Thought Leadership

The human factors that make or break AI transformation | MindGym

Written by MindGym | Sep 09, 2025

The battle of the boardroom 

The screen blazed with a dozen faces – executives dialling in from home offices, airport lounges, and glass towers across three time zones. The CTO leaned forward: "If we don't get ahead with AI we won't exist. I need another $100m to put us in the lead." 

The CFO waved the new MIT study. "Forty billion dollars poured into AI pilots by companies worldwide. Ninety-five per cent failed to deliver returns. Only one in twenty made it to production." Her eyes met the CTO's. "Tell me again how more money fixes that?" 

The CEO grimaced, drumming his fingers on the glass table. With competitors racing ahead and investors demanding results, the pressure was mounting.  

The CHRO drew her breath, ready to reveal what no one wanted to admit: the real battle wasn't here – it was happening floors below.  

Where the work actually happens 

While executives debate budgets upstairs, the real story is playing out where the work actually gets done. 

Juana yanked her headset on as the chatbot flickered. Her manager had promised it would draft customer support replies. Instead, her inbox was a wall of red: 32 unresolved tickets. 

Correcting clunky AI suggestions took longer than writing from scratch. "Learning this thing is like taking on another job," she muttered. "And I can barely keep up with the one I already have." She wasn't alone. 

LinkedIn's research found nearly half of professionals feel learning AI is like a second job; more than a quarter admit they're embarrassed by how little they know. 

Another report by Henley Business School found that 61% of workers feel overwhelmed by the pace of tech change, and nearly a quarter (24%) feel their employers aren’t providing enough support. 

The wider fallout 

What Juana experienced in miniature, companies across the world are living at scale. 

  • MIT research shows 95% of enterprise GenAI pilots fail to deliver a financial return. 
  • A BCG survey found just 4% of companies report “substantial value” from AI. 
  • Meanwhile, McKinsey estimates that if adoption did succeed, AI could unlock $2.6–4.4 trillion annually in value. 

The gap between promise and reality is staggering. And when projects collapse, they don't just waste capital — they drain morale, credibility, and competitive advantage.  

So, why are these multi-billion-dollar investments consistently falling short? Because AI isn't just a technical challenge; it’s a human one. Every project, no matter the scale, seems to gather the same uneasy cast of characters.  

The cast of every AI rollout at your company 

Every AI project seems to gather the same uneasy cast: 

  • The Doomer, convinced AI spells the end of civilisation. He slips apocalyptic headlines into team chats about sentient machines and societal collapse. 
  • The Gloomer, quietly calculating her severance package. She's not worried about robots taking over the world—just her mortgage payments. 
  • The Zoomer, giddy as a child in a sweet shop, testing AI on everything from meeting minutes to lunch orders. 
  • The Bloomer, cautiously optimistic, wanting to move forward, but only with the right support. 

Their friction doesn't just slow projects. It magnifies disorder. 

Why AI projects really fail 

When executives ask why most projects flop, the issue isn't the tech stack, it's the talent stack. Too often, AI is treated as a top-down bolt-on instead of a shift in how people work. 

  • Managers already drowning in tasks see ill-applied AI as more load, not less. 
  • Employees aren't given the confidence, skills, or space to adapt. 
  • Leaders too often fail to set clear priorities or model the behaviours that build trust. 

Without those layers in place, even the smartest algorithms stall. Technology without behaviour change is just expensive code, and the CHRO is uniquely positioned to fix this.  

What the most successful AI companies do differently 

The small minority who succeed don't start with technology. They start with behaviour. 

Strategic clarity beats scattergun experiments 

Companies that focus AI on a few defined domains consistently outperform those that spread themselves thin. Transformation programmes with clear, well-communicated priorities are 3.5x more likely to succeed. 

Familiarity builds trust, not fear 

Embedding AI into the everyday flow of work—from helpdesk bots to email drafting—helps employees see it as a partner, not a threat. Repeated, low-stakes encounters reduce the resistance that drives the 70% of change failures. 

Leadership agility drives transformation success 

Effective leaders balance today's results with tomorrow's innovation. Research shows a strong link between adaptive leadership and improved performance across organisational trust, effectiveness, and innovation. 

In short: winners make AI human before they make it big. 

How do you get AI to pay off for your company? 

Discover how in our new webinar, "My boss is a bot." 

You'll learn how to spot the doomers, gloomers, zoomers, and bloomers in your teams — and how to get everyone AI-ready with a science-based approach, so your investment doesn't go to waste. 

Register now to unlock your $40bn investment and get AI right →

 

References:  

MIT (2025). The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025. MIT Report. 

Mediaweek (2024). LinkedIn: AI expectations driving stress and workplace anxiety. 

Henley Business School (2025). The AI High: Feeling optimistic but overwhelmed — How UK workers really feel about the advancement of AI in the workplace.  

BCG (2024). Where’s the Value in AI?  

Fast Company (2024). Here’s exactly how much money companies can save by using AI to replace human workers.  

McKinsey & Company (2024). How the implementation of organizational change is evolving. 

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1–27. 

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (2024). The effectiveness of agile leadership in practice: A comprehensive meta-analysis of empirical studies on organizational outcomes. JEMI, 20(2), 117–138.