by Joy Maitland | Aug 5, 2026 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, Human Resources (HR), Leadership Development, Managing Directors, Middle Managers, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members, Senior Managers, Women Leaders
Artificial intelligence isn’t making universities less relevant. It is forcing us to rediscover what higher education was always supposed to achieve.
Several years ago, inemmo was commissioned by a UK university to investigate a growing concern.
An increasing number of students were leaving during, or shortly after, their first year.
The university wanted to understand why.
What began as a study into student retention became something much more significant.
As we listened to students describe their experiences, it became clear that they weren’t simply questioning university.
They were questioning value.
Then one student said something that has stayed with me ever since.
“I’m only staying because I need the piece of paper.”
At the time, it sounded unsettling.
Today, it sounds remarkably prophetic.
They Weren’t Rejecting Education
As the interviews progressed, a clear picture began to emerge.
Long before ChatGPT entered everyday conversation, students were already asking questions that feel strikingly relevant today.
“Why am I paying to sit in lectures when I can learn much of this online?”
Some described watching YouTube tutorials that explained concepts more clearly than the lectures they had attended earlier that day.
Others spoke about reading research papers directly or completing specialist online courses.
Several questioned whether they would be better off gaining practical experience while avoiding years of student debt.
It would have been easy to conclude that students no longer valued learning.
The opposite was true.
They valued learning enormously.
What they questioned was where learning created its greatest value.
Perhaps the most surprising finding was not what they wanted to learn.
It was who they wanted to learn from.
Students repeatedly asked for greater exposure to people who had actually done the work.
People who had built businesses.
Led organisations.
Designed products.
Negotiated difficult decisions.
Made mistakes.
Recovered.
Started again.
They respected academic expertise.
However, what they were really asking for wasn’t more information.
It was interpretation.
Not another theory.
But what happened when that theory collided with reality.
Not simply what worked.
But why it worked.
When it failed.
What nobody anticipated.
And what they would do differently today.
One student captured it perfectly.
“Teach me what happened when the theory met reality.”
Perhaps, without realising it, they were asking for something that cannot simply be downloaded.
Judgement.
The Faculty Saw It Too
Interestingly, many faculty members recognised similar challenges.
Several spoke openly about becoming frustrated with traditional lecture-based teaching.
They wanted to spend less time delivering information and more time helping students think critically, solve problems, challenge assumptions and prepare for professional life.
Looking back, perhaps both students and academics had recognised something the rest of us had not.
The real value of higher education was never simply information.
It was transformation.
Information changes what people know.
Education changes how people think.
Those are not the same thing.
Then AI Changed the Conversation
When artificial intelligence entered everyday life, many predicted it would transform education.
Perhaps it has done something even more significant.
It has exposed a question we should have been asking all along.
If universities are no longer competing on access to information…
…where does their greatest value now lie?
Knowledge has become increasingly accessible.
The scarce resource is something altogether different.
Judgement.
Discernment.
Curiosity.
Perspective.
The ability to recognise nuance.
The wisdom to know when artificial intelligence is wrong.
The confidence to make decisions when there is no obvious answer.
These qualities cannot simply be downloaded.
They have to be developed.
Perhaps We’ve Been Measuring Different Things
To be fair, many employers recognised this long before artificial intelligence arrived.
Academic qualifications may open the door, but they have rarely secured the job on their own.
For many years, organisations have increasingly relied on competency-based interviews, assessment centres, case studies and psychometric assessments to understand how candidates think, solve problems and work with others.
Employers have long understood that knowledge alone is not enough.
Capability matters.
What artificial intelligence changes is not the importance of capability.
It changes the relative value of knowledge.
As information becomes easier to access, the ability to interpret it, question it and apply it wisely becomes even more valuable.
Perhaps that is where higher education and employment are beginning to converge.
Universities have traditionally excelled at developing knowledge.
Employers increasingly seek judgement, adaptability, collaboration and the ability to apply that knowledge in unfamiliar situations.
The challenge for the future may not be choosing one over the other.
It may be integrating both more effectively.
The University of the Future
Universities have survived wars.
Economic crises.
Political upheaval.
Industrial revolutions.
They will adapt to artificial intelligence too.
If anything, they may become more important than ever.
But perhaps their purpose will become clearer.
The institutions that thrive may not be those with the biggest libraries or the longest reading lists.
They may be those that become the world’s greatest developers of judgement.
Places where academic rigour is strengthened by practical experience.
Where researchers work alongside entrepreneurs.
Engineers alongside psychologists.
Clinicians alongside business leaders.
Military officers alongside behavioural scientists.
Not because theory has become less valuable.
But because theory gains meaning when it meets reality.
Perhaps universities have never simply been in the knowledge business.
Knowledge has always been the starting point.
Transformation has always been the destination.
Helping people think more clearly.
Question more deeply.
Judge more wisely.
Act more responsibly.
Artificial intelligence has not diminished the importance of higher education.
If anything, it has reminded us why it matters.
Because information can now be found almost anywhere.
Judgement cannot.
Insight: Artificial intelligence has not diminished the importance of education. It has reminded us what education has always been about. In a world where information is abundant, the institutions that create the greatest value will be those that develop judgement, curiosity, adaptability and the confidence to navigate problems that have no textbook answer.
Leadership Question
If information has become abundant, what is the one capability every graduate should possess before entering the workplace?
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
The future of jobs: World Economic Forum
by Atiya Sheikh | Aug 5, 2026 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, Human Resources (HR), Leadership Development, Managing Directors, Middle Managers, News & Articles, Senior Managers, Women Leaders
What one business leader’s refusal to make an easy profit teaches us about culture, trust and long-term success.
Imagine increasing the price of every product in your business by just 3%.
Most customers probably wouldn’t notice.
Your profits would rise almost overnight.
When the idea was suggested to Costco founder Jim Sinegal, he refused. He famously described it as “the business equivalent of taking heroin.”
At first glance, it seems an extraordinary comparison. However, what followed revealed a much bigger leadership principle.
After all, what harm could a modest price increase really do?
The answer had very little to do with pricing.
It had everything to do with culture.
The Decision Was Bigger Than the Numbers
On paper, the decision seemed straightforward.
A small increase in prices would have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in additional profit. Consequently, many businesses would have viewed it as sound commercial judgement.
Instead, Sinegal saw something very different.
He understood that Costco’s success had never been built solely on low prices. It had been built on something far more valuable: trust.
Customers believed Costco would always act in their long-term interest.
The moment that principle became negotiable, Costco itself would begin to change.
Not overnight.
Not dramatically.
But gradually.
That gradual drift is perhaps the greatest danger.
Organisations Rarely Drift Overnight
Most organisations do not lose their culture because of one catastrophic decision.
They lose it through a series of small compromises that slowly become normal.
“We’ll make an exception this time.”
“No one will notice.”
“It’s only temporary.”
“We’ll put it right next quarter.”
Individually, these decisions seem insignificant. Collectively, however, they redefine what the organisation is prepared to accept.
Over time, the exception becomes the expectation.
The compromise becomes the culture.
Leadership Is Often Tested in the Small Decisions
Leaders rarely wake up intending to weaken their culture.
More often, they face pressure.
Commercial pressure.
Operational pressure.
Time pressure.
As a result, the temptation is understandable.
A small shortcut.
A slightly lower standard.
A decision that delivers today’s result while quietly borrowing against tomorrow’s reputation.
The difficulty is that culture does not change through mission statements.
It changes through repeated decisions.
People pay far less attention to what leaders say than to what leaders consistently tolerate.
The Hidden Cost of Leadership Compromises
Insight: One of the most remarkable aspects of the Costco story is that the decision was not driven by what the company could do. It was driven by what it believed it should do.
That distinction matters.
Many leadership decisions are not constrained by capability.
They are constrained by values.
The strongest leaders recognise that protecting trust sometimes requires turning down opportunities that appear attractive in the short term.
Because trust, once compromised, is rarely restored through a single decision.
It is rebuilt one decision at a time.
Insight: Organisations rarely lose their way through one major decision. They lose it through a series of small compromises that gradually become acceptable.
Costco’s decision reminds us that sustainable success is rarely built by extracting the maximum value from every opportunity.
Instead, organisations build sustainable success by protecting the principles that caused people to trust them in the first place.
Because culture is not defined by the decisions leaders celebrate.
It is defined by the compromises they refuse to make.
The most damaging leadership compromises are rarely dramatic. They become visible only after small decisions accumulate over time.
Leadership Question
What is your organisation normalising today that would once have been unacceptable?
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
Business equivalent of taking heroin’: Why Costco refuses to raise prices even if no one will notice
by Joy Maitland | Mar 4, 2026 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, Leadership Development, Managing Directors, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members
Alignment is not created by agreement but by honest engagement.
Leadership teams often appear aligned on the surface. Meetings run smoothly and decisions conclude with agreement. Yet the effectiveness of a leadership team is often shaped by the conversations it quietly avoids.
Many leadership teams appear harmonious.
Meetings run smoothly. Discussions remain respectful. Decisions often conclude with apparent consensus.
On the surface, everything looks constructive.
However, a different dynamic sometimes sits beneath that harmony.
Certain issues rarely surface in discussion. Tensions between functions remain unspoken. Meanwhile, senior voices often go unchallenged even when others quietly disagree.
In most cases, this does not happen because leaders lack integrity. Instead, it happens because people want to maintain collegiality and avoid unnecessary friction.
Nevertheless, avoidance carries a cost.
Insight: Leadership teams rarely fail because they disagree too much. They fail because they disagree too little.
When teams avoid difficult conversations, uncertainty spreads quietly through the organisation. Different groups interpret silence in different ways. As a result, assumptions begin to replace clarity.
Over time, unresolved tensions grow harder to address.
Meanwhile, the strongest leadership teams operate differently. They surface disagreement early. They question ideas openly. In addition, they test assumptions before decisions become commitments.
Importantly, these conversations do not create hostility. Instead, they create clarity.
Honest discussion builds a deeper form of trust. People gain confidence that difficult issues will not remain hidden. Consequently, alignment becomes stronger rather than weaker.
In practice, disagreement is not the real risk. Avoidance is.
Leadership teams rarely struggle because debate becomes too intense. More often, they struggle because politeness replaces honesty.
Alignment does not emerge from constant agreement. It emerges from the willingness to engage with difficult questions directly.
Leadership Question: What conversation is your leadership team avoiding right now?
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
by Joy Maitland | Mar 4, 2026 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members, Senior Managers
Why clarity about decision ownership often matters more than the volume of available data.
When uncertainty increases, many organisations instinctively seek more information before acting. Analysis expands, reports multiply, and leaders wait for greater clarity. Yet in competitive environments, advantage often belongs to organisations designed to move sooner.
When markets become uncertain, leaders often respond by gathering more information.
- More analysis.
- More reports.
- More meetings to review the findings.
The intention is understandable. Leaders want confidence before committing to action.
Yet in rapidly changing environments, waiting for perfect information can quietly become a form of hesitation.
Insight: In uncertain environments, advantage goes to organisations that decide earlier.
Some organisations move faster not because they are reckless, but because their decision structures are clear.
- People know who owns which decisions.
- Authority is visible.
- Accountability is understood.
As a result, action follows insight quickly.
By contrast, many organisations unintentionally slow themselves down through structural complexity.
Decisions move through multiple layers of approval. Teams hesitate to act without consensus. Escalation becomes the default response to uncertainty.
Each step appears sensible on its own. Yet together they create hesitation.
Opportunities are analysed rather than seized. Initiatives wait for alignment that never fully arrives.
Speed in leadership does not mean rushing. It means removing unnecessary distance between information and action.
Leaders who strengthen decision velocity ask a few simple but powerful questions.
- Who owns the decision?
- What level of information is sufficient to act?
- Which approvals genuinely add value?
When these answers become clear, organisations regain momentum.
In uncertain environments, clarity of authority often matters more than perfect data.
Leadership Question: Which decisions in your organisation take longer than they should?
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
