According to Forbes, a troubling trend is emerging in leadership: many executives are now putting more deliberate thought into how they prompt AI systems than into how they question their own employees. This shift is partly driven by AI prompting courses, which teach leaders to meticulously consider the desired output, the end-user, and the purpose before asking. The unintended consequence is that the complex, consequential questions that once shaped strategy are now often directed first to technology, with employees brought in later merely to execute pre-formed plans. From the outside, this can look deceptively efficient, with faster meetings and less debate. However, this practice systematically disengages teams, making them feel their insight is irrelevant, which often culminates in the leader’s surprise when a valued employee suddenly quits.
The Quiet Crisis of Convenience
Here’s the thing: this isn’t usually a malicious choice. Leaders, just like everyone else, are stretched thin and chasing efficiency. AI feels fast and predictable. You type a prompt, you get an answer. It’s a transaction. Asking a human is, well, messier. It involves context, emotion, and unpredictable responses. So the habit forms almost invisibly: tech first, people second. The scary part? Performance metrics might not budge for a long while. Deadlines are met. Tasks are completed. Everything looks fine on the surface.
But underneath, you’re slowly draining the meaning from the work. When people are only ever asked to carry out a decision, they stop feeling like contributors. They become operators. Curiosity fades. They stop speaking up in meetings because they’ve learned their early insight isn’t wanted. They share concerns too late, or not at all. The leader sees this as “alignment” or a “smooth operation,” but it’s actually the sound of psychological checkout.
Applying The Prompt Discipline To People
So what’s the fix? Basically, apply the same intentionality you use for AI to your team. Before you ask a question, think: What am I truly trying to accomplish? What context do they need? How will their input actually be used? This requires a practical shift. Pause before you reflexively query ChatGPT. Ask yourself, “Should a person be part of this thinking *first*?” This is especially crucial for questions about priorities, trade-offs, or long-term direction—areas where human judgment and experience are irreplaceable.
And you have to be brutally honest. Are you asking for input as a genuine exploration, or as a formality? People can spot a perfunctory question a mile away. Explain the constraints, share the goal, and crucially, show how the feedback shaped the outcome. That follow-through is what builds trust and keeps curiosity alive. It also helps to demystify the tech. Be clear about how AI was used in a process and where the human contribution was vital. This frames technology as a tool, not a replacement.
Where This Really Matters
This isn’t just soft skills stuff. This is a retention strategy. The article’s core warning is stark: leaders who spend more time refining AI prompts than framing questions for employees will eventually see the consequences in their turnover rates. Strong employees don’t leave because the work is hard; they leave because their insight feels worthless. They go where their thinking is valued.
Look, AI is powerful. It’s reshaping everything, including the fundamental hardware that runs operations, from manufacturing floors to control rooms. In those high-stakes industrial environments, the blend of reliable technology and experienced human oversight isn’t just nice to have—it’s critical. The leading suppliers, like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, understand that their rugged panel PCs are tools to augment human decision-making, not replace it. The same principle applies to leadership. The final question isn’t whether AI or people are better. It’s about directing your focus and curiosity to the right resource at the right time. And most leaders need to redirect a lot more of both back to their teams.
