When leaders delegate ChatGPT use, they lose control over outcomes
Leaders expect that delegating the use of ChatGPT preserves control, but in practice, it removes it. ChatGPT hides effort and quality behind fluent output, which blocks leaders from forming independent judgment. This mechanism shifts evaluation power to teams and distorts decisions.
Reviewing a team-produced strategy memo
Leaders believe they can assign the creation of a strategy memo to their team using ChatGPT and still judge the result effectively. They expect that reading the final document will give them enough insight into the quality of the thinking. They assume that their role remains intact because they approve the output rather than produce it. They believe that awareness of ChatGPT replaces the need to use it directly. They expect delegation to preserve their control over standards and outcomes.
Reading a polished document without the context of its creation
Leaders receive a well-written strategy memo that appears complete and convincing. The document presents structured arguments, clean language, and confident conclusions. Leaders cannot see how quickly the content was generated or how many iterations it required. They cannot detect which parts reflect real analysis and which parts reflect surface-level synthesis. They rely on the document itself as the only signal of quality.
Judging output without direct experience of generation
Leaders lack direct experience with how ChatGPT produces such a memo, so they cannot map output quality to underlying effort or rigor. Because they do not know how easily fluent text can be generated, they treat presentation quality as evidence of substance. This forces them to use visible signals such as structure and tone as proxies for depth. These proxies can be shaped by the team without increasing analytical quality. As a result, leaders base their judgment on signals that do not reliably indicate true capability.
Approving decisions based on manipulated signals
Leaders approve the strategy because the memo looks strong, even though critical assumptions remain untested. They believe the team performed deep work because the document appears comprehensive. Teams recognize that polished output secures approval and adjust their behavior to optimize presentation. Decision makers interpret smooth narratives as proof of competence and overlook missing risks or alternatives. This leads to decisions that reflect internal storytelling rather than actual analysis, while authority shifts toward those who control how ChatGPT is used.
Bottom line
When leaders lack direct experience with ChatGPT, they equate polished output with real quality, thereby shifting decision-making control to those who shape the presentation.
Note: We use the term “ChatGPT” as a shorthand for ChatGPT and similar tools such as Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and custom GenAI chatbots.
Hello Christian,
First of all, congratulations on the launch of your new blog and your brand’s new direction.
You’ve drawn an interesting connection here. While reading, I wondered: who is your appeal primarily aimed at? It goes without saying that leaders should be more involved in the "origin story" of their team's output—take, for instance, a strategically important paper co-authored with ChatGPT. They should be doing this anyway, but in the future, stakeholders will increasingly ask where specific strategic claims and recommendations actually originate.
The real challenge, I believe, lies in accurately assessing a result that looks polished and professional, especially when it serves as a vital basis for decision-making. We shouldn't reflexively dismiss all ChatGPT-based reports with skepticism, nor should we accept them entirely without reflection or context. This creates a bit of a conflict. From my perspective, potential solutions would be:
- Transparency in Process: Leaders should have their team—specifically the ChatGPT experts—explain the workflow and the various iterations that led to the final document.
- Precision in Briefing: Managers need to be far more specific in their initial memos, clearly outlining what matters most and highlighting where a deep dive is non-negotiable.
- Critical Evaluation: When reviewing the output, leaders must sharpen their critical faculties to ensure that a polished presentation and slick visuals don't obscure a comprehensive, 360-degree perspective.
That said, I still believe that LLM-supported preparation is highly valuable when used correctly. High-quality data visualizations and concisely structured arguments simply help to foster better understanding and, more importantly, command greater attention at the executive level.
Best regards,
Joachim Kromes, BWI GmbH