- Study finds 42% of leaders identify as AI skeptics with exaggerated expectations
- Skeptics worry about financial, psychological, and physical risks from AI adoption
- Realists report clear benefits, including better work quality and time efficiency
Artificial intelligence has been reshaping workplaces around the globe with the promise of efficiency, smarter decisions, and new business opportunities.
Yet, as adoption accelerates, evidence suggests that not all leaders are embracing AI tools with equal confidence.
Recent research from The Adaptavist Group reveals a growing divide between those who trust their company’s AI claims and those who fear the technology is overhyped.
A stark divide between skeptics and realists
The report found nearly half (42%) of leaders identify as AI “skeptics,” believing their company’s claims are exaggerated, while 36% consider themselves AI “realists,” confident that expectations are realistic.
For skeptics, adoption of tools like AI writers often comes with unease: 65% worry that their organization’s approach puts customers at financial, psychological, or physical risk.
Nearly half of skeptic leaders fear being wrongly accused of misusing AI, and 42% hide their AI usage at work to avoid repercussions.
Realists report far lower levels of anxiety, showing that perception plays a central role in shaping workplace experiences with AI and LLM technology.
In companies where skeptics dominate, AI adoption is driven more by obligation than measurable outcomes.
Eighty-four percent of skeptic leaders encourage AI use because they feel they should, rather than because it delivers specific value.
Spending remains high, with over a third investing between £1m and £10m in AI initiatives over the past year.
Yet, pressure and insufficient training (59% report no formal AI education) continue to limit effectiveness.
By comparison, realists foster experimentation, provide training, and measure outcomes in a way that supports both technology and people.
Leaders in realist-led organizations report clearer benefits from AI, including improvements in work quality, time efficiency, and output.
Ethical concerns such as plagiarism, bias, and hallucinations are far less pronounced: only 37% of realists flagged ethical risks versus 74% of skeptics.
They also spend less time correcting AI outputs, reflecting stronger guidance and support.
These findings align with recent MIT claims that 95% of generative AI pilots are failing, suggesting that organizational culture and preparation are decisive factors in AI success.
Rapid proliferation of AI tools worsens the divide. Seventy-four percent of skeptics feel overwhelmed by too many tools too quickly, while realists remain confident in AI’s value.
“The contrast between leaders who are confident in their organization’s AI journey and those grappling with poor outcomes, rushed implementations, and a reluctant workforce is stark,” said Jon Mort, CTO of The Adaptavist Group.
“To unlock AI’s true value, organizations must be quick to experiment but take time to thoughtfully roll out by investing in training and creating an environment where both people and technology can thrive.”
