Why AI for leaders so often goes quiet
I've been trying to work out for a while why so many AI rollouts for leaders go quiet.
Not fail, exactly. Go quiet.
The tools are usually fine, honestly. Most companies I talk to have ChatGPT or Copilot, licences all round, and a perfectly sensible policy document.
And the leaders are sharp. They've tried it, mostly as a faster search box, and then gone back to working the way they did before.
For me, the bit that's missing is the thinking underneath the tool. Which isn't anybody's fault, really. Nobody ever sat them down and showed them that part.
- Access is not the same as use. A seat licence doesn't tell anybody what to point it at. So people try it on something small, get something fine, and stop there.
- Asking before framing. Most of us (me included, for longer than I'd like to admit) ask the question before we've worked out what the question is. The answer comes back confident either way.
- Checking what comes back. The risk lives in the gap between a fluent paragraph and a true one. Without a habit of checking, the fluent one usually gets sent.
So this is artificial intelligence for business leaders the slow way round, I suppose.
The AI leadership training I run spends very little time on the tool, and most of its time on that thinking.
The game first. The AI after.
Every programme runs on the same loop. I call it EPPA - Experience, Patterns, Principles, Application.
Your leaders play
One of my games, in person. No AI at the table and no laptops. Just people making real calls under a bit of pressure, in front of colleagues they respect.
The room names what repeated
The avoidance, the over-control, the quiet grab when the stakes went up. The room agrees on what kept happening before anybody says what it means.
They connect it to leadership
In their own words, not mine. It lands because they got there themselves.
This is where AI comes in
Each leader brings a piece of their own real work and uses AI to turn the principle into a named behaviour, a real situation and a date.
I'm fairly stubborn about keeping AI out of the game itself. The game is where people find out how they actually behave, and I'd rather not put a screen between them and that moment.
Application is also the stage that gets squeezed when the clock runs out, which is a shame, because it's the only one that changes anything on Monday. I think AI earns its place there mostly because it makes that last stage quicker. So it's less likely to get cut.
Three frameworks, used on real work
This is what your leaders actually use with AI, on their own problems.
Double Diamond
Frame the problem before you prompt. Open up to understand it, narrow down to define it, then open up again for answers.
Lotus Blossom
Get eight ideas on the table before you pick one, so the first idea is never the only idea in the room.
Output vs Outcome vs Insight
AI gives you output. The outcome and the insight are still the leader's to own. It's probably the one that matters most.
Each one gets used on your leaders' own problems in the room, which is the only way I've found that they stick.
Where it usually starts: The Potter from Belagavi
Most of the time the day opens with The Potter from Belagavi, a 45-minute game I designed about selling pots.
An early print of the cards. A few numbers have changed since.
You can make every pot by hand. Or you can spend a round building a wheel that makes them for you.
Round five is when the person who stopped to build overtakes the person who never did.
It's a slightly silly game about pots. It's also, more or less, the whole argument for AI in one sitting.
Afterwards, each leader names one thing they do by hand every week, builds a first rough version of a system that does it with AI, and runs it once before they leave. One person, one AI tool, supervised. That's the first step on the ladder, and honestly it's plenty for one day.
What stays human: what to stop doing by hand, and what thinking the freed-up time goes to.
Seven programmes, one way of working
Each programme has one of my games at its heart. The game teaches the skill. AI shows up afterwards, on your leaders' real work. And in every one of them, one particular call stays with the person.
AI-augmented Systems Thinking
Name one thing you do by hand every week. Build the first rough system that does it with AI, and run it once before you leave.
Stays human: what to stop doing by hand, and where the freed time goes.
AI-augmented Trust and Collaboration
Each leader brings one real promise they've made to another team. AI maps who depends on it and what breaks if it slips. They write the keep-it or change-the-deal note, and send it by a date.
Stays human: whether to keep the promise when it costs them.
AI-augmented Creative Problem Solving
Bring one live project where people aren't really talking, and only the messages you're allowed to share. AI reads them and drafts some talking rules - who shares what, when, where. The leader edits it at the table and takes it to the team by a date.
Stays human: deciding how the team talks.
AI-augmented Learning Agility
Bring one decision that's stuck on "we need more data". Frame it with the Double Diamond, let AI sort what you know from what you don't, and draft a rule - act when this happens.
Stays human: when to stop debating and act.
AI-augmented Stakeholder Management
List your real stakeholders. AI turns your own notes into a one-line read per person - do they need water, a bigger pot, or space? Then pick one person and plan the first give, with a date.
Stays human: choosing to back someone who can't pay you back yet.
AI-augmented Negotiation and Influence
Bring one real negotiation that's coming up. AI plays the other side - their public goal, their likely private one, their next three moves. The leader tests what to show and what to hold, then writes the opening offer.
Stays human: what to reveal, and to whom.
AI-augmented Scenario Planning
Each leader brings one real plan for next quarter. AI writes three other futures and the early signal for each, Lotus Blossom style. The leader marks which calls can be undone, buys one option now, and sets a date to decide again.
Stays human: telling a bad decision from a bad result.
Each one has its own page, with the game and the Application step written out properly. See all programmes.
What the room said
The closest thing to this I've already delivered is a two-day programme at a Fortune 100 company, run across six session-days.
That's one programme, six session-days. Across every scored session-day I've run there, it's 8.40 across 244 - which is probably the fairer number to hold me to.
The same company came back for more programmes afterwards. Which is probably the more useful number of the two.
And on a separate one-day programme for a leading HR-tech platform, 12 of the 13 people in the room said they would apply what they learned.
Real teams, real work, hands on
People at tables, framing their own problems, working the tools and pressure-testing each other's thinking. I talk a lot less than you'd expect.
In the room, and after
- One of the seven games at the heart of the day, run in person by me, the person who designed it.
- The full EPPA debrief, ending with a named behaviour, a real situation and a date for every leader.
- Double Diamond, Lotus Blossom and Output vs Outcome vs Insight, used on real work rather than shown on slides.
- AI used on each leader's own work at the Application stage, inside the tools your company already allows.
There's a three-hour version that fits inside an offsite slot, and longer ones too. Each programme is sized around its game, so tell me which skill matters most and we'll work out the length from there.
Who it's for, and who it isn't
Probably a good fit
- Senior leaders and executives who have AI access and aren't getting much from it yet.
- L&D and HR heads asked to "get our leaders using AI properly", who'd like it to last past the launch email.
- Leadership teams working on one specific skill - trust, negotiation, stakeholders, deciding with half the data.
- Companies happy to let real work into the room.
Probably better served elsewhere
- Anyone after a tool demo or a features walkthrough. Your vendor's own training probably does that better than I would.
- Teams starting from zero with AI. This assumes people have at least tried it.
- Engineers wanting technical depth. That's a different and much more technical room.
- A leader who wants their own way of working built one to one. I do that too, but it's a different conversation.
The things people ask me first
"Our leaders don't have two days."
That's a fair worry, and honestly it's the one I hear most. There's a three-hour version that fits inside an offsite, and each programme is sized around its game rather than the other way round.
"We've already done AI training."
Fair, and it was probably fine. What I've found is that most of it teaches the tool. The bit that tends to go quiet is using it on a real decision the following week, and that's the only bit this spends its time on.
"Can AI really help with trust, or negotiation?"
Honestly, not with the human part, and I'd be a bit worried about anyone who said otherwise. It helps with the work around it - mapping, drafting, playing the other side. The call itself stays with the leader, and every programme says which call that is.
"Will it work with the tools we're allowed?"
It should. I build the Application stage around whichever tool your people are actually allowed to use, and around your real policy limits, including what's off the table.
Come and tell me about your leaders
Roughly how many people, which AI tools they're allowed to use, and the one skill you'd most like to see change. I'll tell you which programme fits, or if none of them do. Worst case, we have a conversation and you come out of it with a clearer brief.
Come and have a look at the calendar
I only take two or three programmes a month, mostly because I run all of them myself. So it does fill up, and I'd rather tell you that now than when you have a date in mind.
Tell me what you're trying to fix
I went back and forth on whether to put a form at the end of this page.
Because a form asks you to be tidy about something you are probably still working out. And the enquiries I enjoy most tend to arrive as three messy lines, written by someone who has not finished deciding what they want yet.
So there are two ways in, and I genuinely do not mind which one you use.
Write to me directly at arvindh@puttheplayerfirst.com and say roughly what you want to change. Three lines is plenty. I read my own email.
Or fill this in, if that is easier. It lands in the same inbox.
I answer these myself, usually within a day. Two if I am in a room somewhere with my phone in a bag.
And you are not committing to anything by writing in. Worst case we have a conversation, and you come out of it with a clearer brief than you had this morning.
I'm still working out how best to explain all of this on one page, to be honest. It's a lot easier to show in a room.
With love from Bengaluru, this is Arvindh saying over and out.