2 days ago
Why leaders must learn to see beyond the tech hype
AT THIS year's International Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit in Paris, one thing was evident: the pace of technological change is accelerating, but our ability to make informed, strategic decisions about it is lagging behind.
This dissonance is already playing out across organisations. Nearly half of employees who use generative AI at work do so through tools that are officially banned by their companies. It's a paradox that speaks volumes, as leaders remain unsure of how to govern tools their employees find valuable.
Yet decision-making around technology is still too often driven by instinct, fear of falling behind, or a fixation on what is new rather than what is necessary. Leaders are encouraged to adopt early, automate more and digitise faster. What they are rarely asked to consider is: Where is the real value being created, and what trade-offs come with it?
Recent research conducted by Essec Business School seeks to bring greater structure to this uncertainty. By analysing the impact of six emerging technologies (ranging from generative and descriptive AI to blockchain, quantum computing, robotics, and renewable energy) across 11 key economic sectors, the study introduces a matrix-style framework for understanding where genuine disruption is unfolding. It draws on more than 300 global industry publications, academic papers, patent activity, and the sentiments of 1,000 professionals across industries, offering a data-driven lens to look past the noise.
Technologies that drive value
Some of the findings are intuitive. Others are deeply revealing. The most striking is the dominance of generative AI, ranked highest in perceived disruption with a score of 89.45 out of 100, reflecting its explosive growth in academic and patent literature as well as industry excitement. But despite its dominance in headlines and boardroom conversations, a closer look reveals that it remains early-stage in implementation. Many firms are still experimenting, and concerns about data governance, content quality and long-term return on investment remain unresolved.
By contrast, descriptive AI, encompassing machine learning, analytics, and pattern recognition, received lower disruption scores (49.04 over 100) but is far more integrated into day-to-day operations. It powers logistics, customer segmentation, predictive maintenance and more. Its relative invisibility in public debate belies its foundational role in business value creation.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
This divergence between attention and adoption invites a more careful reading of what 'disruption' really means. Not all technologies that dominate the conversation are the ones driving value.
This becomes even clearer when looking at sectoral variation. Renewable energy and storage, for instance, is championed most strongly not by the energy sector, but by real estate professionals, who view it as both a sustainability imperative and a means of future-proofing asset. An overwhelming 91.1 per cent of real estate professionals express confidence in its value. This enthusiasm is shaped by both external forces – such as sustainability mandates and investor expectations – and internal shifts, such as tenant demand for greener buildings.
Other sectors show more ambivalence. The luxury industry, for example, is split on generative AI. Some view it as a creative tool that can extend brand expression; others see it as a threat to authenticity and craftsmanship. Here, the disruption is as much cultural as it is technological.
Meanwhile, in automotive, blockchain continues to underwhelm. Despite years of hype around decentralised mobility and supply chain transparency, over 22 per cent of respondents in this sector expressed negative sentiment towards blockchain's potential. Adoption has remained limited, and its strategic relevance is being reassessed.
These diverging sectoral responses underscore a crucial truth: no technology is universally applicable. Context is everything. A tool that may be transformative in one sector may be irrelevant or even counterproductive in another. Yet many transformation strategies still rely on blanket thinking, assuming that what works for one industry or geography must work for all.
These nuances matter. They show that disruption does not follow a single path. Technologies gain or lose traction based on sector-specific conditions: regulatory frameworks, cost structures, workforce readiness and even consumer psychology.
This is why a shift in mindset is needed. Leaders must move beyond digital fluency – being able to talk about technology – towards digital discernment: the ability to evaluate technologies critically, in relation to business needs, strategic goals and sectoral realities. Before asking how a technology works or how fast to deploy it, leaders must first ask why it matters and whether it aligns with what their organisation is trying to achieve.
Such thinking is particularly important in economies like that of Singapore, where digital transformation is not just a business priority, but a national agenda. The Smart Nation initiative has placed Singapore at the forefront of global digital experimentation, from mobility to health and finance. But with ambition must come rigour. Calculated investment, guided by both evidence and sectoral insight, will be key to ensuring Singapore's technology ecosystem remains not just advanced, but resilient.
Energy: bottleneck to innovation
One of the more sobering insights from the Essec research is that energy may soon become a bottleneck to innovation. Many of the most promising technologies, especially those driven by AI and quantum computing, are also among the most resource-intensive. In Singapore's compact, urbanised economy, energy efficiency and infrastructure capacity will play an increasingly central role in determining what kinds of innovation can be scaled sustainably. These are strategic considerations that must be addressed now, not retrofitted later.
None of this is to suggest that technology should be approached with fear. On the contrary, innovation holds immense potential to solve the world's most pressing challenges, from climate change to healthcare access and economic inclusion. But realising that potential depends on leadership – not just at the policy level, but within companies, institutions and communities. It calls for decision-makers who are not only open to change, but capable of navigating its complexity with maturity and foresight.
Ultimately, the goal is not to win the race for adoption. It is to ensure that the technologies we choose to invest in serve the long-term needs of people, businesses and society. The leaders who will thrive in this new era will not be those chasing the next big thing, but those asking the right questions: questions about purpose, fit, readiness and impact.
Understanding what's possible is no longer enough. The future belongs to those who can discern what is truly valuable.
Both writers are from the Essec Business School. Jan Ondrus, a professor of information systems, heads the Essec Digital Disruption Chair, and Jeremy Beaufils is the executive director of the Essec Digital Disruption Chair.
