Insights
Why does AI acceleration overload people, and what is done about it?
DIRECT ANSWER
When agents take over the routine, a person's workday does not empty; it condenses: what remains are decisions, approvals, exceptions and oversight, the most demanding parts of the work without the recovering routine that used to sit between them. If a process accelerates severalfold but the human role is left undesigned, decisions arrive at a pace no one sustains for long. This is decision fatigue in the AI transition, and it is the most common hidden cost of acceleration. The solution is not to slow the AI down but to design the human work with the same precision as the agents' work: size the approval work, bring sufficient context to the decisions and redesign the roles.
The role shift: from user to modeller and approver
In an agentic process the human role changes in two ways. As a modeller, the expert describes how the work is done correctly, and their expertise multiplies through the process. As an approver, they review and decide at the points designed for them. Both are more demanding and more valuable work than executing routine, but neither is grown into without support, which is why the role shift must be designed, not assumed.
Approval work must be sized like any other work
Approval points cannot be sprinkled across a process just in case. Every point is somebody's work, and too many of them produce a rubber stamp: an exhausted approver approves everything, and the oversight becomes nominal. At specification time, we calculate how many approvals actually fit in a role's day, and oversight is directed by risk classification to where it matters.
A decision without context is the heaviest decision
Much of the load of approval work comes not from the number of decisions but from uncertainty: the approver cannot see what the agent's proposal is based on. That is why the specification also defines what the approver is shown: where the data came from, which rules were applied and what is least certain. A justified proposal is fast to review; an unjustified one must either be investigated from scratch or approved blind.
Pace is a leadership question
An organisation can absorb change, but not an unlimited rate of change. Taking processes to production should be paced so that role changes settle before the next wave, and line managers need the means to recognise overload before it shows up as errors or departures. This is a core task of transformation leadership, not a soft extra.
Frequently asked questions
Q:Will this resolve itself as people get used to the new tools?
No, because it is not about tools but about the structure of the work. Getting used to badly designed approval work produces a rubber stamp, not a sustainable practice.
Q:How is overload recognised in time?
Approval work leaves a trail: handling times shortening across the board, exceptions disappearing and returns stopping are signs that review has turned into waving things through.
Q:Does this apply to leadership too?
Especially. When operational decisions accelerate, what escalates to leadership accelerates at the same rate, and leadership's own decision pace should be designed as part of the whole.