Imagine the scene. Boardrooms across India buzz with quiet excitement. Productivity tools draft emails in seconds, summarise reports overnight and generate polished client proposals before dawn. Shouldn’t we celebrate this as corporate nirvana: efficiency unleashed, costs contained, and the promise of hyper‑scalable creativity?
Yet behind these dashboards lie harder questions. Are employees still encouraged to wrestle with complexity, or merely to copy‑edit algorithmic drafts? Are junior analysts sharpening judgement, or learning to nod at machine‑generated slides? And most of all, do companies still value doubt and debate — or quietly prefer the frictionless ease of algorithmic consensus?
READ | BIMSTEC push puts India at heart of Bay of Bengal strategy
When efficiency suppresses inquiry
Corporate India’s embrace of generative AI has been dazzling in speed and scope, but worryingly, it often lacks pause and deliberation. Artificial Intelligence today does more than automate routine tasks: it enters the space where ideas and arguments form. It offers answers that sound confident, even when they stand untested. The danger is not only that employees might stop questioning poor outputs, but that they might lose the very habit of questioning itself — including the discipline to interrogate their own assumptions and sharpen their thinking.
Left unchecked, this erosion can ripple outward in ways that threaten more than productivity metrics. Generative AI carries with it the assumptions, data and power dynamics of where and why it was built. In Washington, policymakers frame Artificial Intelligence as strategic infrastructure. Beijing treats it as a lever of statecraft. Brussels debates its implications for human dignity and rights. Meanwhile, Indian businesses — global in ambition, but rooted in local cultural nuance — risk adopting these systems as plug‑and‑play solutions, without reflecting on what they might quietly reshape in human judgement, corporate culture and institutional memory.
A new digital divide
Yet the deeper danger is domestic. Over time, AI in the workplace risks crystallising what could silently turn into a new digital caste system. Those who understand when to challenge AI, or how to contextualise its outputs, ascend to decision‑making ranks. Those who take AI output at face value risk becoming data‑dependent executors. Slowly, critical faculties become privileges: nurtured in select teams, dulled in others.
Consider too the structural shifts. AI‑driven dashboards track every keystroke and hesitation, scoring employees on speed rather than depth. Generative templates standardise proposals, disincentivising original thought. Each small gain in efficiency subtracts from the time and mental space teams need to argue, imagine and reflect. And as AI models train on past data, yesterday’s answers risk becoming tomorrow’s defaults, deepening the danger of intellectual monoculture.
Demographic dividend at risk
For India specifically, the risk carries an even sharper edge. Nearly two‑thirds of our population is under the age of 35. If this rising generation grows up conditioned to accept machine outputs as they are — if curiosity, debate and deep reading quietly atrophy — the national cost will be immense. We would not only dull a critical workforce advantage, but risk producing a demographic dividend of machine‑addicted executors, rather than discerning, adaptive thinkers. In a century where cognitive agility and moral judgement define national competitiveness, this is a vulnerability we cannot afford.
These risks are magnified by a global regulatory vacuum. Voluntary ethics statements sound noble but often remain performative. Market incentives rarely reward tools that encourage human disagreement. Governments, meanwhile, draft guardrails that technology outpaces before ink dries. Indian corporate boards cannot wait for policymakers alone to define what critical thinking should look like in an AI‑shaped future.
Generative AI: The open source paradox
Even open‑source AI, while broadening access, brings paradoxes. It empowers more people to build and adapt — yet harmful misuse becomes harder to track. And in practice, power often recentralises among those with rare technical fluency — the same dominant firms or privileged technologists.
What then must Indian corporate leadership do — urgently and intentionally?
First, move beyond treating AI adoption as a procurement exercise to seeing it as a redesign of decision‑making itself. Ask where human judgement must remain final, where machines can assist, and where technology should deliberately stay absent. This is about curating its rightful place in the institutional conscience.
Second, institutionalise structured dissent. Not merely by encouraging open debate, but by designing it: assign formal devil’s advocates in strategy sessions; require counter‑argument memos before major decisions; ensure even junior voices can question AI‑generated drafts without fear of consequence.
Third, measure what truly matters. Current performance dashboards often reward immediacy, volume and responsiveness. Boards must demand parallel metrics that value reflection, creative deviation and long‑form analysis —the slow work that protects originality.
Fourth, invest in AI stewardship, not just AI deployment. Establish internal committees to audit AI’s cultural impact, its effect on bias, and its influence on decision quality — treating these as dynamic reviews, not static checklists.
Fifth, cultivate what no machine can replicate: moral imagination, cultural empathy, geopolitical awareness and long‑term thinking. These human faculties often determine reputational resilience in moments of crisis or ambiguity.
Sixth, confront the geopolitics embedded in every AI system. Ask whose data shaped this tool, whose interests it serves, and what unseen vulnerabilities it introduces to the organisation and nation.
Seventh, treat critical thinking itself as institutional capital. Just as firms invest in cyber‑security to protect data, they must invest in mindsets and processes that protect judgement. Over time, this becomes a strategic differentiator: not faster answers, but deeper, more resilient insight.
Beyond these governance shifts, Indian corporate leaders should consciously nurture a portfolio of human skills that no generative model can fully reproduce: complex problem‑framing; cross‑disciplinary synthesis; the ability to navigate cultural nuance and ethical ambiguity; and, above all, the habit of reflective doubt. These skills form the moat that keeps human insight relevant — not in opposition to AI, but as its necessary complement.
The boardroom imperative beyond governance
A workforce that loses the discipline of questioning becomes strategically vulnerable in a world where AI itself is already an instrument of global power. Generative AI will transform how Indian firms work — but it must not quietly decide how they think.
Yet this responsibility cannot be quietly delegated to human resources teams, IT departments or external consultants. It belongs squarely with the board and the CEO, because what is at stake is not a narrow question of productivity, but the institutional character of the firm itself. When human judgement is dulled, organisations lose the capacity to see around corners, to challenge dominant logic and to adapt when markets shift. This erosion is invisible quarter to quarter — until it becomes painfully visible all at once, often in crisis.
India’s economic ascent has long rested on a stubborn human habit: questioning the obvious, tolerating ambiguity and debating before deciding. In this moment of technological euphoria, that habit must be defended with conscious effort, not nostalgia. The responsibility to keep human insight alive is a question of governance, of leadership — and of daily practice.
The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, one of the twentieth century’s most influential thinkers on logic, science and process, wrote that the real test of intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas without rushing to resolve them. His work, spanning mathematics and philosophy, reminded us that genuine insight often emerges not from haste, but from the discipline to sit with complexity and contradiction. In the age of generative AI, India’s corporate future and perhaps its strategic autonomy may depend on remembering precisely that.
Srinath Sridharan is a strategic counsel with 25 years experience with leading corporates across diverse sectors including automobiles, e-commerce, advertising and financial services. He understands and ideates on intersection of finance, digital, contextual-finance, consumer, mobility, Urban transformation, and ESG. Actively engaged across growth policy conversations and public policy issues.