How to Win with AI
Decision 1: Posture
Decision 1: Posture
This is a strategic choice, not a technology decision.
By Sarah Elk, Chuck Whitten, Hernan Saenz, Gene Rapoport, Nicolas Bloch,
Pascal Gautheron, and Anne Hoecker
How to Win with AI
This is a strategic choice, not a technology decision.
By Sarah Elk, Chuck Whitten, Hernan Saenz, Gene Rapoport, Nicolas Bloch,
Pascal Gautheron, and Anne Hoecker
Every CEO needs to make a clear-eyed decision about where they stand on AI, not as a technology investment but as a strategic bet. It is not a question your CIO or CTO can answer for you. It is a question about what kind of company you intend to be in five years, and whether you are willing to make the commitments that future requires. The companies that are winning have made this decision explicitly, at the board level, and aligned their resources accordingly. The ones that are struggling have treated AI as an IT initiative and are now watching competitors pull away.
The wait-and-see position feels prudent. It rarely is. Every quarter spent waiting is a quarter in which your competitors are building data moats, developing software capability, and accumulating organizational learning that you will have to close the gap on later—at greater cost and under greater competitive pressure. AI is not a technology that rewards late adoption the way, say, cloud computing did. The advantage compounds from day one, and the structural gaps that open up between leaders and followers are not easily closed by writing a bigger check later.
One of the most uncomfortable truths for many CEOs is that the capability gap is not primarily a technology gap but a software development gap. Two decades of offshoring engineering talent and defaulting to SaaS vendors for every workflow have left most large enterprises without the internal capability to build and operate the agentic systems that now create competitive advantage. You can buy a model. You can buy a platform. What you cannot buy is the orchestration layer that ties your proprietary data, your workflows, and your agents together in a way unique to your business. That has to be built. And building it requires engineering talent and a development culture that most large enterprises have allowed to atrophy.
Closing that gap—between what you say and how you run the program—is the first and most important job of the CEO in an AI transformation.
There is also a dangerous confusion between activity and commitment. Many CEOs point to the number of AI pilots underway, the AI working group they have established, or the AI features they have enabled in their existing SaaS tools as evidence that they are moving forward. None of these things constitute a strategic posture. A strategic posture means you have made explicit choices about where AI will change the economics of your business, committed multiyear funding ahead of proven returns, and aligned your organizational structure, talent strategy, and governance model to those choices. Everything else is exploration, and exploration without commitment is just expensive learning.
Finally, posture is only meaningful if it is matched by execution. The most common failure mode is a CEO who makes a bold strategic declaration and then hands the program to a team that is funded, governed, and measured in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with that ambition. If you have declared yourself an AI leader but your funding model requires in-year ROI, your governance structure adds months to every decision, and your talent strategy relies primarily on external vendors, you have not made a strategic commitment. You have made a strategic statement. Closing that gap—between what you say and how you run the program—is the first and most important job of the CEO in an AI transformation.
Bradesco offers a useful illustration of what aligned execution and a deliberately built experience curve can unlock. Its first attempt at an agentic payments experience started with a few large, complex agents, and employee beta testing quickly surfaced that the design was too slow, too costly, and unable to scale safely. What mattered was not the failure, but that the team surfaced it early, was honest and clear-eyed about it, and redesigned the architecture rather than force a brittle solution into production.
The reset cost roughly five months, and it became the foundation on which everything that followed could be built. The bank is now running customer-facing AI inside several core banking moments at a scale of 22 million customers. None of that could have been attempted without the muscle and the trust built through the earlier, lower-stakes work. The CEOs who allow their organizations to test and pivot honestly on the first wave of agentic work are ready to win the second.