferating across enterprises at unprecedented speed. Yet implementation does not guarantee adoption. According to a McKinsey report on generative AI adoption, while organizations are investing heavily, many struggle to translate experimentation into sustained value. The gap is rarely technical—it is behavioral. Members of the Senior Executive AI Think Tank, a curated group of experts in enterprise AI, generative AI and machine learning strategy, agree: whether AI becomes a trusted decision-support system—or a tool employees quietly resist—depends largely on the signals sent by the C-suite. Executives shape consequence structures, model risk tolerance, determine measurement standards and define what success looks like. In short, employees learn how to treat AI by watching how leaders treat it. Below, Think Tank members share what C-suite leaders most often get wrong—and what they must do differently to ensure their organizations gain real, measurable value from AI.

expert panel

No longer confined to analytics dashboards and recommendation engines, AI systems are now initiating transactions, approving workflows, flagging anomalies and even orchestrating other software agents. With this sudden increase in autonomy, business leaders are left asking: Where should humans step back—and where must they stay firmly in control? According to a 2025 McKinsey survey on the state of AI, nearly nine out of 10 organizations now report using AI in at least one business function, yet most are still early in scaling these technologies and many lack robust governance and risk controls. As artificial intelligence advances from advisory tools to agentic systems capable of multi-step planning and execution, the leadership challenge shifts: defining not just what AI can do, but what it should do. Members of the Senior Executive AI Think Tank—a curated group of experts in machine learning, generative AI and enterprise-scale transformation—argue that the real issue isn’t capability but accountability. Across their industry expertise, they all converge on one theme: The boundary between human judgment and machine decision-making must be dynamic, evidence-based and anchored in responsibility. Here is how they recommend drawing—and redrawing—that line.