THE BOARDROOM
THE HUMAN-AI IMPERATIVE
Dr. Muneer Muhamed wonders whether GenAI will replace board intelligence
Companies are embracing generative AI (GenAI) enthusiastically. And artificial intelligence is now analysing risks, monitoring compliance, generating reports and identifying strategic opportunities.
So if GenAI can write essays, create images, diagnose diseases and pass professional exams, why are we paying directors’ fees? It’s because even a smart bot isn’t ready to chair a board meeting!
Artificial intelligence has become the corporate equivalent of that impossibly efficient employee who never sleeps, never complains, never requests a salary increment and never posts cryptic messages on LinkedIn about new beginnings.
And boards everywhere are inviting AI into governance processes because it promises faster decisions with fewer PowerPoint slides.
For many directors however, the terminology alone is intimidating.
First there was AI, then came machine learning followed by generative AI. Some directors are still recovering from the introduction of Zoom and electronic board packs. Yet, the technology is undeniably impressive.
Unlike traditional software, GenAI doesn’t merely analyse information – it creates reports, summaries, forecasts, recommendations and entire documents. Moreover, it can digest thousands of pages of data in seconds, and present clear conclusions without requiring a governance workshop at a five-star hotel.
The attraction of artificial intelligence is evident. Sri Lankan businesses operate in an environment where risks arrive with the frequency of monsoon rains. Currency fluctuations, regulatory changes, cyber threats, geopolitical shocks and economic uncertainty can overwhelm even experienced leadership teams.
AI thrives in this chaos. Give it enough data, and it will identify patterns, flag anomalies and generate warnings long before a risk committee schedules its next meeting. It can continuously monitor compliance and produce reports at speed.
For governance purposes, this is enormously useful. But the problem begins when people mistake intelligence for judgement. Boards exist because companies need wisdom – not because they lack information. This distinction matters.
An AI system can analyse a million data points and conclude that reducing staff numbers will improve profitability. What it can’t fully appreciate is the human cost, reputational impact and cultural damage that may follow.
During periods of economic difficulty, many Sri Lankan boards have had to balance financial survival with employee welfare. These decisions weren’t spreadsheet exercises, and involved ethics, empathy and social responsibility.
An algorithm may know the price of everything but it struggles with the value of anything. This becomes particularly important when organisations face crises.
Imagine a major reputational issue, labour dispute or customer backlash. AI can certainly analyse sentiment, predict outcomes and generate options. What it can’t do is walk into a room full of anxious stakeholders and build trust. Indeed, trust remains stubbornly human.
Management consultants love the phrase ‘data driven decision making’ because it sounds scientific and expensive. Yet, many transformative business decisions were made precisely because leaders ignored prevailing data and trusted their instincts.
If every decision depended entirely on historical evidence, no one would launch a disruptive product, enter a risky market or reinvent a business model.
Leadership is about betting on a future that doesn’t exist. That’s why no algorithm has successfully become an entrepreneur or a chairperson as yet.
Boards spend much of their time balancing competing interests among shareholders, employees, regulators, customers, suppliers and communities, and this requires diplomacy, negotiation and emotional intelligence. Imagine an AI chairperson negotiating with a trade union: the meeting would probably end with the union demanding to speak to a mammal.
AI systems learn from historical data. If historical decisions contain bias, artificial intelligence may reproduce those same biases with remarkable speed and efficiency.
Humans are imperfect too; but at the very least, humans can be challenged, persuaded and occasionally embarrassed into changing their minds. Algorithms tend to make mistakes with extraordinary confidence.
Despite the hype, AI isn’t replacing boards anytime soon but it’s becoming an extraordinarily capable assistant. It will handle analysis, compliance monitoring, risk identification, reporting and administrative work.
But the difficult questions of ethics, culture, leadership, trust and judgement will remain firmly in human hands. For now, the ideal boardroom isn’t humans versus AI – it is humans with AI.
While artificial intelligence may write flawless board papers one day, it is still some distance away from mastering the most sophisticated governance skill of all: pretending to understand a 200 page board pack while reading it for the first time during the meeting!
