Will organisations learn or be programmed in the future?

Are we designing smarter organisations or just more efficient machines?

The day after I published my last newsletter on Living Intelligence, I encountered an article by Scott Belsky that challenged my assumptions about where AI is truly taking organisations. His piece delves into Cognition-Driven Companies (Cognicos)—a future where AI reasoning engines steer organisations, shaping them as computational minds rather than traditional companies.

Even though I don’t entirely agree with this vision, it’s worth checking out his perspective. It’s a powerful way to challenge my thinking and make me realise something important about bias.

My entire piece was written from a perspective that I lean towards—or at least hope for. However, when we discuss the future, we can’t limit ourselves to just one. We must delve into multiple futures. This is the crux of Futures Literacy, a concept championed by UNESCO and futurists globally. One of the most powerful tools for this is managing Polarities, a concept developed by Barry Johnson. Instead of framing choices as either/or, we must learn to hold two opposing ideas simultaneously and navigate the tension between them.

Reading Scott’s piece, I saw five polarities emerging—five fundamental tensions shaping how organisations will evolve in the age of AI.

Let’s explore them:

The Structure of Intelligence: Emergent vs. Engineered

The first polarity is between emergent and engineered intelligence. Living Intelligence sees intelligence as something that emerges organically, shaped by interactions between humans, AI, and the environment. It is unpredictable, fluid, and continuously evolving. Cognicos, on the other hand, takes a different stance—intelligence should be structured, built into an organisation’s core, and executed with precision by AI-driven reasoning engines. Instead of waiting for intelligence to emerge, it should be designed, optimised, and computed.

This raises an important question: should intelligence be cultivated like an ecosystem, adapting over time, or should it be architected and structured for efficiency and control? Can an organisation truly function like an organic system, or does it need a level of engineered reasoning to operate effectively at scale?

The Role of Humans: Architects vs. Operators

The second polarity revolves around the role of humans in AI-driven organisations. Living Intelligence suggests that humans act as curators and facilitators of intelligence, working alongside AI to shape and refine decisions. Human judgment remains central, and AI serves as a thinking partner rather than a decision-maker. Cognicos, on the other hand, propose a future where humans become stewards of AI logic—governing the processes, ensuring compliance, and managing the objectives AI must follow. Humans shift from active decision-makers to overseers, ensuring AI systems align with business values and goals.

This is where Scott and I agree the most. AI’s increasing role in decision-making doesn’t mean humans should be removed—it means we need a new kind of leadership. Humans must govern AI-driven reasoning models, ensuring they align with strategy, ethics, and culture. The role of a leader shifts from making every decision to orchestrating intelligence across AI, data, and people. This new leadership model is not about being more strategic or more passive, but about being more empowered and inspired. Do leaders become AI facilitators, or do they still drive the core vision? The answer lies in the balance we strike.

Organisational Flexibility: Networked vs. Rule-Based

The third polarity explores how intelligence is structured within organisations—whether it should be built as adaptive networks or rule-based systems. Living Intelligence argues that organisations should function like living ecosystems, where intelligence flows across networks, learning and evolving dynamically in response to changing conditions.

Cognicos, in contrast, propose a model in which AI enforces clear rules, ensuring alignment with objectives, ethical principles, and regulatory requirements. AI acts as a governing force, running structured decision layers where processes are optimised and executed in a controlled manner. While it makes sense in theory, will leaders embrace an AI-governed model, or will they resist handing over too much control?

This polarity exposes one of the biggest paradoxes in AI-driven organisations: rules provide consistency, but adaptability enables resilience. Can intelligence be both structured and fluid? Can an organisation be simultaneously governed by clear AI-driven rules while still evolving in response to its environment? Do we need a new model—one that blends adaptability with governance, structure with emergence? If we over-regulate intelligence, do we risk suffocating innovation? And if we make intelligence too fluid, do we lose the ability to scale purposefully?

Competitive Advantage: Emergent Learning vs. AI Efficiency

The fourth polarity challenges how we define competitive advantage in the AI era. Living Intelligence sees competition as a function of an organisation’s ability to sense, learn, and evolve faster than others. The companies that master emergent intelligence—continuously adapting to new insights—will lead. Cognicos, however, argue that competitive advantage will no longer come from learning, but from the ability to compute and execute decisions faster than competitors. The companies that refine their AI inference models most efficiently will dominate.

But this raises a deeper tension: does pure efficiency create real differentiation? If every company optimises for speed and computation, then what ultimately sets them apart? Could the next competitive advantage come not from who optimises the best, but from who dares to disrupt AI’s logic itself?

Will competitive advantage in AI-driven organisations come from refining algorithms, or from something more—such as the ability to continuously redefine their value and innovate in unexpected ways?

Does the ability to compute faster truly make companies more competitive, or does it just level the playing field? If every organisation is operating at peak efficiency, does that mean breakthroughs will come from those who choose not to optimise in conventional ways?

The Future of Innovation: Creativity vs. Computation

The fifth polarity focuses on the future of innovation—whether breakthroughs come from creativity or computation. Living Intelligence suggests that innovation happens when intelligence collides in unpredictable ways. Serendipity, intuition, and creative thinking drive breakthroughs, and AI serves as a tool to enhance these human capabilities. Cognicos suggest that AI-driven inference models will increasingly generate optimal solutions, iterating and refining ideas in ways humans cannot match.

If AI can run billions of simulations, explore possibilities at scale, and test solutions in real time, does human creativity still have a place? Is innovation something that emerges through chaos and intuition, or can it be computed precisely? What is left for us to contribute if AI can generate ideas that outperform human thinking?

Navigating the intelligence divide

Scott’s article reminded me that when we think about the future, we often fall into cognitive traps—assuming that one approach will “win” while the other fades. But the reality is that both sides of these polarities will shape the next era of business.

I don’t believe the future will be one or the other—but a blend of perspectives. The most successful organisations won’t simply choose between AI-driven reasoning models and emergent intelligence; they will learn to integrate both. Those that thrive will be the ones that design intelligence—not as a rigid structure or an uncontrolled network, but as a dynamic system capable of adapting, computing, and evolving all at once.

The future won’t belong to those who compute the fastest or adapt the most—it will belong to those who design intelligence itself. Are we ready for that responsibility?

I would love to hear your take. Where do you see these tensions playing out in your industry?