C-Suite and VP-Level are at odds on Gen AI

New research from Publicis Sapient and iResearch has found a disconnect between executives and their leading managers relating to GenAI. While costs are already seen as a pain-point by 27% of leaders, leading them to prioritise specific use cases for the technology, vice presidents are keen to make the most of cross-functional AI.

The present trajectory of artificial intelligence – investment, adoption, and results – remains heavily hyped, with thought-leadership still regularly suggesting the technology is going to become an integral part of every business. However, with businesses still unable to find the best use cases for it, the global economy far from a state of strength, and the costs of implementing GenAI on the rise, many business leaders are struggling to justify it as an ongoing expense.

A new study from Publicis Sapient and iResearch, this is putting the relationship between corporate executives and their vice presidents (the layer of management which reports directly to CEOs and CFOs) under strain. Speaking to respondents in 12 countries across North America, Europe, Middle East and Asia Pacific, the researchers found that return on investment (ROI) is more important than ever for the future of GenAI in business – with costs already a pain point for 27% of executive respondents. And this may cause particular friction, because while 37% of firms have a dedicated budget, two-thirds of vice presidents have yet to figure out a way to measure the success of their GenAI projects.

This lack of communication seems to be causing a rapid decline in the importance attributed to GenAI is resulting in executives limiting the areas in which they see value in investment. The C-suite is focused on more-visible use cases in customer experience, service and sales. By contrast, VPs see opportunities across functional areas, including within operations, HR and finance.

Illustrating this, the researchers examined 10 functional areas, and found a stark divide between the C-suite and V-suite. While more than 50% of C-suite respondents said GenAI would be “extremely important” for customer service, customer experience and sales over the next three years – all areas in which direct boosts to revenue to could easily be discerned, that enthusiasm fell dramatically in regards to using GenAI for finance, HR and operations. There, fewer than 20% saw it as useful.

For V-suite respondents, meanwhile, enthusiasm was broadly consistent across all 10 categories. Only HR saw fewer than 30% of the professionals identify GenAI as “extremely important”, while IT was favoured as the most important front by almost 40% of respondents.

Another reason for this disconnect may be the differing views of C-suite and V-suite on the perceived risks.

A 51% majority of C-level respondents were more concerned about the risk and ethics of Gen AI than other emerging technologies, compared to just 23% of the V-level. Aside from risks to personal data and privacy that AI presents, or the generation of large amounts of output which can be hard to check for inaccuracies, there are also operational risks to consider, such “shadow IT,” where different sections of the business create their own IT policy, leaving the organisation exposed to reputational, regulatory and data security risks. Secondly, entities risk duplicating effort as different teams repeat projects colleagues have already attempted.

Considering the remit of C-suite respondents, which might be more organisation-wide than the V-suite, this could mean risk is less of a factor in the thinking of the latter – further opening up a gap between the two. Even so, more than 99% of all respondents felt their organisations

Daniel Liebermann, co-author and managing director at Publicis Sapient, said, “It’s as hard for leaders to learn how individuals within their organization are using ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot as it is to understand how they’re using the internet. Just like staking out your first e-commerce position 25 years ago, that’s likely to involve some failures. But harnessing the power of a bottom-up approach requires confidence, courage, risk tolerance and people skills.”