Survey says: Senior leaders are using AI, but they could use more direction

May 8, 2026

4 min

Saleem Mistry


Over the years, study upon study has shown that senior leaders are slower to adapt to new technology – email, the Internet and social media – than younger employees. That’s not necessarily so with AI, according to the University of Delaware’s Saleem Mistry.


Mistry, associate professor of management at UD's Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics, recently conducted a survey of more than 200 university alumni, 75% of which had more than 16 years of professional experience. He found that senior leaders are actively adopting AI to solve their biggest challenges. However, they are doing so largely without structured support or guidance.


Here are four findings from Mistry's survey that shows how AI is actually being used at the top.


Senior Leaders Are Overwhelmingly Self-Taught


Mistry said his most glaring finding is the gap between high AI adoption among senior leaders and the near-total absence of formal corporate support. Although a majority use these tools, they are almost entirely self-taught, which highlights visible opportunity that organizations aren’t really steering the AI conversation for leaders:


• High usage. 62% of all senior leaders surveyed use AI tools "regularly" or "occasionally" in their work.


• Training gap. Of those users, an overwhelming 80% report their organization provides "Never" or only "Sometimes" (mostly never) adequate training.


Mistry said this shows that leaders from VP level down are using tools like ChatGPT and Copilot informally to keep up with heavy workloads, without any real organizational guidance. The stakes are high. In the survey, a vice president of legal was using AI for compliance tasks and a manager of three was using it for performance reviews, both with no formal training. “These are senior leaders handling sensitive work while essentially figuring it out on their own,” Mistry said.


There is a clear ladder of AI use


Leaders are not using AI randomly. There is a clear progression in how they use it, moving through three levels.


• Tier 1 (The Drafters)

This is the most common starting point. Leaders use AI to improve writing and communication. They draft emails, shape documents, and refine tone. As one Director of Product put it, it helps him "polish phrasing" and adjust tone and voice.


• Tier 2 (The Synthesizers)

At this stage, leaders use AI to manage information overload. They summarize meetings, condense documents, and pull together research so they can keep up with large volumes of input. As one leader managing a team of 200 said, "Being a leader requires attention in a variety of areas. AI helps me manage the vast amounts of information I need to consume."


• Tier 3 (The Architects)

Here, leaders move beyond writing and summarizing. They use AI to automate parts of their work. This includes building agents, creating custom GPTs, or designing tools that track work and performance. One leader managing 300 people said, "It will eliminate half or more of my overhead."


Managers and individual contributors use AI for different reasons


People managers and individual contributors (IC) are using AI for very different reasons based on their roles.


• For people managers, their main challenge is scale. They are overloaded with communication and administration, so they use AI to reduce noise and keep up. They lean heavily on summarization and tone adjustment tools.


• For project leads and ICs, their focus is output. They use AI to produce work faster, including drafting content, building decks, writing code, or generating ideas. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve.


This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve.


Resistance to AI is mostly intentional


Among the 38 percent of leaders who do not use AI, resistance is usually not based on lack of awareness. It falls into three groups:


• The Ethical Objectors. Some avoid AI due to concerns about its broader impact.

• The Quality Skeptics. Some do not trust the output and feel it is not reliable enough for important work.

• The Blocked. Some are not allowed to use AI due to company policy.


Mistry concludes that there is a clear overall pattern: Leaders are using AI in practical ways, but mostly without structured support or guidance.


“If it feels like you are figuring this out as you go without much help from your organization, that is consistent with what most leaders are experiencing,” Mistry said.


To connect directly with Mistry and arrange an interview, visit his profile page and click on the "connect" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.


Connect with:
Saleem Mistry

Saleem Mistry

Associate Professor, Management

Prof. Mistry's research seeks to unpack factors that shape fragmentation and integration within and between leaders, individuals and teams.

Organizational BehaviorTeam ChartersLeadershipMuliteamingTeam Resilience
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Delaware

How should journalists cover politics when democracy is at stake featured image

1 min

How should journalists cover politics when democracy is at stake

Political coverage often centers on the president, but according to the University of Delaware’s Dannagal Young, journalists can sometimes provide more meaningful coverage by focusing more on democracy and less on the commander in chief’s every movement. Young calls this approach “democracy-centered reporting.” Instead of treating every presidential announcement or provocative statement as the central event, democracy-centered reporting asks how political actions affect democratic institutions, constitutional principles and Americans’ ability to exercise their rights as citizens, Young says. Young, professor of communication and director of UD’s Center for Political Communication, says “access journalism” has an important role, but an overreliance on access can also make political leaders the organizing principle of coverage. In moments when executive power is expanding, she argues, journalists should consider whether their coverage is inadvertently amplifying the power they are trying to scrutinize. Young can discuss: • How journalists can cover presidents without making the president the center of every story • The benefits and risks of access journalism • How coverage of political conflict affects public understanding of democracy To arrange an interview with Young, visit her profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Public health risks after a major flood featured image

1 min

Public health risks after a major flood

Floodwaters may recede quickly, but the health consequences of a major disaster can last for months or even years, says University of Delaware epidemiologist Jennifer Horney. Horney, an expert in disaster recovery and public health, can discuss the longer-term health challenges communities face after major flooding events, including the Aug. 26 flash floods in Nepal that resulted in 1,450 deaths, with 6,000 people still missing. Horney can talk about: • How damage to health infrastructure can make it more difficult for people to access medical care after a disaster, and what communities can do to prepare for and reduce longer-term health consequences following flooding and other disasters. • How contaminated water and food can increase the risk of infectious disease, and how standing water left behind by floods can create breeding grounds for mosquitoes that transmit diseases such as dengue, malaria, encephalitis and chikungunya. • The impact disasters have on physical and mental health well after the immediate emergency has passed. To arrange an interview, visit Horney's profile and click on the contact button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Is AI ethical? One philosophy professor has an answer. featured image

3 min

Is AI ethical? One philosophy professor has an answer.

During a snowstorm last winter, University of Delaware philosophy professor Thomas Powers fixed his own thermostat by typing the error codes into ChatGPT and following the instructions it provided. As he discovered on that cold, snowy night, AI can make DIY projects that much easier, potentially saving time and money. Ever the philosopher, Powers wondered about the ethics of his solution: What is the impact of taking the repair job away from someone who relies on the work? What about the risk of being wrong? Is the environmental impact of using AI worth the result? After 20 years in the Department of Philosophy and as director of the Center for Science, Ethics and Public Policy, Powers is uniquely suited to explore questions about the ethics of AI. What does “ethical AI” mean? POWERS: We want AI systems that are helpful and useful, but also safe. We want systems that don’t produce biased or dangerous results. One approach to achieve that, which I’m hopeful about, is to create systems that are “safe by design” or “ethical by design.” In other words, instead of relying entirely on outside regulation to prevent harmful behavior, we try to design the systems themselves so that they behave in ways we consider ethical. Is it possible to make an AI system truly “safe by design” if it eventually becomes capable of acting in ways its creators didn’t anticipate? POWERS: There is a big difference between most technologies and AI. With the latter, especially current large language models (LLMs), it appears that there is some unpredictability in their behaviors. Thus, their apparent autonomy complicates the "safe by design" motto. AI autonomy introduces the need for "guardrails" that constrain what AIs can do. But even this may not be possible. Why are AI companies hiring philosophers, and what does this mean for the field of philosophy? POWERS: Some of the hardest questions in AI aren’t purely technical questions. To build systems that are safe, fair or aligned with human values, you first have to decide what those concepts actually mean and how they can be translated into something a computer system can use. The challenge is to educate people who can move between those worlds — who understand the technology but can also ask the deeper questions about what we should want that technology to do. How has AI changed philosophy? POWERS: Philosophers have long discussed the philosophy of action with the concept of agency. For decades we assumed that an agent must be human — someone who acts on their own behalf, or on the behalf of another person, with some kind of plan or attitude. This concept transfers to discussions about AI, and whether it can be considered an agent and be responsible for its actions. The next step is to ask harder questions: Are autonomous AI agents responsible, in some sense, for what they do, and does this suggest or imply that they are conscious? I don’t think AI will become conscious any time soon, but I don’t think it is impossible, and other philosophers and scientists are broaching the question. To speak with Powers further about the philosophy of AI, reach out mediarelations@udel.edu. ABOUT THOMAS POWERS Thomas M. Powers, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Delaware. He is also the director of the Center for Science, Ethics & Public Policy at UD. Powers' current research focuses on the ethics of information technology and the philosophy of technology. He contributes to scholarship on rule-based conceptions of machine ethics, computer agency, the ethics of artificial intelligence, and other philosophical issues involving emerging technologies, including human-robot interaction. ​​

View all posts