Employees who were encouraged to use artificial intelligence (AI) to relieve themselves of monotonous tasks used the technology 58% more and experimented with it 70% more than their speed-oriented colleagues. That’s the conclusion of a new study, cited by Forbes, that shows that the benefits of AI depend not only on the tool but also on how managers organize the work. Researchers from Stanford, the University of Virginia, and Dartmouth analyzed two divisions of the same law firm, with similar numbers of employees, similar pay, and similar career opportunities.
Both were given access to the same AI tool for drafting contracts. In one division, the manager demanded faster completion of documents. In the other, he asked employees what tasks were tiring them and what they would like to do if they had more time. Over the course of nearly two years, the second group did more than just speed up existing work.
Employees used AI for legal research and case analysis, shared knowledge, and sought to be included in strategic meetings with lawyers. The first group experienced the technology more as a tool for increasing the pace of work. The study also included interviews with 184 employees from a law firm, an advertising agency, and an IT services company. Those who were only encouraged to work faster reported less meaning in their work and less motivation to learn. But the difference wasn’t just in the questions. The leader of the second group had organized training, weekly meetings to exchange experiences, mentoring, and special time for experimentation.
Researchers emphasize that the impact of the message cannot be separated from the concrete support. Without this support, the promise of more interesting work remains rhetoric. According to Forbes author John Winsor, managers should ask employees three questions: What tasks do you want to be freed from? What work do you want to do more of? What tasks should you continue to control yourself?
The answers vary by profession. In some roles, tasks can be easily divided and reorganized.
In others, such as sales, research, customer relations and closing the deal are closely linked, so AI should support the employee, not replace them in leading the process. This approach also requires a change in performance evaluation. Employees who deal with more complex issues can handle fewer files, but create more value. Measuring only the volume of work, or the frequency of use of AI, risks punishing them. The challenge for companies is not just how many hours AI saves, but who decides how they will be used. If the freed up time is filled again with the same tasks, technology increases productivity, but loses some of its potential to improve work.