The Personal Touch: Revitalizing Quality Customer Service

Jesper With-Fogstrup is Group CEO at Moneypenny, with a global perspective on leadership and a steadfast commitment to people and tech.
There was a time, not too long ago, when customer service carried a certain elegance. Whether you were in a boutique, in a hotel lobby, or even just on the phone, customer experiences could feel personal, thoughtful and genuinely helpful. Companies didn't just focus on getting things done—they aimed to make customers feel truly taken care of.
Today, that kind of service seems to be increasingly rare.
From retail to travel, healthcare to home services, the personal touch is quietly disappearing as interactions become less about people and more about processes. Customers are greeted by kiosks, not by names. Problems are routed through tickets, not through humans. And 'we're dealing with it' has become a catch-all excuse that often fails to end in actual resolution.
This isn't just nostalgia talking—it's a systemic shift. In the relentless pursuit of efficiency, automation and scale, many businesses have deprioritized the human touch. That means fewer trained team members, more generic scripts, and a growing reliance on tech as the sole solution. It might be faster, but is it better?
The truth is, we've traded warmth for workflow. And yet I've observed companies of all sizes prove that we don't have to make that choice. When brilliant people are backed by smart technology, businesses can not only ensure their personal service thrives but also raise the bar of service standards.
Let's be clear: I do not believe frontline staff are to blame. In fact, many are doing their best, sometimes while overworked, undersupported and/or juggling outdated systems that make good service difficult. At the root of the problem is a mindset that sees people as cost centers and treats automation as a fix-all. But automation without empathy is just efficiency without impact. That's where things start to break down.
Take a recent example: Someone showed me an email from a manager at a large, well-known business after a service failure. It essentially read, 'I understand your frustration, and I truly regret any inconvenience this has caused. Please let me know if there is anything else I can assist with.'
There is something, actually: Resolve the problem. This type of message is polite but ultimately unhelpful. Customers don't want sympathy—they want empathy, ownership, resolution and accountability. They want to know someone will see it through.
There's a growing divide between how large corporations and smaller businesses approach service. Bigger firms with complex layers of process and policy often struggle to deliver consistent care. Smaller businesses, by contrast, are often closer to their customers—but many lack the tools to scale their service as they grow.
Based on my experience working with businesses of all sizes, here are four steps you can take to keep the personal touch alive and well within your company:
1. Keep names and people at the forefront.
When an employee introduces themself to a customer by name, it can be an effective way to send the message, 'I'm here to help, and I'm proud of the work I do.' Remove that, and the interaction can become faceless and forgettable. Names create accountability and foster connection.
Sadly, many systems today aren't designed to reward care—they're designed to try and avoid customer complaints. But I've found that when you prioritize satisfaction over speed and nuance over numbers, treating both your employees and your customers like individuals, you not only give clients a human connection but also promote accountability among your people.
2. Take ownership—and make it visible.
Don't let service issues disappear into a black hole of departments. Assign clear responsibility, and give your team the authority to follow a problem through to resolution. Introduce named case handlers for escalated issues, and give customers proactive check-ins so they don't have to chase down updates; I've found that this can dramatically reduce frustration and increase effectiveness. Set up a simple internal policy that establishes who owns the issue and ensures each person involved checks that the item has been successfully handed off to someone else until it's been resolved. This can help close the loop and prevent customer issues from being lost or mishandled.
2. Empower people through technology.
In the rush to automate, some businesses have sidelined their people. But AI doesn't replace great service—instead, it should enhance it. When used well, technology can give your people the insights, tools and time they need to truly shine.
Rather than hiding behind technology, use it to amplify your service standards. That's when the magic happens. For example, AI tools can surface real-time insights—from customer preferences to past interactions—so that your team has everything they need at their fingertips the moment a call or message comes in or a customer is in front of them. In my experience, this can lead to faster resolutions, more personalized responses, and more confident, empowered people who can focus on connection, not admin tasks.
4. Grow without losing the human touch.
As a business scales, there's a risk that the connection to customers will begin to thin out. Invest early in tools and processes that will help preserve your company's personality and consistency. Whether you employ personalized communications and proactive follow-ups or simply prioritize remembering customers' preferences, small touches help build big loyalty.
Take a hotel I stayed in recently: They have their actual concierge send guests a pre-arrival message, including the weather forecast and local recommendations. This took mere minutes but left a lasting impression on me as a customer.
Service—real service—is about what turns a hotel stay into a memory, a delay into a story, a problem into a resolution. It is about understanding what customers really want in today's world: to be seen, valued and helped quickly and kindly. Whether you're a corner shop or a multinational organization, delivering on those expectations can set you apart and create preference for your business.
So, let's not treat the personal touch as a luxury or a relic. Let's recognize it for what it is: a competitive advantage, a growth enabler and a powerful differentiator in a crowded, often cold, marketplace.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Top economist who previously sounded the alarm on tariffs sees a possible scenario where Trump ‘outsmarted all of us'

Torsten Sløk, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, laid out a potential scenario where President Donald Trump's tariffs are extended long enough to ease economic uncertainty while also providing a significant bump to federal revenue. That comes as the 90-day pause on Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs' is nearing an end. Businesses and consumers remain in limbo over what will happen next with President Donald Trump's tariffs, but a top economist sees a way to leave them in place and still deliver a 'victory for the world.' In a note on Saturday titled 'Has Trump Outsmarted Everyone on Tariffs?', Apollo Global Management Chief Economist Torsten Sløk laid out a scenario that keeps tariffs well below Trump's most aggressive rates long enough to ease uncertainty and avoid the economic harm that comes with it. 'Maybe the strategy is to maintain 30% tariffs on China and 10% tariffs on all other countries and then give all countries 12 months to lower non-tariff barriers and open up their economies to trade,' he speculated. That comes as the 90-day pause on Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs,' which triggered a massive selloff on global markets in April, is nearing an end early next month. The temporary reprieve was meant to give the U.S. and its trade partners time to negotiate deals. But aside from an agreement with the U.K. and another short-term deal with China to step back from prohibitively high tariffs, few others have been announced. Meanwhile, negotiations are ongoing with other top trading partners. Trump administration officials have been saying for weeks that the U.S. is close to reaching deals. On Saturday, Sløk said extending the deadline one year would give other countries and U.S. businesses more time to adjust to a 'new world with permanently higher tariffs.' An extension would also immediately reduce uncertainty, giving a boost to business planning, employment, and financial markets. 'This would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce $400 billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers,' he added. 'Trade partners will be happy with only 10% tariffs and US tax revenue will go up. Maybe the administration has outsmarted all of us.' Sløk's speculation is notable as he previously sounded the alarm on Trump's tariffs. In April, he warned tariffs have the potential to trigger a recession by this summer. Also in April, before the U.S. and China reached a deal to temporarily halt triple-digit tariffs, he said the trade war between the two countries would pummel American small businesses. More certainty on tariffs would give the Federal Reserve a clearer view on inflation as well. For now, most policymakers are in wait-and-see mode, as tariffs are expected to have stagflationary effects. But a split has emerged. Fed Governor Christopher Waller said Friday that economic data could justify lower interest rates as early as next month, expecting only a one-off impact from tariffs. But San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly also said Friday a rate cut in the fall looks more appropriate, rather than a cut in July. Still, Sløk isn't alone in wondering whether Trump's tariffs may not be as harmful to the economy and financial markets as feared. Chris Harvey, Wells Fargo Securities' head of equity strategy, expects tariffs to settle in the 10%-12% range, low enough to have a minimal impact, and sees the S&P 500 soaring to 7,007, making him Wall Street's biggest bull. He added that it's still necessary to make progress on trade and reach deals with big economies like India, Japan and the EU. That way, markets can focus on next year, rather near-term tariff impacts. 'Then you can start to extrapolate out,' he told CNBC last month. 'Then the market starts looking through things. They start looking through any sort of economic slowdown or weakness, and then we start looking to '26 not at '25.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Forbes

2 hours ago

• Forbes

The New Ethos: Where Gamesmanship Ends And Character Begins

Houston, TX, USA - February 8, 2015: Monopoly Board Game - car on Park Place with hotel Success stories are told in the language of domination—of markets, rivals, and time. But stories of grit and perseverance turn out to be half-baked. After decades of worshipping at the altar of productivity and winning at all costs, a new ethos is emerging that elevates character alongside competence for competitive advantage. The new ethos embraces a more complete view of character and challenges its misconceptions. For example, it challenges the myth that people with character operate with 'one hand tied behind their back,' or that character can't be developed, as Bill Furlong, Rob Austin, and I explain in our MIT Sloan article 'Make Leader Character Your Edge.' The new ethos requires a shift from treating business as a game to be played, based on competence alone, to one that relies on character as the foundation for competitive advantage, as captured in Table 1. Table 1 - Old Versus New Ethos The Toxic Side of the Game The metaphor of business as a game—complete with winners, losers, scoreboards, and trophies—has shaped everything from how leaders manage teams to how decisions are made in the boardroom. However, this mindset can easily spiral into toxicity. FEATURED | Frase ByForbes™ Unscramble The Anagram To Reveal The Phrase Pinpoint By Linkedin Guess The Category Queens By Linkedin Crown Each Region Crossclimb By Linkedin Unlock A Trivia Ladder When success is measured only by profits and quarterly performance, wins and losses, bad behavior is often excused, even celebrated. The casualties of a 'win-at-any-cost' mentality are well documented, from financial fraud to toxic work cultures. Think of the implosions at Enron, Theranos, or, more recently, FTX. These weren't just failures in strategy—they were failures of character, as my colleagues and I documented in our 'Leadership on Trial' research, which examined the failures of leadership revealed in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Treating business as a game based on competence alone created a gravitational pull that has been difficult to shift. Individual mindsets, organizational priorities and practices, and broader regulation and oversight systems have become hard-wired around it, and even justify the game. We are all complicit. When we treat what we do as a game, we justify actions as 'just part of the game', 'it's business, it's not personal,' and we become desensitized to the harm. Shifting the gravitational pull of the current system starts with an undeniable logic that will motivate and shape the transformation. The undeniable logic is that the competence-oriented gamification of business and society, relying on a cost-benefit consequentialist rationale, is failing virtually every measure. Short-termism has fueled crises like the 2008 financial collapse and scandals at Enron and Boeing, where near-term gain outweighed safety or transparency. Meanwhile, workplace burnout and mental health declines reflect how human well-being is often sacrificed for productivity, as revealed in Gallup polls and OECD reports. Environmental degradation, driven by externalizing ecological costs, is documented in IPCC reports, while the UN draws attention to income inequality that threatens economic growth and democracy. Philosophers like Michael Sandel (author of Democracy's Discontent and What Money Can't Buy) argue that market-driven reasoning undermines moral and civic values, advocating for frameworks prioritizing justice, dignity, and capability over sheer utility. Alternative approaches are imperative, with trust in capitalism eroding as revealed by the Edelman Trust Barometer. A New Ethos Based on Character To shift the gravitational pull from the consequentialist cost-benefit paradigm requires a new foundation that defines and measures success differently. Rather than relying on the logic of cost-benefit analysis to determine the merits of decisions and actions, a virtue ethics paradigm has us examining who we are first. As Forbes writer Jonathan Westover describes in his article 'Approaches to Organizational and Leadership Ethics In a Complex World,' virtue ethics focuses on the person's character, meaning that the test of sound judgment is not one anchored in costs and benefits alone, but rather a test of character. Character, anchored in virtue ethics, is one of the most ancient areas of study, dating back to Confucius, Aristotle, and Plato. There has been significant efforts in recent years including the works of Alasdair MacIntyre in 'After Virtue,' Fred Kiel, in 'Return on Character,' Martin Seligman and Christopher Peterson's research volume 'Character Strengths and Virtues,' David Brooks in 'The Road to Character,' General James Anderson and Dave Anderson's book 'Becoming a Leader of Character,' 'Cultivating Virtue in the University' by Michael Lamb, Jonathan Brant and Edward Brooks, and my books 'Developing Leadership Character' with Gerard Seijts and Jeffrey Gandz, and 'The Character Compass' with Gerard Seijts and Bill Furlong. General Stanley McChrystal's recent book, 'On Character: Choices That Define a Life,' has received considerable press. While these books have given character profile and helped people see its value, most people believe they have character covered by having 'good values.' So, what does character look like in a corporate context? It's not a glossy mission statement or a set of aspirational values. The hard work of developing character underpins the realization of aspirational values, which manifests as courage in the face of hard decisions. It's humility when leaders admit mistakes, empathy in how employees are treated, and accountability when things go wrong. Patagonia has modeled this ethos for years. Its environmental activism isn't marketing—it's identity, as Forbes contributor Doug Sundheim describes: 'Much of its success can be traced back to Chouinard's uncompromising leadership since Day One. Whereas many companies espouse a set of values only to sacrifice them under the pressure of quarterly returns, Patagonia has religiously stuck to theirs for the last half century, come what may. Quality, integrity, sustainability, and justice were never negotiable.' Unfortunately, too many people focus on the values of Patagonia, whereas the basis of the competitive advantage arises from the character of the leaders and their capacity to infuse that strength of character in others. Character is not subjective. In 'Cracking the Code: Leader Character Development for Competitive Advantage,' Corey Crossan, Bill Furlong, and I put to rest misconceptions about character. We clearly articulate what it is, how it can be assessed and developed, and how it can be embedded in an organization. In my Forbes article 'From Good to Great: 10 Ways to Elevate Your Character Quotient,' we offer 10 questions that provide a strategic assessment of what it takes to embrace character leadership fully. These foundational approaches underpin seeing and embracing character as a new ethos. A high character quotient gives individuals confidence that they know what needs to be done to embrace character as a new imperative. A low quotient suggests gaps that reveal significant blind spots. If you do not understand how imbalances of character compromise judgment, and you cannot observe and identify character imbalances in yourself or others, it is easy to fall into the trap of using cost-benefit analysis to evaluate success. You tend to overlook the dysfunctional behaviors of leaders with imbalanced character, focusing only on either selective results or some justification of their actions. A tell-tale sign is when we dismiss someone's arrogance, disrespect, and abusive behavior because we fail to see and understand that these behaviors are evidence of character imbalances that will inevitably compromise judgment. Shifting the Gravitation Pull Starts with Us Part of shifting the gravitational pull to character resides in our capacity to diagnose the strength of character in ourselves and others, identify the imbalances that compromise judgment, and actively work to mitigate them. In our workshops, once people are exposed to the leader character framework with its 11 dimensions and 62 supporting behaviors, they can start to observe and identify strengths and weaknesses in the character of others. They begin to see that the imbalance in character dimensions, such as the high drive, courage, and transcendence of Steve Jobs, coupled with low temperance and humility, compromises judgment. With that understanding, they are better equipped to move beyond a superficial assessment of leadership based on results, to one that can diagnose the strength of character that underpins judgment. There are often three profound moments in our workshops. The first is when people begin to see that character reveals itself in micro-moments and decision-making episodes, not just a general account of whether someone was successful. The second is when they grasp that observable behaviors such as being disrespectful, condescending, and arrogant are the manifestations of character imbalances that compromise judgment. Often, these were deemed a matter of style or personality. With the lens of character they are seen as the bell-weather of compromised judgment, not only in the leader who disregards insight from others, but in how the leader fosters a toxic culture that undermines judgment more broadly. The third moment is when they come to grips with the understanding that a person would never weaken a strength like courage or drive, but instead character development focuses on strengthening weakness like temperance and humility, as in the case of Jobs, to ensure strengths don't manifest as excess vices. Strengthening humility does not need to sacrifice courage. Also, unlike personality, which is a set of semi-stable traits, character can be developed, providing a great deal of inspiration and aspiration, particularly because it benefits well-being and sustained excellence, both personally and professionally. One of the tricky aspects of character is that it is easier to identify imbalances in others than in ourselves. We tend to judge ourselves on our good intentions and others on their behaviors, and suffer from a chronic over-estimation of our self-awareness. Tasha Eurich's research reveals that 85% of people believe they are self-aware, while only 10% are. To close the gap, there are assessments such as the Leader Character Insight Assessment offered through Sigma Assessment Systems and the VIA Character Strengths survey offered through VIA. In terms of developing character, Corey Crossan and I created the Virtuosity mobile app to embed the science of character and the science of habit development in technology that guides individual character development. The famous 1970 cartoon by Walt Kelly, portraying that 'we have met the enemy, and it is us,' is spot-on for character. Until we understand character, identify imbalances in ourselves and others, and actively work on developing character, we will continue to misdiagnose the factors that compromise judgment, leading to the many ills facing individuals, organizations, and society. Strengthening the individual foundations of character is necessary but insufficient, as there is a need for course correction in the broader systems embodying old ways of thinking. Cultivating Character in Organizations and Oversight If character is the new ethos, cultivating it must go beyond surface-level virtue signaling. It must be systematically and sincerely embedded into the organization's DNA. As Forbes contributor Glenn Llopis writes, 'A leader's character is what earns the right to lead others.' It's not charisma or cleverness—it's the moral gravity that holds an enterprise together. Pam Boney, a contributor to the Forbes Coaches Council, put it bluntly: 'Before a company can realize any objectives, it needs a supportive culture—and that culture must be grounded in character.' In my recent Forbes article 'Seeing How Character Eats Culture For Breakfast,' based on collaborations with Corey Crossan and Bill Furlong, I offer a practical approach to helping organizations understand how culture reflects the character of its members. This practical and revolutionary approach helps individuals and organizations see that the culture they seek is anchored in character, yet the culture they often experience reflects the imbalances of character of its members, particularly leaders. The remedy is to start with leader character development to transform the organizational culture. From the vantage point of actively developing character, it is easy to see how policies and practices often work against character and reinforce old and outdated mindsets. For example, in an MIT Sloan Management Review article, 'Make Character Count in Hiring and Promoting,' I describe that we tend to hire on competence and fire people because of character. Human Resource practices such as recruiting, hiring, performance management, promotion, and succession management need to shift the gravitational pull to elevate character alongside competence. Simply put, wherever competence resides, character belongs. Another key leverage point for shifting the ethos is oversight, whether that be by Boards of Directors, Trade Associations, or regulators. The same prescriptions exist. Members need to develop their character; from that vantage point, they can see ways to help shift the ethos. For example, boards of directors are responsible for selecting CEOs but have often neglected implementing an evidence-based approach to assess character. Few would understand how to assess the quality of judgment and decision-making of the organization based on character. Although regulators continue to struggle with misconduct in organizations, few have turned to character to influence change. Notable exceptions are the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the U.K., one of the first regulators to pick up on our 'Leadership on Trial' research and share it with their constituents. Also, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OFSI) in Canada noted in a January 31, 2024, guideline that integrity is achieved by 'ensuring people are of good character.' Character in an AI World While AI and automation evolve, companies shaping the future will be led by humans whose character-based judgment will become even more important. In my recent Forbes article on 'Why Artificial Intelligence Needs Character-Based Leadership,' I make the case for how character-based judgment harnesses the power of AI. There is no replacement for character. Business is not a game. It is time for a new ethos with character as the foundation.

Yahoo

3 hours ago

• Yahoo

Bosses want you to know AI is coming for your job

SAN FRANCISCO - Top executives at some of the largest American companies have a warning for their workers: Artificial intelligence is a threat to your job. CEOs from Amazon to IBM, Salesforce and JPMorgan Chase are telling their employees to prepare for disruption as AI either transforms or eliminates their jobs in the future. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. AI will 'improve inventory placement, demand forecasting and the efficiency of our robots,' Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said in a Tuesday public memo that predicted his company's corporate workforce will shrink 'in the next few years.' He joins a string of other top executives that have recently sounded the alarm about AI's impact in the workplace. Economists say there aren't yet strong signs that AI is driving widespread layoffs across industries. But there is evidence that workers across the United States are increasingly using AI in their jobs and the technology is starting to transform some roles such as computer programming, marketing and customer service. At the same time, CEOs are under pressure to show they are embracing new technology and getting results - incentivizing attention-grabbing predictions that can create additional uncertainty for workers. 'It's a message to shareholders and board members as much as it is to employees,' Molly Kinder, a Brookings Institution fellow who studies the impact of AI, said of the CEO announcements, noting that when one company makes a bold AI statement, others typically follow. 'You're projecting that you're out in the future, that you're embracing and adopting this so much that the footprint [of your company] will look different.' Some CEOs fear they could be ousted from their job within two years if they don't deliver measurable AI-driven business gains, a Harris Poll survey conducted for software company Dataiku showed. Tech leaders have sounded some of the loudest warnings - in line with their interest in promoting AI's power. At the same time, the industry has been shedding workers the last few years after big hiring sprees during the height of the coronavirus pandemic and interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. At Amazon, Jassy told the company's workers that AI would in 'the next few years' reduce some corporate roles like customer service representatives and software developers, but also change work for those in the company's warehouses. IBM, which recently announced job cuts, said it replaced a couple hundred human resource workers with AI 'agents' for repetitive tasks such as onboarding and scheduling interviews. In January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg suggested on Joe Rogan's podcast that the company is building AI that might be able to do what some human workers do by the end of the year. 'We, at Meta as well as the other companies working on this, are going to have an AI that can effectively be sort of a mid-level engineer at your company,' Zuckerberg said. 'Over time we'll get to the point where a lot of the code in our apps … is actually going to be built by AI engineers instead of people engineers.' Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, maker of the chatbot Claude, boldly predicted last month that half of all white-collar entry-level jobs may be eliminated by AI within five years. Leaders in other sectors have also chimed in. Marianne Lake, JPMorgan's CEO of consumer and community banking, told an investor meeting last month that AI could help the bank cut headcount in operations and account services by 10 percent. The CEO of BT Group Allison Kirkby suggested that advances in AI would mean deeper cuts at the British telecom company. Even CEOs who reject the idea of AI replacing humans on a massive scale are warning workers to prepare for disruption. Jensen Huang, CEO of AI chip designer Nvidia said last month, 'You're not going to lose your job to an AI, but you're going to lose your job to someone who uses AI.' Google CEO Sundar Pichai said at Bloomberg's tech conference this month that AI will help engineers be more productive but that his company would still add more human engineers to its team. Meanwhile, Microsoft is planning more layoffs amid heavy investment in AI, Bloomberg reported this week. Other tech leaders at Shopify, Duolingo and Box have told workers they are now required to use AI at their jobs, and some will monitor usage as part of performance reviews. Some companies have indicated that AI could slow hiring. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff recently called Amodei's prognosis 'alarmist' on an earnings call, but on the same call chief operating and financial officer Robin Washington said that an AI agent has helped to reduce hiring needs and bring $50 million in savings. Despite corporate leaders' warnings, economists don't yet see broad signs that AI is driving humans out of work. 'We have little evidence of layoffs so far,' said Columbia Business School professor Laura Veldkamp, whose research explores how companies' use of AI affects the economy. 'What I'd look for are new entrants with an AI-intensive business model, entering and putting the existing firms out of business.' Some researchers suggest there is evidence AI is playing a role in the drop in openings for some specific jobs, like computer programming, where AI tools that generate code have become standard. Google's Pichai said last year that more than a quarter of new code at the company was initially suggested by AI. Many other workers are increasingly turning to AI tools, for everything from creating marketing campaigns to helping with research - with or without company guidance. The percentage of American employees who use AI daily has doubled in the last year to 8 percent, according to a Gallup poll released this week. Those using it at least a few times a week jumped from 12 percent to 19 percent. Some AI researchers say the poll may not actually reflect the total number of workers using AI as many may use it without disclosing it. 'I would suspect the numbers are actually higher,' said Ethan Mollick, co-director of Wharton School of Business' generative AI Labs, because some workers avoid disclosing AI usage, worried they would be seen as less capable or breaching corporate policy. Only 30 percent of respondents to the Gallup survey said that their company had general guidelines or formal policies for using AI. OpenAI's ChatGPT, one of the most popular chatbots, has more than 500 million weekly users around the globe, the company has said. It is still unclear what benefits companies are reaping from employees' use of AI, said Arvind Karunakaran, a faculty member of Stanford University's Center for Work, Technology, and Organization. 'Usage does not necessarily translate into value,' he said. 'Is it just increasing productivity in terms of people doing the same task quicker or are people now doing more high value tasks as a result?' Lynda Gratton, a professor at London Business School, said predictions of huge productivity gains from AI remain unproven. 'Right now, the technology companies are predicting there will be a 30% productivity gain. We haven't yet experienced that, and it's not clear if that gain would come from cost reduction … or because humans are more productive.' The pace of AI adoption is expected to accelerate even further if more companies use advanced tools such as AI agents and they deliver on their promise of automating work, Mollick said. AI labs are hoping to prove their agents are reliable within the next year or so, which will be a bigger disrupter to jobs, he said. While the debate continues over whether AI will eliminate or create jobs, Mollick said 'the truth is probably somewhere in between.' 'A wave of disruption is going to happen,' he said. Related Content 3-pound puppy left in trash is rescued, now thriving How to meet street cats around the world 'Jaws' made people fear sharks. 50 years later, can it help save them?