Tool Fluency Is Not Leadership
What We Really Owe the Next Generation
There is a question I keep returning to, and it feels especially relevant ahead of World Youth Skills Day on 15th July. What do we actually owe the next generation of leaders? Is it enough to hand them better tools, faster systems, and a working knowledge of AI? Or do we also owe them something harder and less comfortable: the chance to learn how to think?
I believe we owe them both, and that the second part is in serious danger of being quietly neglected.
The Apprentice Gap
In Enhanced Leadership, I write about what I call the Apprentice Gap. This is the point at which we automate away so much of the routine work that used to serve as the training ground for junior people. The note-taking, the first draft, the screenshots, the sitting in silence in a room where decisions are being made. None of that was glamorous. But it was formative.
Those experiences taught people how organisations actually work. How decisions get made under pressure. Why context matters more than the process written on paper. If we remove all of that without being deliberate about what replaces it, we risk producing people who are technically capable but tactically shallow. They can use the tool, but they have not yet developed the judgement to know when the tool is needed, or when to override it.
That distinction matters enormously, and I do not think the leadership community is talking about it clearly enough.
Career Stage, Not Age Category
Before going further, it is worth addressing something that can derail this conversation quickly. Whenever we talk about developing younger people, there is a pull towards stereotyping. Gen Z wants this. Millennials are like that. Before long, we are talking in slogans rather than paying attention to actual people.
I had a conversation with Tamara Miles on the podcast last year that stuck with me.
Her point, grounded in research, was that what matters most to people shifts depending on where they are in their career, not simply how old they are. Her framework of community, contribution, and challenge offers a much more useful lens than generational labels. Someone early in their career is usually most hungry for challenge, because that is what signals they are trusted and taken seriously. Someone further along may be more focused on contribution and legacy. Neither is absolute.
This matters because when we stop assuming and start noticing, we become better leaders. The minute we generalise based on age, we are making things easier for ourselves and poorer for the people we are supposed to be developing.
Agency Is Not a Token
Fred Miller raised a related point when he appeared on the podcast.
The difference between someone having agency and simply being given permission to act. You cannot hand someone agency as though it is a gift card. Your job as a leader is to create the conditions where people can actually use it.
That means clear guardrails, yes. But it also means not burying every small decision under layers of approval. If every judgement call has to be checked, corrected, and delayed by three levels of management, you are not building capability. You are training dependence. And a generation that arrives expecting to participate, to be developed, and to be taken seriously from day one will not stay in an organisation that treats them like a liability to be managed.
That is not entitlement. That is a reasonable expectation of a workplace that takes development seriously.
The Real Question for AI-Enabled Workplaces
Here is where I think the conversation gets difficult in a useful way. In an AI-enabled workplace, we have to be far more deliberate about learning experiences than previous generations were. The old model largely relied on osmosis. You sat near enough to the action, you absorbed how things worked, and gradually you developed judgement. It was rarely intentional, but it worked.
Now, if the machine does the note-taking, who learns by paying attention? If AI drafts the first version of everything, what does the junior person learn by doing? If systems handle scheduling, routine communication, and follow-up, how does someone learn to hold a conversation, read a room, weigh competing priorities, and make a decent call when the answer is not obvious?
These are not rhetorical questions. They are the real design challenge of leadership development right now. The answer is not to slow down AI adoption. The answer is to be intentional about what we build in its place. As I note in Enhanced Leadership, this might mean inviting junior colleagues into the room not to take notes, but to observe the decision-making process. It means narrating your thinking rather than just presenting your conclusions. It means externalising wisdom rather than assuming it will be absorbed by proximity.
What Leaders Should Do Differently
The practical implication is straightforward, even if it takes effort. Audit your team’s development experiences. Not just the formal training, but the informal, daily moments where someone could be learning something real.
Ask yourself: are people being given challenge with appropriate support, as Tamara’s framework suggests? Or are they left to sink or swim, or alternatively, so insulated from real decisions that they never have to exercise any judgement at all?
Ask whether your use of AI tools is removing friction in a way that also removes learning. If so, what are you building in to replace that? Are your senior people visible in the way Fred described: showing what good looks like, rather than hiding behind emails and back-to-back meetings?
And ask honestly whether you are generalising when you should be observing. What stage is this person actually at? What would genuinely stretch them right now, without breaking them?
A Note for Coaches
If you work with leaders who are responsible for developing others, this is fertile ground. The question is rarely whether a leader cares about their team’s growth. Most do. The more useful question is whether their instincts about development have kept pace with how the workplace is actually changing.
Watch for leaders who default to the old osmosis model and are vaguely disappointed that it does not seem to be working any more. Help them see that the model itself has changed, not the people. The deliberate creation of learning experiences is now a leadership skill in its own right. Help them design for it rather than assume it will happen naturally.
Tool Fluency and Leadership Readiness Are Not the Same Thing
World Youth Skills Day is a useful prompt, but the question it raises is live every week, not just on a calendar date. Yes, we should be building AI literacy. Yes, we should be helping people develop digital confidence and the ability to use the tools that will shape their working lives.
But tool fluency and leadership readiness are not the same thing, and we should be careful not to mistake one for the other. The real work is developing people who can think, judge, communicate, and take responsibility when the situation is genuinely messy and the answer is not sitting in a prompt.
That has always been the work. In an AI-enabled world, it just requires more intention.
If you are leading a team, developing talent, or coaching someone through this, I would leave you with one question: where in your own organisation are you at risk of making assumptions when what you need to be doing is meeting the person in front of you, and working out what stage they are really in?
Until next time, keep leading, keep learning, and keep levelling up!
Follow on LinkedIn - Spotify - YouTube - Apple