The Truth About Responsible Leadership Under Pressure

AI is changing the way we do business.
But the real challenge is not what the technology can do.
It is the decisions leaders make when profit, people and responsibility pull in different directions.

Let’s be honest.
Business is about making money.
Without profit, a business cannot survive, pay its people or invest in its future.

But when did profit become the only measure of whether a business decision is a good one?

It is a question worth asking as artificial intelligence changes the way companies operate.
Businesses are under pressure to move faster, cut costs and find new opportunities.
AI promises all three.
For some companies, it will open up new markets.
For others, it will change the jobs people do, or remove the need for certain roles altogether.

On 12 October 2026, the International Monetary Fund’s managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, warned that AI could affect around 40% of jobs globally and up to 60% in advanced economies.
That does not mean all these jobs will disappear.
Some will change, some will be enhanced by technology, and others may be eliminated. At the same time, investment in AI is helping support global economic growth.

There is an obvious tension here.
The technology creating economic opportunity could also have a significant impact on the people who make that economy work.

Microsoft president Brad Smith has also called for stronger global safeguards around AI, including independent evaluations, incident reporting and ways to shut down dangerous systems.
The conversation is no longer just about what AI can achieve.
It is about what happens when things go wrong, and who takes responsibility.

I have written before about the dangers of moving too quickly with AI, including in AI Leadership Strategy: 4 Reasons Why Speed Is a Trap and Artificial Intelligence in Business and Life: The Entrepreneur’s Practical Guide.

My concern is not that businesses are adopting AI.
They should be exploring what it can do.
My concern is that the pressure to keep up can become so great that leaders stop asking whether they are making the right decisions.

And that brings me to a much bigger question than AI.

The real test of responsible leadership is not what a company says when times are good.
It is what its leaders choose when doing the right thing becomes more expensive, slower or less attractive than doing what everyone else is doing.

When the paw-paw hits the fan

It is easy to talk about values when business is good.
It is easy to say people matter when the company is growing, customers are happy and the numbers are heading in the right direction.

The test comes when those values start costing you something.

Imagine you are running a business and discover that AI can do a significant portion of the work your team currently handles.
Your competitor adopts it, reduces costs and starts offering a cheaper service.
Your customers want the same savings from you.
Your margins are under pressure.

You have salaries to pay, a business to protect and a responsibility to keep it going.

What do you do?

Do you reduce headcount because it is the quickest way to improve profitability?
Do you invest in retraining people and use AI to develop better services?
Do you redesign certain roles, accept a slower return or find a combination of approaches?

There is no single answer that works for every business.
Some jobs will disappear.
Some businesses will have to make difficult decisions to survive.
Responsible leadership cannot mean ignoring commercial reality or promising to protect every role regardless of the consequences.

But there is a difference between making a difficult decision because it is necessary and making it because it is the easiest way to improve the numbers.

There is also a difference between considering the consequences of a decision and simply treating them as somebody else’s problem.

Just because you can do something does not automatically mean you should.
And just because everyone else is doing it does not make it the right decision for your business.

This is where responsible leadership becomes more than a statement on a website.
It becomes a choice.

Profit matters.
But what are we prepared to sacrifice for it?

I sometimes think we have become so focused on measuring success through growth, margins and returns that we do not spend enough time asking how those results are being achieved.

Of course, the numbers matter.
A business cannot ignore them and expect to survive.
Founders have a responsibility to their employees, customers, investors and the business itself.

But I do not believe every decision that improves the bottom line is automatically a good business decision.

Nor should we assume that because something is legal, or because the competition is doing it, it is necessarily the right thing to do.

Consider DBS Bank in Singapore.
In its 2025 Sustainability Report, DBS reported approximately SGD 1 billion in economic value from its data analytics and AI initiatives.
It also identified more than 11,000 employees in roles expected to be significantly transformed by AI, with 96% having started deeper upskilling or reskilling.

The bank describes efforts to help employees develop new skills and move into different roles, including transitions from customer service into relationship management and wealth planning.

These are company-reported figures.
They do not prove that every employee will retain a job or that every transition will succeed.
DBS has also reported reductions in headcount in some overseas markets following completed integration work, while automation and generative AI supported productivity.
That is an important part of the picture, too.

The point is not to present DBS as a perfect example.
It is to look at the choices a company makes when technology changes how work gets done.

Is the objective simply to capture the savings?
Or is there also a responsibility to help people adapt where that is possible?

Upskilling takes time and money.
It requires planning, and it may not be possible in every case.
But those are precisely the decisions leaders should be thinking about before introducing major changes, rather than only after people have been affected.

Technology decisions are also people decisions.
Treating them as separate issues does not make the consequences disappear.

You do not need to be a global corporation to make a different choice

It is easy to look at a company like DBS and say that large organisations have resources smaller businesses do not.
That is true.
A small business cannot always afford extensive retraining programmes or dedicated teams to oversee AI adoption.

But the principle still applies.

Vertis Media, a small UK marketing and advertising business, was included in a UK government case study on AI upskilling.

Rather than treating AI as a collection of experiments, the company developed skills in-house, integrated the technology into its workflows and used those capabilities to develop its services.
The case study attributes an estimated 20% increase in turnover to this broader development.
The company did not conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis, so the figure should be treated as a reported estimate rather than independently verified proof of financial impact.

What matters here is the approach.
AI was not viewed only as a way to reduce the cost of existing work.
It was also used to build capability and create opportunities.

That does not mean every small business can follow the same path, or that adopting AI will always protect jobs.
It does show why leaders should look beyond one obvious benefit: cutting costs.

What else could the technology help the business do?
Could it improve the service?
Could the team spend more time on work that customers value?
Could it open a new revenue stream?

These questions are commercially relevant, not just ethical ones.

A responsible approach does not mean choosing the most expensive option or refusing to change.
It means looking properly at the options before deciding that reducing people is the only way to improve the business.

There are companies that show profit does not have to be the only priority

The same principle applies beyond AI.

Patagonia is a useful example.
In 2022, its founder and family transferred ownership into a structure designed to protect the company’s purpose, with profits not reinvested in the business directed towards environmental work.
Patagonia remains a for-profit company.

Its model is unusual, and it is not something every business can or should copy.
But it demonstrates that a company’s purpose can be reflected in how it is owned and governed, rather than being limited to what it says in its marketing.

In its 2025 annual report, Costco reported average US hourly wages of approximately $32, or around $46 an hour when healthcare, retirement and other benefits were included. It also reported annual net sales of $269.9 billion and net income of $8.1 billion.

Costco offers a different example.

These results do not prove that employee investment alone explains Costco’s commercial performance.
Its scale, membership model, purchasing power and other factors all matter.
But the example challenges the assumption that a successful business must always push labour costs as low as possible.

Patagonia and Costco have very different business models and priorities.
Neither is perfect, and neither provides a formula that every business can simply copy.

Their value is in challenging the idea that there is only one way to succeed.

We should be asking more often whether treating people responsibly, investing in capability and building trust can be part of a commercially successful strategy – rather than automatically assuming these things stand in the way of profit.

Responsible leadership is not about being idealistic

I want to be clear about this.
Responsible leadership is not about being the company that makes the most expensive decision in the name of doing good.

If you are a founder, you have a responsibility to keep your business alive.
You need customers, revenue, cash flow and a model that works. If the business fails, you cannot look after your employees or deliver on your commitments.

But there is a difference between protecting the business and using the need to protect it to justify every decision.

There is a difference between following the market and allowing the market to decide your values for you.

If your competitors cut corners, must you do the same?
If other businesses adopt AI without properly considering its effect on customers or employees, is that a good enough reason to follow them?
If a decision delivers immediate savings but damages trust, service quality or the knowledge your business depends on, have you really improved the business?

Responsible leadership does not guarantee a better financial result every time.
Sometimes there will be a genuine trade-off.
Sometimes a decision will be unpopular.
Sometimes there will be no option that leaves everyone satisfied.

That is why leadership matters.

The job is not to avoid every difficult choice.
It is to understand the consequences, consider the alternatives, be honest about the trade-offs and take responsibility for the decision.

And there may be a commercial advantage in doing this well.
Businesses that develop their people, earn customer trust and think beyond immediate savings may be better placed to adapt over time.
It is not guaranteed, but it is worth taking seriously.

You do not have to sacrifice your business to lead responsibly.
But you do have to decide what you are not prepared to sacrifice simply to make the numbers look better.

Five questions worth asking before making the decision

As AI becomes part of everyday business, I think every founder and leader should be asking themselves five questions:

1. If this decision increases our profits, who might carry the cost?
   Have we considered the impact on employees, customers and the wider business, or only the immediate financial benefit?
2. If our competitors do something we believe is wrong, will we follow them because we are afraid of losing ground? Where is the line we are not prepared to cross?
3. When technology makes a consequential mistake, who is accountable?
   Can we explain who made the decision, what oversight existed and how we will put things right?
4. Are we using AI to build a better business, or simply to make the business we already have cheaper?
   Have we considered how it might improve our service, develop our people or create something new?
5. If our employees and customers could see how we made this decision, could we explain it honestly?
   Not just defend it legally, but explain why we believe it was the right thing to do.

None of these questions has an easy answer.
That is precisely why they are worth asking – before the decision is made, not after the damage has been done.

The choice belongs to us

AI will keep moving forward. Businesses will keep competing, and founders will keep facing difficult decisions about how to grow and remain profitable.

We cannot avoid every difficult choice.
We cannot promise that every job will remain unchanged or that every decision will satisfy every stakeholder.

But we can decide how we approach those choices, whose interests we consider and what we are not prepared to compromise.

For me, responsible leadership is not about having the perfect answer every time.
It is about being willing to ask the difficult questions, make the decision and take responsibility for what follows.

The world does not need businesses to stop pursuing profit.
It needs leaders who understand that making money and making responsible decisions should not be treated as mutually exclusive goals.

That is a challenge worth taking seriously, particularly for founders who have the opportunity to shape their businesses before habits become culture and culture becomes difficult to change.

Because when the paw-paw hits the fan, the values we put on our website will not make the decision for us.

We will.