Why are the most informed always asked last?

I spoke with a friend recently who had told me about a new initiative at their work. He was told their new AI tool would reduce his customer handling times and free him up for more complex queries.

What nobody told him was that the same tool was flagging his team’s performance in real time. Scoring their tone, etc. Three months in, half the team had either left, were looking for out, or being pushed out. The AI hadn't replaced them. It had just made their working lives unbearable.

Nobody had asked them how they felt about it before it went live.

This isn't unusual. 91% of employees say their organisation now uses at least one AI technology (Azumo, 2025) yet most AI rollouts are still designed around efficiency metrics and adoption rates. So this begs the question:

Who actually had a voice in the decision?

More often than not, not the people with the most at stake. Not those who would most likely be best informed. More often than not, finding out about it once it was already running.

Some leaders might say that they have a communication issue, or that there simply wasn’t time to inform all of those impacted by the decision. I do not buy this. 

Deciding who gets consulted vs. who gets informed about an AI rollout is a choice about whose experience counts. Whose concerns are worth delaying the timeline for. 

29% of employees are now using AI at work without telling their manager (SurveyMonkey, 2025). That's not rogue behaviour. That's what happens when people aren't brought into the conversation, they have it without you.

AI adoption done well isn't a rollout problem. It's a trust problem.

And trust starts with who gets a voice before the decision is made.

💬 If you're leading an AI rollout right now, ask yourself. When did you last ask your frontline team what they actually think? Drop your experience in the comments.