An HR executive at a prominent technology firm notices something amiss during a job interview. The candidate, whose application materials were immaculate, falters when questions are phrased differently from expected. Unable to adapt or provide original thoughts, it becomes clear the applicant relied heavily on AI-generated content without truly engaging with the subject matter.
This scenario exemplifies a concerning trend in today’s workplace—what experts are calling “reverse improvement.” Unlike traditional improvement, which emphasises learning and skill-building, reverse improvement is the unintended consequence of over-reliance on technology, leading to deterioration of critical thinking, creativity and problem-solving abilities.
“People are now finding shortcuts. On one hand, it makes life easier, but at the same time, it stops individuals from thinking and putting in original ideas,” observes Amit Sharma, chief human resources officer, Gokaldas Exports. His assessment captures a harsh reality—while artificial intelligence and digital tools enhance efficiency, they often diminish the intellectual effort required to tackle complex problems.
The costs of this technological dependence are mounting. Deep thinking, once the hallmark of strategic planning, is in decline. Traditionally, developing a business strategy required analysing market trends, brainstorming innovative ideas and weighing multiple perspectives. Today, professionals increasingly consult AI-powered tools for pre-packaged solutions that, while convenient, lack originality and fail to account for organisational nuances.
“People are now finding shortcuts. On one hand, it makes life easier, but at the same time, it stops individuals from thinking and putting in original ideas.”
Amit Sharma, CHRO, Gokaldas Exports
Consider a marketing executive tasked with crafting a new branding strategy. Rather than conducting thorough research and engaging in creative brainstorming, he inputs a prompt into an AI tool. The result is immediate but generic—a strategy document that fails to reflect his company’s unique culture and customer base.
This homogenisation extends beyond individual work products. In the past, companies thrived on differentiation—each organisation had its own approach to solving problems and engaging customers. However, with AI providing standardised solutions, businesses risk losing their competitive edge.
Job descriptions offer a telling example. Previously, HR professionals meticulously crafted postings based on specific organisational needs. Today, many rely on AI-generated templates, resulting in cookie-cutter descriptions that fail to capture role nuances. “If everyone is using the same AI-generated strategies, where is the differentiation?” Sharma asks. “If all companies rely on technology to craft their go-to-market plans, how will they stand out?”
The impact extends to leadership effectiveness as well. “Managers now rely on AI-generated lists to motivate teams,” explains Manish Majumdar, vice president, HR, Centum Electronics. “Before AI, good managers took time to understand their team members individually. While AI can provide suggestions, it cannot replace human insight into employee emotions and motivations.”
“Before AI, good managers took time to understand their team members individually. While AI can provide suggestions, it cannot replace human insight into employee emotions and motivations.”
Manish Majumdar, vice president, HR, Centum Electronics
Two contrasting management scenarios illustrate this point. When facing low employee engagement, “Rajesh” implements generic AI-recommended strategies without customisation, yielding limited improvement. Meanwhile, “Priya” conducts one-on-one meetings to understand specific concerns, developing a tailored engagement strategy that significantly boosts team morale and productivity.
The solution is not to ban AI tools outright but to foster a culture that values depth of thinking and authenticity. “Rather than imposing restrictive measures, companies should encourage critical questioning,” Sharma suggests. “When employees present proposals, leaders should probe deeper—ask why, challenge assumptions and demand alternative perspectives. Those who have merely copied answers will struggle, while those who have truly thought through the problem will shine.”
Organisations must establish ethical AI guidelines specifying where automation can assist and where human intelligence remains irreplaceable. Training programmes should focus on critical thinking, problem solving and emotional intelligence—skills that AI cannot replicate. Reversing the trend of intellectual stagnation requires fostering a questioning mindset where employees challenge existing ideas rather than accepting AI-generated responses at face value.
Teamwork and in-person ideation sessions can also prevent over-reliance on digital tools while stimulating creativity. “No matter how much AI you implement, if you cannot get people to collaborate, you are in trouble,” Majumdar warns. Consequently, think tanks, leadership workshops and brainstorming sessions should remain integral to corporate culture.
Technology, when used appropriately, can automate mundane tasks, allowing humans to focus on higher-order thinking. Tools that summarise meeting minutes or generate reports offer genuine benefits. However, tasks requiring creativity—such as designing marketing strategies or formulating business plans—demand human intelligence.
Reverse improvement serves as a cautionary tale for the digital age. While AI and automation provide undeniable benefits, their misuse leads to intellectual stagnation. The key is using technology as a complement rather than a replacement for human ingenuity. Leaders must foster depth of understanding, intellectual curiosity and strategic insight—qualities that no machine can fully replicate.
The concern, then, is not whether organisations should use AI but how, in the pursuit of efficiency, they can ensure they do not sacrifice the ability to think deeply, create meaningfully and lead innovatively. In this new technological landscape, the most valuable asset remains distinctly human: the capacity for original thought.Organisations must balance automation with intellectual rigour to thrive in the digital age
