Everywhere you look, artificial intelligence is changing the way we work.

Organizations are using AI to automate tasks, answer questions, create content, analyze data, and improve efficiency. Some are embracing it enthusiastically. Others are trying to keep up. Either way, AI is no longer coming. It is here.

As someone who believes in innovation, I see tremendous value in AI and the opportunities it creates. However, I also believe there is a conversation that is not receiving enough attention.

As AI continues to evolve, exceptional customer service, emotional intelligence (EI), and people skills are becoming more important, not less.

In fact, they may become some of the most valuable skills an individual or organization can possess.

Organizations often rely heavily on data to evaluate performance, solve problems, and make decisions. Two of the most important forms of data are quantitative data and qualitative data. Quantitative data is the numerical side of information. It includes things like percentages, scores, productivity numbers, financial reports, wait times, turnover rates, and customer satisfaction scores. This type of data helps organizations understand what is happening. Qualitative data is the human side of information. It focuses on experiences, conversations, observations, feedback, behaviors, and perceptions. It helps organizations understand why something is happening by providing context behind the numbers (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Both forms of data are necessary because numbers alone rarely tell the full story. For example, an organization may notice lower productivity, declining customer satisfaction, increased turnover, or delays in service. The numbers clearly show there is a problem. What they do not automatically explain is what is causing the problem in the first place. That is where qualitative insight becomes critical.

Toxic leadership does not always present itself through obvious conflict or disruption. More often, it is embedded in everyday operations, in how work is assigned, how accountability is handled, and how decisions are made. It shows up when performance is uneven but goes unaddressed. When responsibility is quietly shifted rather than clearly owned. When structure exists on paper, but execution is inconsistent in practice. In some environments, the individuals hired to do the work are not the ones carrying it. Instead, reliable performers are repeatedly tasked with compensating for gaps, while others remain in place without delivering. Over time, additional layers are introduced, not to improve outcomes, but to maintain the appearance of productivity. These patterns are often overlooked because they do not immediately disrupt operations. But over time, they reshape culture, weaken trust, and compromise the organization’s ability to perform at a high level. A toxic leader is not simply someone who delegates or operates with authority. Effective leaders delegate with clarity, develop their teams, and solve problems at the root. Toxic leaders do something fundamentally different. They create environments where accountability is inconsistent, performance is misrepresented, and execution is dependent on a few rather than supported across the team. The distinction is clear. Delegation builds capacity. Toxicity redistributes responsibility without ownership.

There is a group in the workplace that is rarely discussed, yet widely experienced. They are not the leaders setting vision. They are not the operators executing critical work. They exist somewhere in between. And while they often present as highly engaged, helpful, and proactive, their primary function is not to produce outcomes. It is to appear necessary by redistributing, reframing, and inserting themselves into work that was already moving forward. A department misses key hiring targets, failing to properly screen and hire qualified candidates or conduct the necessary due diligence, yet spends its time capturing photos, posting updates, and curating moments that create the appearance of activity. A volunteer program struggles to operate effectively, yet its leader is frequently unavailable, taking extended breaks while core responsibilities go unmanaged. An employee under-delivers in their core role, but consistently volunteers to “support” work that was never assigned to them. A team struggles with execution, yet produces polished presentations and updates that signal progress without delivering results. Another inserts itself into workflows, creating additional steps, approvals, and checkpoints while its own responsibilities remain incomplete. At a broader level, this dynamic is also reflected in certain corporate functions that rely heavily on work produced at local levels to demonstrate activity. Rather than driving independent value, they aggregate, repackage, and present the efforts of others in ways that create the appearance of productivity or justify their role, while their own core responsibilities remain underdeveloped.

Organizations speak often about alignment, teamwork, and shared purpose. Mission statements emphasize collaboration. Core values highlight respect, integrity, and unity. On paper, everything is clear. In practice, something very different can take hold. There are workplaces where individuals are labeled as either trusted or problematic, where teams are elevated or dismissed, and where the same behavior is rewarded in one person and penalized in another. These are not isolated leadership missteps. They are indicators of a deeper psychological and organizational dynamic known as splitting. While splitting is often associated with deliberate manipulation by individuals who create division and distort information, in organizational settings it frequently becomes a broader systemic dynamic, reinforced by leadership behavior, communication patterns, and structural inconsistencies. Splitting is rarely named in professional environments, yet its impact is both visible and measurable.