The AI revolution

Managing the use of artificial intelligence in the company: what to delegate and what to preserve

The future of work depends on how we manage the balance between human and artificial intelligence

by Luca Brambilla* and Alberto Cammarota**

29 April 2026

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

AI is reshaping the world of work, confronting leaders with a crucial new question: which tasks should be delegated to artificial intelligence and which ones to human intelligence?

This overwhelming innovation increases without limit our ability to produce information and make decisions, generating unprecedented time savings. The development of AI interaction skills becomes not only advisable, but a necessary evolution of the work environment.

However, a dark side of this firepower could dampen our enthusiasm and confront us with a vital dilemma: early studies illustrate that indiscriminate use of AI can generate cognitive impoverishment over time. One example is the use of ChatGPT and similar tools while writing: users seem to show less brain activity, remember less what they write and perceive the text as less 'their own' than those who write without using technology. Continued use can lead to 'cognitive debt', i.e. reduced brain engagement and capacity even when the tool is not used.

In other words, while the time saved thanks to AI may allow leaders to devote themselves to more value-added activities, excessive use may hinder the insight needed to perform those same activities optimally.

This revolution thus calls human beings to an exercise of empowerment at all organisational levels: regardless of seniority, we all have a responsibility to make virtuous use of a medium that is as useful as it is potentially detrimental to our intellectual capacities.

AI as a new form of delegation

Delegation is a fundamental mechanism for the growth of organisations. The most traditional form is human-to-human, usually between a senior figure and his or her disciple. The industrial revolution introduced a new paradigm, enabling a transition of activities from human to machine. This transition marked a major watershed in history: individuals began to entrust more technical and repetitive tasks to technology, thus being able to devote themselves to more complex cognitive processes. The result was not only a growth in productivity, but also an elevation of intellectual capacity.

The introduction of AI in work processes today adds a variable that once again changes the rules of the game: not only does it prove excellent at replacing humans in mechanical activities, but it also offers unprecedented scenarios for development in cognitive ones. It is therefore legitimate to ask oneself how to manage this new form of delegation, wondering how to find a balance to be able to make the most of the potential of AI without causing an intellectual impoverishment of the workforce in terms of creativity, critical spirit and problem solving.

What to delegate to whom

Artificial intelligence exacerbates the paradox of access to information already introduced in the last thirty years by search engines: having all human knowledge at one's disposal is equivalent to having nothing if one is not equipped with a method.

This article aims to provide some criteria to facilitate entrepreneurs and managers in managing this delicate organisational change. Listed below are some guiding questions, the answers to which trigger reflection in the choice of 'what to delegate to whom'.

Is the expected result achievable by a human being?

If the answer is no, there is no doubt: the task must be performed with the aid of technology. With AI, one can benefit simultaneously from maximum horizontality and verticality. Man, on the other hand, is unable to have both a global and detailed view. The analytical comparison of many texts at the same time, for example, is a type of activity on which the capabilities of AI are worth exploiting.

Is the expected result attainable by a human being in a reasonable timeframe?

There are activities that humans are perfectly capable of performing, but for which the time required may justify the use of AI. If the time saving is marginal, it is preferable to retain human control; conversely, when the gain is significant, it becomes necessary to ask further questions to assess whether and how to rely on AI.

Does the activity train critical organisational competence?

This question shifts thinking from the short term to the long term. While time savings are immediately visible, what is often difficult to perceive is the impact that those savings might generate in terms of skills decay.

For example, the writing of an article like this could easily be delegated to a LLM, but the work of reflection involves critical thinking training that proves crucial for the performance of more value-added tasks. Assigning the AI a simple task such as writing a text could therefore make the brain more 'prepared' to handle more complex tasks, such as a one-to-one training session to a CEO.

How can I invest the time I have earned?

The most important question to ask after any delegation process, be it to a human being or to an AI agent, is: "How can I use the time saved?". The delivery of an assignment is in fact only strategic for the organisation if it guarantees growth for both the principal and the agent.

To posterity the arduous judgement

The coming years present us with a dramatic challenge: will we be able to turn AI into an amplifier of our human value or will we risk sacrificing it? Will technology multiply our ingenuity or reflect our obsolescence? The answer, after all, is in our hands.

*Director Strategic Communication Academy

**Advisory Board Member - Impact Committee at POLIMI GSoM