91

News

Why are 80 percent of companies failing to benefit from AI? It’s about the people not the tech, says new study

Successful uptake of new technology is a matter of emotions — and with the vast majority of companies saying they’re failing to capitalise on its potential, managers need to know how to deal with them, say researchers from Aalto University.
Natalia Vuori
Natalia Vuori. Image: Jaakko Kahilaniemi / Aalto University

AI has the potential to enhance decision-making, spark innovation and help leaders boost employees’ productivity, according to recent research. Many large companies have invested accordingly, in the form of both funding and effort. Yet despite this, studies show that they are failing to achieve the expected benefits, with as many as 80 percent of companies reporting a failure to benefit from the new technology.

‘Often employees fail to embrace new AI and benefit from it, but we don’t really know why,’ says Assistant Professor Natalia Vuori from Aalto University. Our limited understanding stems partly from the tendency to study these failings as limitations of the technologies themselves, or from the perspective of users’ cognitive judgments about AI performance, she says.

‘What we learned is that success is not so much about technology and its capabilities, but about the different emotional and behavioural reactions employees develop towards AI — and how leaders can manage these reactions,” says Vuori. 

Her research team followed a consulting company of 600 employees for over a year as it attempted to develop and implement the use of a new artificial intelligence tool. The tool was supposed to collect employees’ digital footprints and map their skills and abilities, ultimately building a capabilities map of the company. The results were supposed to streamline the team selection process for consulting projects, and the whole experiment was, in fact, a pilot for AI software they hoped to offer their own customers.

After almost two years, the company buried the experiment — and the proposed product. So what happened?

It turns out, although some staff believed that the tool performed well and was very valuable, they were not comfortable with AI following their calendar notes, internal communications and daily dealings. As a result, employees either stopped providing information altogether, or they started manipulating the system by feeding it information they thought would benefit their career path. This led to the AI becoming increasingly inaccurate in its output, feeding a vicious cycle as users started losing faith in its abilities.

‘Leaders couldn’t understand why the AI usage was declining. They were taking a lot of action to promote the tools and so on, trying to explain how they use the data, but it didn’t help,’ says Vuori, who believes this case study reflects a common pattern when it comes to AI uptake, and tech adoption generally. 

The team is now collecting data on the use of Microsoft’s widely used Copilot AI software, which is so far yielding similar findings.

AI adoption

So what should leaders do?

Researchers found that people fell into the same four groups in terms of their reaction to the new technology. Distinguishing between cognitive trust; whether a person believes the technology performs well, and emotional trust; their feelings towards the system, the groups were: full trustfull distrustuncomfortable trust and blind trust.

People in the first group had high trust both on the cognitive and emotional level, whereas people in the second group scored low on both. Uncomfortable trust signified high cognitive trust but low emotional trust, and vice versa for blind trust.

The less people trusted the tool emotionally, the more they restricted, withdrew or manipulated their digital footprint, and it was particularly notable that this held true even if they had cognitive trust in the technology. 

The findings give companies the chance to strategise a more successful approach to AI uptake. 

“AI adoption isn’t just a technological challenge — it’s a leadership one. Success hinges on understanding trust and addressing emotions, and making employees feel excited about using and experimenting with AI,” says Vuori. “Without this human-centered approach, and strategies that are tailored to address the needs of each group, even the smartest AI will fail to deliver on its potential.”

The research findings were published in the Journal of Management Studies on 22 January:

  • Updated:
  • Published:
Share
URL copied!

Read more news

Two students and a professor sitting around a table, talking and looking at laptop screen.
Research & Art, Studies Published:

Call for doctoral student tutors, September 2025

Sign-up to be a tutor for new doctoral students as part of the Aalto Doctoral Orientation Days!
Abstract image of glowing teal shapes and pink blocks on a striped yellow and green surface, with a dark background.
Research & Art Published:

Researchers turn energy loss into a way of creating lossless photonics-based devices

Turning energy loss from a fatal flaw into a dial for fine-tuning new states of matter into existence could yield better laser, quantum and optical technology.
A person reads a book in front of a large illuminated 'A' sign.
Press releases Published:

Half of highly educated immigrants find employment through Espoo and Aalto’s collaboration

The exceptional employment outcomes are the result of collaboration, in which service design research has played a key role.
An illustrative figure comparing disease-induced immunity (left) and randomly distributed immunity (right) in the same network. Illustration: Jari Saramäki's research group, Aalto UIniversity.
Research & Art Published:

Herd immunity may not work how we think

A new study from researchers at Aalto University suggests that our picture of herd immunity may be incomplete — and that understanding how people are connected could be just as important as knowing how many are immune.