I was recently reading a LinkedIn post from someone who had decided to stop using AI to help with their writing. Not because it wasn’t useful, but because they felt their confidence as a writer was declining as a result. The more they accepted AI’s suggestions, the less the writing felt like theirs, and the less they trusted themselves.
The post clearly struck a chord with a lot of people, with over 100 comments!! And it got me thinking about why it sparked so much interest. And I reckon I might know why…. this isn’t really a conversation about writing, it’s actually a conversation about identity.
Over the past few years I’ve delivered lots of People-First Internal Communication workshops to teams. Which of course involves conversation about how we use AI and how it is changing the world of work. And when we get into this I see some people visibly light up, they get excited and see the opportunities. They start talking about saving time, generating ideas, removing admin and creating space for more valuable work.
But at the same time other people have a very different reaction. They become defensive, sceptical, and sometimes even angry. The emotional reactions are very different. And as a psychologist I’m fascinated by why this is the case.
AI isn’t just changing what we do, it’s challenging how we think about our value. For years many of us have built our professional identity around particular skills. We are experts in
- Writing
- Designing
- Researching
- Analysing
- Creating presentations
- Producing content
Then along comes a technology that appears capable of doing many of those things in seconds. And I totally get that for many that is going to feel uncomfortable and create anxiety.
I’ve noticed something else too. People often seem slightly embarrassed or ashamed to admit they use AI. They over explain and justify how they use it, as though using AI means they have cheated, taken a shortcut, or the work is somehow less theirs.
But I think we need to look at this in a different way. Let’s go back to the LinkedIn post that sparked these ideas and focus on writing, which has often been a core skill for IC pros. The question for me is what actually makes somebody a good writer? Is it the ability to get words onto a page? Or is it something else? The ability to come up with an idea for a story, to spot an insight, or find an angle? The way you might connect ideas, tell a story, draw on lived experience, challenge conventional thinking or create meaning from complexity?
I’ll be honest, writing has never come easy to me, despite having written x3 books! Getting words onto a page takes me a long time, loads of re-writes etc – it’s a painful process for me, because in my head I know what I’m going after, but bringing this to life isn’t easy for me.
But I do have lots of ideas, I get inspirited by what I see and read out in the world. I have messy, often jumbled thoughts that become formed into more concrete angles for blogs, papers, research and even books. I have observations, half-formed arguments, big questions, stories from client work and lots of ideas.
And now AI helps me untangle some of this mess. I can download my stream of consciousness and bat ideas back and forth, go down different paths, identify themes, spot patterns and create structure. And yes I’m not ashamed to say that sometimes it helps me work out what I’m actually trying to say. The first draft of this blog was AI generated, but the final version was all mine. The thinking, stories, experience, and perspectives are still mine. and the words themselves? In fact if you put this blog into an AI checker – draft 1 shows as 99% AI generated (obviously!) and the final draft 99% human…
So does it matter if I didn’t write every single sentence from scratch? To be honest, I don’t think it does. Let’s look at the world of newspapers, journalists have worked with editors and sub-editors and even headline writers for decades. And no one questions this. Not only that but researchers support authors, speechwriters support leaders, designers use software etc
We don’t judge people on the tools they use, we judge them on the value they create. In our book People First Internal Communication we talk about this being our Blockbuster moment. For way too long IC has been too focused on outputs, such as crafting and drafting content but now of course AI can help with a lot of this. So what business are we actually in?Blockbuster thought it was in the business of renting DVDs, but it was actually about convenient access to entertainment. And for me IC has always been about behaviour change.
So yes, if we believe our value is producing content, then we’re right to be worried by AI. But…. if our value is understanding people, shaping experiences, building trust, helping leaders communicate with authenticity and creating meaning during times of uncertainty and change, AI should excite us.
When William Caxton introduced the printing press to England in the fifteenth century, many of the specialist skills needed to make it work didn’t exist here. Printers and typesetters were recruited from mainland Europe and new capabilities and professions emerged. In short the value shifted, and the people who thrived were those who learned how to work with the new technology.
The printing press didn’t eliminate the need for communication, it transformed it. And AI is doing exactly the same thing.
So for me the risk isn’t that AI will make us worse writers, but that we mistake the tool for the thinking. We need to dial up our judgement, curiosity, creativity and humanity.
The future won’t belong to the people who refuse to use AI, and it definitely wont belong to the people who let AI do all of their thinking for them. It will belong to the people who understand what makes them valuable in the first place and use AI to amplify it.
For internal communication professionals, that feels like the challenge of our generation, and perhaps the opportunity too.
@Emma
We’d love to hear your thoughts and how you may or may not be using AI today – so get in touch!
