The title frames generative AI strategy as a pivotal fork in the road, with one path shaping the organization’s future and the other risking derailment. It implies that results will depend on clarity of intent and the rigor with which leaders translate ambition into action. The phrasing highlights consequence: strategy is not neutral, and missteps can compound quickly. It suggests examining whether goals, investments, and operating models are aligned with what AI can realistically deliver now. The title also signals that timing and sequencing matter, because moving too fast or too slow can each have costs. It invites leaders to test assumptions and ensure that the organization’s readiness matches the scale of the bet.
The question prompts a risk-aware stance: treat AI as a strategic lever that requires governance, not a quick fix. It points to the need for measurable outcomes so progress can be judged against intent rather than hype. It implies that trade-offs—between speed and control, innovation and safety, experimentation and scale—must be made consciously. It encourages reviewing capabilities and constraints so that execution does not outrun talent, data, or processes. It suggests building feedback loops to correct course before small issues become systemic failures. It ultimately argues that a thoughtful, outcomes-focused approach can shape the future, while an ungrounded or unchecked approach can derail it.
👉 Pročitaj original: Harvard Business Review
