BLOG
Dan Ariely has spent his career studying how people behave when the world changes faster than their assumptions. Today, few changes are moving faster than artificial intelligence in the workplace.
If there is someone to hear from on this topic, it’s Dan. He recently appeared on the Learn-It-All™ podcast to share his insights from his research which give us a clearer picture on what the Human Advantage will be in this new age of technology.
Ariely’s research suggests that the outcome of AI adoption is shaped less by technology and more by human experience. People do not respond to change based on capability alone. They respond based on trust, perceived intent, and whether they believe they still matter.
This is where the human advantage comes into focus.
The human advantage is not about choosing people over machines. It is about understanding what humans uniquely contribute in an AI-assisted environment. Judgment, context, creativity, critical thought, ethical reasoning, and the ability to navigate uncertainty remain human strengths. AI can extend these capabilities, but it cannot replace the human role in making sense of them.
The right leadership style will determine whether this advantage is strengthened or eroded.
It is crucial we get this right.
AI is exceptionally good at speed, pattern recognition, and scale. It can process information faster than any individual or team.
What it cannot do is decide what matters, why it matters, or how tradeoffs should be handled when values conflict. Those judgments remain human.
Ariely emphasizes that humans bring context to every decision. Context includes understanding consequences, interpreting ambiguity, and weighing social and ethical impact. These are not edge cases in leadership. They are the core of it.
He also points to creativity as a distinctly human contribution. Innovation rarely comes from optimizing what already exists. It comes from reframing problems, noticing what is missing, and asking questions that data alone cannot surface.
Most importantly, humans navigate uncertainty. Ariely notes that progress often comes from acting without full information, taking risks, and learning through experience. AI can support these processes, but it cannot replace the human responsibility to decide when action is worth the risk.
AI is not just a technical upgrade. Ariely argues that this framing misses the real challenge.
“If I tell people, hey, we have this technology, it's going to replace you... that’s a very antagonistic approach.”
People do not resist AI because they lack skill or curiosity. They resist when they believe the system is being built at their expense. In those conditions, resistance is often quiet. It shows up as disengagement, minimal participation, or passive delay.
Ariely distinguishes between sabotage and withdrawal. Most employees do not actively undermine AI initiatives. They simply stop helping them succeed. As he puts it, people hope the project “will die by itself.”
This response, Ariely argues, is totally rational. No one wants to contribute knowledge, insight, or effort to a system that threatens their relevance. When employees believe the goal is replacement rather than partnership, trust collapses.
AI initiatives that succeed tend to share one trait. They are framed as collaborative. Leaders communicate clearly that the goal is augmentation rather than elimination. Employees are invited to help shape how tools are used, improved, and integrated into real work.
“You cannot say, help me integrate AI in the best possible way, and the moment I’m successful I’ll kick you out,” Ariely warns. That contradiction guarantees failure.
The human advantage disappears when people feel disposable. It strengthens when leaders make it clear that progress depends on human contribution, not its removal.
Ariely is explicit about what determines whether AI succeeds inside organizations. It is not the quality of the tool. It is the level of trust surrounding its use.
When trust is low, people protect themselves. They share less information. They withhold judgment. They avoid engaging deeply with systems that might expose them. In this environment, AI becomes underpowered, not because it lacks capability, but because humans stop contributing what the system needs most.
Ariely describes this as a contract, whether formal or not. Employees decide whether leadership is acting with them or against them. That decision shapes effort.
“Whatever approach you take has to be the approach of working together,” Ariely explains. “Otherwise you’re fighting with them. And they can fight back.”
Trust does not require certainty about the future. It requires consistency in intent. When leaders communicate that people matter in the long term, employees are more willing to participate honestly in short-term change.
How leaders frame AI determines how people respond to it.
Ariely is direct about this. When AI is introduced as a replacement, people disengage. When it is introduced as an extension of human capability, behavior changes immediately.
“You can say, here’s a piece of software that can really help you do your job faster,” Ariely explains, “and I want you to help us figure out what’s working and what’s not working.”
This framing invites participation. Employees contribute domain knowledge. They surface edge cases. They identify risks that no system can see on its own.
Ariely also points out the importance of recognition in this process. When people help build better systems, leaders should make that contribution visible. Naming subroutines, processes, or improvements after the people who helped create them reinforces partnership.
Ariely returns repeatedly to one idea when discussing AI. Organizations cannot treat this shift as short-term.
AI changes what skills matter and how quickly those skills must evolve. Leaders who approach AI as a one-time implementation miss the deeper challenge. People need to learn continuously to remain effective and engaged.
He suggests asking everyone in the organization to create a five-year plan. It doesn’t mean they are signing up for five years, but it does get them to articulate where they’d like to go, how they’d like to grow, what they want to learn.
This tells your team “we’re not here for the moment. We’re here for the long term.”
That long-term signal changes how people interpret effort. Learning becomes an investment rather than a risk.
When leaders encourage people to build new capabilities, fear decreases. People stop asking whether they will be replaced and start asking how they can grow. That shift unlocks participation.
Ariely also emphasizes proximity in learning. Feedback and experimentation work best when they happen close to the work itself. When people can test ideas, see results, and adjust quickly, learning accelerates.
AI integration requires experimentation. Experimentation requires risk.
Ariely connects this directly to psychological safety. People will not test ideas, surface problems, or share insight if mistakes carry personal cost.
“Resilience is what allows us to dare,” he says. Without it, people avoid exposure. They wait for certainty that never arrives.
Leaders create safety through response. When questions are welcomed, people speak up. When early failures are treated as information, people stay engaged. When blame appears, participation stops.
This matters more in AI-enabled work because systems learn from human input. Silence degrades performance. Candor improves it.
Ariely clarifies the relationship between leadership and technology. Leaders are responsible for translating what technology does into what it means for people. They explain how work changes, where judgment still matters, and why human contribution remains essential.
When leaders avoid this role, uncertainty fills the gap. People assume the worst.
“You have to be transparent and honest,” Ariely says. “You have to look at it as enabling and augmenting people and how it’s going to make them better.”
Translation is ongoing work. It requires leaders to listen, adjust, and clarify repeatedly. The goal is not to sell AI. It is to make sense of it together.
AI will continue to advance. Tools will become faster and more capable. None of that determines success on its own.
Ariely’s research points to a consistent conclusion. Performance improves when people feel trusted, respected, and invited to contribute. It declines when they feel threatened or sidelined.
The human advantage is not a technical feature. It is a leadership choice.
Leaders choose whether to frame AI as a threat or a partnership. They choose whether to communicate openly or remain silent. They choose whether to invest in learning or extract short-term efficiency.
Those choices shape behavior long before any system reaches maturity.
Organizations that get this right do not slow down innovation. They accelerate it. They create environments where humans and machines amplify one another rather than compete.
The future of work will not belong to those with the most advanced tools. It will belong to those who understand how humans actually work.
Subscribe to the Learn-It-All™ podcast
Want our articles in your inbox? Sign up for our blog newsletter to never miss out!
