Technology & Enterprise

Without management, artificial intelligence does not produce value

The adoption of Ai is not only a technological issue but a matter of corporate governance and managerial responsibility

by Valter Quercioli

16 April 2026

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Giuliano Noci's article published in the pages of Il Sole 24 Ore on 11 April captures an essential point: artificial intelligence is helping to further widen the productivity gap between the United States and Europe, which has been in place for over thirty years. As Federmanager, we believe that this new wave of technology represents a test case for the country's political and economic class: the adoption of Ai is not just a technological issue but one of corporate governance and managerial responsibility.

The evidence is clear and, in some respects, worrying. The study Mind the Gap: AI Adoption in Europe and the US published in March 2026 by the Brookings Institution is the largest comparative survey ever conducted on AI adoption in the workplace, with more than 55,000 workers interviewed in seven countries, and captures a widening gap.

In 2026, 43% of US workers will use generative AI in their work. In Europe the average drops to 32%, while Italia stops at 26%, last among the countries considered. But the gap is not only quantitative: in the US, AI is used for 5.2% of working hours, more than three times as much as in Italia, which stands at 1.6%. This differential already translates into a significant productivity advantage for the US, up to 1.3 percentage points. Between 2022 and 2024, European sectors with higher AI adoption rates experienced 2-5 percentage points higher cumulative productivity growth than lagging sectors.

The central question, however, is not 'how much', but 'why'. Why, given equal access to the same technology, are the results so different between companies in Reggio Emilia and those in Houston?

Brookings' answer is precise and of great relevance for economic policy as well. Only 55% of the gap between the US and Europe is explained by 'traditional' factors: sectoral composition, company size, demographic structure of the workforce. The remaining 45% depends on a single factor: whether or not one's employer encourages the use of AI. So, it is not a question of mere availability of tools. Not of training. Not of public subsidies. But of managerial input on what is expected, what is valued, what is safe to experiment with and use in the company. This is what enables workers to adopt AI productively.

The data show it clearly: among workers who receive encouragement from the company, the adoption rate reaches 47%, even in the absence of dedicated tools or training. Among those who do not receive it, it stops at 10%. If the companies with the most advanced managerial practices are systematically the same ones that achieve the highest AI adoption rates, then it is clear that the role of management is fundamental to innovation: it generates it, spreads it, makes it systemic. With equal access to technology, the results change.

The role of management in the successful adoption of Ai technologies is also highlighted by another study: State of AI in Business 2025 by MIT, published in July 2025. Here a figure emerges that should give pause for thought: despite tens of billions of investments, 95 per cent of organisations are not making any return. A true paradox: even when adoption is widespread, the impact remains minimal without managerial guidance. Only a marginal share of companies manage to translate investments into concrete outcomes on productivity and competitiveness. The companies that achieve results are those whose managers integrate AI into processes, make it learn over time in the specific context and govern it directly.

It follows that productivity gains cannot be achieved solely through investment incentives or technology diffusion programmes, instruments that are undoubtedly necessary but no longer sufficient. AI does not merely increase the efficiency of existing activities: it requires a radical rethinking of work organisation, decision-making flows, and skills. Without this leap, the risk is to finance innovation for its own sake but not productivity, to invest scarce public funds in licences and infrastructure that do not then translate into appreciable productivity growth.

In a country like Italia, which is characterised by a strong presence of small and medium-sized enterprises, this issue becomes even more important. Brookings data confirm this: in companies with over 250 employees 53% of workers use AI, compared with 26% in smaller companies according to the same research. Italia, with its production structure polarised towards the small size, suffers from this effect in an amplified manner. But it is precisely here that space opens up for targeted intervention with rapid and measurable effects. It is at this junction that industrial policy must make a qualitative leap.

Federmanager proposes to the Government and the business system: a National Plan for the managerialization of 20,000 SMEs, already the focus of our Manifesto 2026. The objective is to insert qualified managers within small and medium-sized enterprises that have never had managerial figures outside the entrepreneurial family, with clear contracts, objectives and result metrics. Not occasional consultancies, but stable presence with real responsibility and measurable impact on productivity and competitiveness. Investing in managerial skills means acting on the lever with the highest potential for systemic return, rather than merely financing technologies whose impact depends on the ability to use them. The model has already proven its value in some pilot experiences, for example 'Sviluppo PMI', which will end in 2023, conceived by Federmanager and implemented in collaboration with the Lombardy Region and Confindustria. Federmanager is ready to collaborate with government, regions and companies to design and implement this measure.

Artificial intelligence is an extraordinary opportunity to boost the productivity of Italia's industrial system. But it is also, as the data show, a test of maturity for our political class and managerial community. It is not enough to have access to technologies: one must know how to govern them. In this sense, the quality of management becomes the true strategic infrastructure of the economy. Without manageriality, even the best innovation remains ineffective. With proper manageriality, on the other hand, technology becomes productivity, growth and thus competitiveness.

President Federmanager