In the AI era, responsibility becomes an advantage
Originally written in Chinese. Translated with AI, reviewed by Gary. Read the Chinese original →
Why do some companies that clearly have people, money and resources find it so hard to take even one step forward?
Often it isn't that the people inside lack ability. They're well educated, experienced and articulate. But in the end, everyone can explain very thoroughly why this isn't their responsibility. This one is waiting on management, that one belongs to another department, this isn't in my scope, that one has already been submitted. Everyone has an explanation, but nothing moves forward.
Recently I saw Kai-Fu Lee talk about the DRI, the Directly Responsible Individual. The idea was already in use at Apple in the Steve Jobs era. Put simply, many people can be involved in something, but one person has to be responsible for pushing it through to a result. What needs coordinating, how problems get solved, what to change if the result is bad: someone has to keep following up. It can't end with "my part is done".
In the AI era, I think this idea suddenly becomes very interesting. AI is getting better and better at producing things: proposals, reports, data analysis, content. Work that used to take a team several days can now be delivered very quickly. But after it's delivered, then what? Is the direction right? Did customers buy? Did we make money? If it doesn't work, who keeps looking for a way? You can't end up saying in a meeting, "Not my problem, the AI told me to do it."
I never expected that responsibility, something we've heard about since we were kids and that sounds so ordinary, would become such an important advantage in the AI era. We used to judge people by what they knew and what they could do. Now that AI can do more and more, whether someone is willing to own the result is what increasingly sets them apart.
But some corporate cultures train people precisely in how to protect themselves. CC everyone on the email, get every approval, write the scope clearly. These have their uses, but if all that's left is proving "I didn't do anything wrong", you easily hear the line: "I gave you what you asked for, what more do you want?" It doesn't sound wrong, but that's where things stop. And of course, if trying something and failing gets you blamed, while doing nothing gets you a safe promotion, over time everyone naturally gets better at deflecting.
You feel this strongly in some big companies, and even in some second-generation successors of founder businesses. They have more resources than the previous generation had when starting out, but less of the drive to try, to venture, to keep finding a way when problems come up. Everyone guards their own position and completes what they're assigned. Whether the company can move further seems to become someone else's business.
The people truly worth developing in future are those who can use AI to get work done and are also willing to own the result. When they make money, they know why. When they lose money, they're willing to face where their judgement went wrong and what to change next. The company, of course, has to give them authority, resources and room to fail. You can't let them decide nothing and then make them take all the blame. But once those conditions are in place, whether they take the extra step on their own is the difference responsibility makes.
In future, one person plus AI may be able to do the work of a small team. If your value comes down to passing tasks along, carrying answers back, and explaining why the problem has nothing to do with you, how long can that role last?
If you're a master at passing the blame, congratulations: in the AI era, you may be among the first to be replaced.