Not all AI use involves the same level of autonomy. There is a marked difference between asking AI to suggest three options and allowing an AI agent to take action without our approval. Despite this, both fall under the broad heading of “using AI”.
As agentic AI develops, managers need a be having more precise conversation about authority.
Think of AI autonomy as a ladder. On the lower rungs, AI might suggest, draft or analyse. A human decides what happens next. Further up, it might recommend an action, complete part of a process, or act once a human approves. On the top rung, an agent might act independently within defined boundaries and notify a human afterwards.
There is no universally correct rung. The appropriate level depends on the task, the consequences of error, the quality of available data and how easily an action can be reversed.
Scheduling a routine internal meeting is different from communicating with a distressed customer. Reordering a low-cost office supply is different from approving a significant payment.
The mistake is assuming that because AI can act autonomously, it should. Organisations need explicit decisions about where, and when, humans must remain involved.
Those decisions should also evolve. A workflow may begin with close human supervision and earn greater autonomy only after its performance has been tested.
Be AI-Wise
Do not ask only: “Can AI do this?”
Ask: “What authority should AI have here?”
The future of AI governance will increasingly be about deciding not just what AI can access, but what it is allowed to do.
Leadership question:
Could your managers explain which AI actions require approval, which require notification and which can happen independently?
GAPS Professional Writing helps organisations build practical AI capability, strengthen workplace writing and redesign workflows for effective human-AI collaboration. Visit www.gapswriting.com.