Why teams are slow in AI adoption and what leaders don’t see
- Apr 19
- 5 min read
In 2012, I stepped into a new role to lead a Strategic Insights team in a large international organisation. During our first performance review, one of my brightest team members was disappointed. I evaluated her as “above expectations,” yet her overall score was 0.1 percentage points lower than what her previous manager had given her. She couldn’t understand why I had “undermined” her performance. What she perceived as a downgrade, I saw as a fair and even generous evaluation.
We don’t measure people objectively. We measure them through our own perception of success. And that perception is deeply influenced by our own behavioral patterns
Each leader unconsciously defines what “good performance” looks like — based on how they themselves operate. The Enneagram makes this visible.
Type 1 — The Perfectionist
Evaluates performance through accuracy, discipline and doing things “the right way.” Inconsistency frustrates them. You will hear: “This could be done better.” They often devalue Type 7 — not seeing their adaptability and innovation, but focusing on what feels like lack of structure.
Type 7 — The Enthusiast
Rewards creativity, flexibility and energy. If you take too long to analyse, they will say:“Let’s think bigger.” They struggle with Type 4 — who goes deep into what is missing, while 7 focuses on what is possible and next.
Type 4 — The Individualist
Values depth, emotional intelligence and authenticity. “Corporate emptiness" frustrates them. They find Type 3 difficult — seeing their results-driven approach as lacking authenticity.“This is not real.”
Type 3 — The Achiever
Measures performance through results, efficiency and visibility. In most organisations, this is the dominant leadership model — what we call “high performance.” They struggle with Type 9 — who moves at a different pace.“Why is nothing happening?”
Type 9 — The Peacemaker
Sees good performance as smooth collaboration and low tension. Conflict and dominance disrupt their system. Type 8 becomes their biggest trigger — too direct, too intense, “too much.”
Type 8 — The Challenger
Evaluates strength, ownership and results under pressure. They expect boldness. Backbone. Action. They struggle with Type 6 — who questions, validates risks and slows down decisions. 8 wants action. 6 wants certainty.
Type 6 — The Loyalist
Focuses on reliability, consistency and risk management. Unpredictability frustrates them. They find it difficult to work with fast-moving 3s, spontaneous 7s and powerful 8s — all of which feel unsafe.
Type 5 — The Investigator
Values knowledge, preparation and independent thinking. Emotional “noise” drains them. They struggle with Type 2 — who operates through emotional engagement.
5 wants clarity and space. 2 gives and expects connection.
The issue in teams is not that certain people are difficult or slow. The issue is that they are different — and we expect them to operate like we do. Some people push forward, some step back, some need time to think, and others act quickly. When these differences are not understood, they are misinterpreted, and unnecessary tension emerges. Over time, this does not just create friction — it leads to disengagement and loss of talent.
The Enneagram is not a personality label. It is a leadership tool.
In one recent team building workshop, a client shared a concern: some employees were worried that their Enneagram profiles would define their future in the organisation — that being too different from the majority would put them at risk. And in many high-performing environments, where Type 3 leadership dominates, this concern is not unfounded. Types such as 6, 9 or 2 often feel that they are not being evaluated for their unique strengths, but for how closely they resemble the dominant style of the leader. It is not about categorising people. It is about understanding behavioural patterns — what drives them, what triggers them, and what they protect. When leaders begin to see these patterns, they can adapt their approach, communicate more effectively, and create environments where different types of people can contribute fully by being who they are.
This becomes even more critical in today’s business context.
At the end of last year, we conducted a behavioural research study on performance risks in business, with a particular focus on the Pharma industry — at a time of high uncertainty driven by global trade changes.One of the most consistent insights was the decline in psychological safety. Employees reported emotional fatigue, increasing pressure on results, and a shift toward transactional communication. Trust was eroding, and managers were among the first to feel the negative impact of it.
AI adoption — and why teams are slowing down
In recent months, the acceleration of AI adoption has added another layer of complexity. Organisations are investing heavily in technology, but people are struggling to keep up. Not because they lack capability, but because the speed of change creates uncertainty, exposes skill gaps, and reshapes roles faster than individuals can process. Some people push forward aggressively, trying to keep up with change at any cost. Others withdraw, not because they are unwilling, but because they are overwhelmed. Many begin to question what this transformation means for their role and their professional future.
What we observe is not resistance to AI as a tool. It is a response to what AI represents: change, ambiguity and loss of control.
This is where many organisations make a critical mistake. In the push toward technological transformation, budgets for learning, development and team support are often reduced. The assumption is that investing in AI will automatically increase performance. But without human adaptation, the opposite happens.
People become confused about ownership, unclear about responsibilities, and uncertain about expectations. Work is duplicated, roles are blurred, and frustration increases. The system becomes less efficient, not more.
The truth about AI transformation: AI adoption is not a technological challenge. It is a behavioural one.
If people are not ready — mentally, emotionally and structurally — the technology will not deliver its intended value.
The organisations that will move forward successfully are not only those that invest in AI, but those that invest in their people’s ability to adapt. They create environments where psychological safety is maintained, where communication remains open, and where different behavioural patterns are understood rather than suppressed. Because in the end, performance is not only about what people do. It is about how they feel, how they interact, and whether they are able to contribute fully without needing to protect themselves.
Silence, disengagement and reduced performance are not behaviour problems. They are signals that something in the system is not working as it should.
At Bevel, we help organisations decode these signals through internal diagnostics - we help teams adapt to change faster in a psychologically safe and structured way, using the in depth insights and Enneagram assessments as a practical framework for leadership and team development. We identify why people withdraw, where psychological safety breaks, and how to restore effective communication and team trust.
Because what is not addressed early becomes a loss later. And that loss is no longer affordable.
For team workshops, leadership programmes and AI adoption support contact us at impact@bevel.world
Comments