Are we using AI to become better leaders, or simply to produce more work?
Over the past four or five months, I have noticed an emerging trend in conversations with employees. Increasingly, they are expressing frustration, not about AI itself, but about how their managers are using it and, more importantly, how it is impacting their working relationships.
An example involves an employee raising an issue, suggesting an improvement or discussing a challenge in a meeting. Rather than exploring the issue together, the manager responds with something along the lines of, "Don't worry, I'll do it."
Shortly afterwards, a beautifully formatted plan, framework or document appears, often generated using AI.
On the surface, this looks productive. The manager has taken ownership, produced an outcome and ticked something off their list.
The impact
The employees I have spoken with describe feeling undervalued, dismissed and, in some cases, demeaned by these interactions. They feel their experience and knowledge are being overlooked and that they are no longer being given the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to decisions affecting their work.
What might seem like an efficient response from a manager can send an entirely different message to an employee: Your input isn't necessary - I can do this without you.
Interestingly, research suggests managers and senior executives are more likely to use AI at work than employees without management responsibilities. PwC's 2026 Australian workforce research found that 91% of senior executives had used AI at work, compared with 39% of non-managers. Yet research also indicates that younger generations generally demonstrate greater AI proficiency. EY's 2025 Australian research found that Gen Z and Millennials scored higher in AI proficiency than Gen X and Baby Boomers.
There is an interesting contradiction here. Those with greater organisational authority may be using AI more frequently, while younger employees may have stronger capabilities in using the technology effectively. I leave you to think about that..... neither age nor seniority guarantees proficiency or good judgement.
Another complaint I've heard is producing something is not the same as developing something useful. In this case, a resourcing discussion where an employee raises concerns about workload, competing priorities or team capacity. Rather than exploring the operational realities, the manager generates a resource allocation plan using AI and distributes it to the team. It looks impressive. There are tables, timelines and recommendations. However, in this case the manager did not take the time to understand the individual workloads, competing deadlines, capabilities and constraints? The manager also failed in this instance to speak to the team members who deliver the work. This scenario created an environment where the team began to mistrust their manager and raise concerns about their managers ability to communicate, manage expectations, trust, they felt they were not listened to and that the manager didn't understand their workload and lack of support.
AI is only as useful as the information, context and critical thinking applied to it. Without these, we risk producing polished documents that create the appearance of progress without solving the underlying problem. Teams need opportunities to contribute, challenge ideas, solve problems and feel that their experience matters. These interactions are fundamental to effective leadership.
Managers used AI to assist you be more efficient, but maybe ask the question "Am I using the time AI saves to become a better manager?" Use the additional time to listen, coach, involve team members in decisions, understand their challenges and build stronger teams. Don't just use AI to generate more outputs, ticking more boxes and inadvertently creating distance between ourselves and the people we lead.
Good leadership isn't measured by how much you produce. It's measured by what you achieve through your people, and how you make them feel valued along the way.
