Bill Gates just released a nearly 6,000-word essay about how unprepared the world is for artificial intelligence. His conclusion: no one is addressing the challenge adequately, and no sufficient plan exists to deal with the threats and risks.
The Microsoft co-founder identifies risks to jobs, safety, and general well-being. He also says that AI can degrade people’s critical thinking skills, something that’s essential for navigating in today’s world. I’ve argued this for a while in my work and research on Experiential Intelligence, suggesting that human judgment is going to be the most valued ability as AI proliferates.
Gates’ solutions all require cooperation: taxing AI bots, reserving jobs for humans, and creating international regulation between the United States and China.
We mostly understand the individual, social, and global risks. But real collaboration is needed to sufficiently address what some see as existential challenges. And the world has been woefully poor at creating global solutions, whether for climate change or free trade. We have a hard enough time doing coming up with collaborative solutions within our own country.
So how do we do it?
The Future is Clear, And So Is the Broken Pattern
Scientists warned for decades that the Colorado River was overallocated and shrinking. The evidence has been public and clear. Yet today Lake Mead and Lake Powell, its two major reservoirs, recently reached their lowest levels on record.
Seven states spent more than three years trying to negotiate new rules. Then they missed a February 2026 deadline without reaching an agreement. In August, the federal government imposed its own framework and forced sharp cuts on several of the states that couldn’t come to their own agreement.
The Colorado River is just one example of a broader pattern. Solutions break down when solving a known problem that requires several impacted groups to give something up. We’ve seen it over and over again, which usually involves kicking the can down the road:
- Social Security. The retirement trust fund is projected to fall short in late 2032. Washington has known the numbers for decades, but every solution requires someone to pay more or receive less.
- Budget Deficit and National Debt. We’ve seen U.S. budget deficits for years with the national debt ballooning. Yet no real action has been taken to address a problem that will likely result in a significant economic shockwave.
- Antibiotic resistance. Scientists project as many as 39 million deaths from drug-resistant infections by 2050. Progress requires hospitals, drugmakers, and farms to act together, yet none wants to move first.
Why we wait, and what happens when we do
Having advised over 30 Fortune 1000 companies, I have watched the same pattern play out inside organizations. Defining strategy is relatively easy. And many companies have plenty of ideas. It’s executing on your strategies and opportunities when collaboration is required for successful implementation that’s the tough part.
Volkswagen, for example, watched Chinese electric-vehicle makers weaken its position for years. Its unions, the works council that includes members of the corporate board, and executives have struggled to find a meaningful response. Today, the company faces even steeper cuts than if it had addressed clearly visible issues before they became a crisis.
The incentives are similar in just about every case. Action creates costs that are immediately painful for one or more key stakeholders. When you delay or defer a tough decision, it spreads pushes pain into the future.
So, each rational participant waits for another to move first or make the most significant concessions. Economists describe the pattern as a collective action problem.
But like I tell my clients, doing nothing is still a conscious strategy. It’s a choice to stand still. It’s a decision to react and respond rather than become a proactive driver of change.
What Leaders Can Do
Leaders need to reframe the challenge so moving first no longer means becoming disadvantaged.
Three actions can help:
-
- Have all stakeholders put something on the table. Bring the people who benefit from the decision together with those who will bear the cost, then define what each group will contribute or give up. For example, if a new customer strategy requires operations to add staff, sales might accept a phased rollout while finance funds a 90-day pilot.
- Turn the larger agreement into a small, joint test. Ask the stakeholders to commit to one reversible step with a clear deadline and measures of success. Instead of redesigning an entire operating model, for example, have two functions test a new way of working for 30 days, evaluate the results, and then decide whether to scale it.
- Decide who will break the tie. Agree in advance on the decision-maker, the criteria to use, and the date when they will step in if the group remains stuck. If product and sales cannot agree on priorities by Friday, for example, the business unit leader makes the call using customer impact and revenue criteria.
The new AI risk reflets an old human problem. Recognizing a crisis together doesn’t guarantee a collective solution.
This week, identify one slow-moving problem your team has watched for months without actually addressing. Look at what’s really holding you back.
A better forecast clarifies the threat. Better leadership creates collaborative solutions.
I publish Leapfrogging the Headlines to help leaders cut through the noise, gain clarity on what’s happening, and make smarter decisions. Subscribe below to get each issue delivered free.
Join 30,000+ other leaders