Companies are investing more in artificial intelligence than ever before, but the size and scale of those investments do not ensure meaningful results. Goldman Sachs Research forecasts global AI investment could exceed $1 trillion in 2026, with roughly $581 billion projected in the United States. Yet Gartner reports that at least 50% of generative AI projects were abandoned after proof of concept by the end of last year. We have never had more technology, more investment, or more C-suite attention directed toward one wave of transformation. What we often lack is something less visible and less tangible: genuine organizational alignment.
The problem is not necessarily that leaders have chosen the wrong technology or failed to declare a strategy. In many organizations, the objectives are clear. The investment has been approved. The transformation has been announced. People have agreed to move forward. But agreement does not equal commitment, and consensus does not equal alignment. When leaders mistake tacit agreement for genuine ownership, organizations can appear to be advancing while quietly losing the requisite conditions for successful execution.
This distinction matters even more as companies restructure around efficiency and AI adoption. Reuters has reported workforce reductions at several major U.S. companies as organizations streamline operations amid technological change. Reporting lines shift. Responsibilities change. Teams are tasked with doing more while headcount shrinks. Yet through all that disruption, execution, perhaps more than ever, depends on people understanding what is changing, why it matters, and what they personally own.
The human dimension of transformation is easy to overlook because it is harder to measure than technology spending and less visible than revised organizational charts. A 2026 systematic literature review in Management Review Quarterly examined 50 empirical studies on “quiet quitting,” including organizational and individual factors associated with reduced discretionary effort. The research reinforces something leaders should already understand: workplace conditions, relationships, expectations, and leadership behavior influence how people engage within the organizations they are being asked to transform.
Leaders spend enormous amounts of time determining where an organization needs to go while spending far less time examining what will actually cause people to move in that direction. Leadership team members can leave meetings believing everyone is aligned because nobody openly objected or even asked a question. But silence is not commitment. Nodding is not ownership. And a decision that receives broad agreement (or no disagreement) can still fail if the people responsible for executing it have not genuinely committed themselves to the outcome.
This distinction has shaped my work as founder and president of The Strategic Commitment Group, an organizational transformation consultancy focused on helping organizations turn strategic intent into collective action. My perspective on this issue began much earlier in my career, when I worked in technology and saw firsthand that connecting systems was not the same as connecting people.
You can connect every computer in the company, but real progress comes from how people engage with one another and with the work itself. Technology can make information available, accelerate processes, and dramatically improve transactional capabilities. But it alone does not create trust between leaders and employees. It cannot resolve an unspoken disagreement. And it cannot make someone personally accountable for a strategic decision they never truly committed to.
That is why organizations need to pay greater attention to what happens after the strategy is articulated and approved. Strategic planning can consume enormous amounts of executive time and energy, but the conditions that allow those plans to flourish are often left unaddressed. Trust, candor, accountability, and the willingness to confront difficult differences are not peripheral to execution. They are at the heart of the infrastructure that makes execution possible.
The distinction between consensus and alignment is particularly important. Consensus can mean a group has reached a decision everyone is willing to accept. Alignment goes much further. It requires people to engage openly and honestly with differences, understand the direction being taken, and accept responsibility for helping make that direction successful. I have seen leaders settle for tacit agreement because it feels sufficient, but agreement alone does not mean people are truly stepping up to own the work.
Creating real alignment requires more than another leadership meeting. Organizations need environments where people can speak candidly about what is working, what is broken, and what they believe might stand in the way of execution. Leaders need to define the future state they are trying to create, establish specific strategic commitments, and clarify who is accountable for delivering them. That conversation cannot remain confined to the executive team. Managers, employees, stakeholders, and customers can all hold information that leadership needs to understand before a strategy can become operational reality.
Leadership behavior matters just as much. Executives cannot ask an organization to embrace accountability while avoiding accountability themselves. They cannot ask employees to speak candidly while responding defensively to difficult feedback. And they cannot create trust through a single town hall or strategy presentation. Trust develops through repeated evidence in how leaders communicate, make decisions, respond to challenges, and follow through on what they have said.
This is ultimately what produces organizational velocity. Velocity is not simply how quickly an organization moves. It reflects directional progress: whether the effort being expended is actually producing desired outcomes. An organization can move extremely fast, but in the wrong direction or in multiple scattered directions. It can launch initiatives, restructure teams, purchase technology, and hold strategy meetings while making surprisingly little progress toward the outcome it intended to achieve.
For the foreseeable future, AI will continue to shape how organizations operate. Investment will continue to grow, technologies will continue to evolve, and companies will continue to restructure around new capabilities. The organizational return on those investments will depend on people taking ownership and being maximally productive. Leaders need to create the conditions for honest dialogue, meaningful participation, shared accountability, and genuine ownership.
The question facing executives is therefore not simply, “Do people agree with the strategy?” It is whether or not those people are genuinely aligned behind it. In an era of extraordinary technological investment, that distinction may determine whether the strategy lives in a slide deck or becomes something people are actually committed to delivering every day.
View the original OpEd here Newsweek OpEd
