Local perspective
AI is not about tools: it’s about choices concerning human work
Some statements resonate because they force us to reflect on what truly matters.
“I want AI to do my laundry and dishes, so that I can do art and writing.”
Not because it reveals anything profound about technology, but because it exposes an uncomfortable human trade-off. The debate about what AI can do is, in many ways, already settled. AI can automate. The question we face now, is far more fundamental: what do we choose to automate and what do we deliberately keep human, and even amplify?
Human value
This question is no longer theoretical. Three‑quarters of organizations plan to scale AI in the coming years, yet fewer than half have redesigned their work, roles and responsibilities. The tension is already visible. In consulting, banking and other knowledge‑intensive sectors, administrative and analytical tasks are disappearing fast. Organizations are restructuring, people are leaving, and teams that once thrived on stability and craftsmanship are experiencing uncertainty. Beneath this shift lies a deeper, often unspoken fear: where is my value when systems take over more of the work?
Dutch autonomy
In the Netherlands, this question cuts even deeper. Work here is not just about productivity or income, but about autonomy, craftsmanship and contributing to society. We don’t compete on scale or low cost, but on quality, trust and professional judgement. Our economy relies on people who make complex decisions, carry responsibility and build relationships: in healthcare, finance, policymaking, law and professional services. That is why our approach to AI matters profoundly. Many implementations still start from an efficiency mindset: faster, cheaper, fewer people. But that is an industrial logic, misaligned with a service economy where discretion and human judgement are central. If AI replaces human decision-making instead of enhancing it, we undermine the great capabilities the Netherlands relies on.
A leadership choice
This article therefore asks a different question. Not: how do we make this process faster? But: what is this process actually for, and how can AI make people better at it?
That requires a shift in thinking. AI not as an add‑on tool for existing tasks, but as a reason to redesign work around human capabilities. AI as the partner that does the laundry, the administration, preparation, synthesis, so that people gain more space for what only humans can do: create meaning, build trust, navigate ambiguity, make ethical trade-offs and have the difficult conversation when rules fall short.
This is where AI-adoption becomes a leadership question. Who must make explicit choices and on what basis will we hold leaders accountable? Not only on output and efficiency, but on agency: the degree to which people experience autonomy, growth and purpose in their work.
We are at a tipping point. AI will reshape the world, that is inevitable. But the direction is still ours to choose. One future feels like something that happens to us: we automate everything that can be automated and people are left with whatever remains. The other future demands conscious choices: we remove noise so humans can focus on empathy, creativity, judgement and trust.
In the end, this is not a technological debate but a human one.
Not: how much AI should we deploy?
But: how much humanity do we want to preserve and strengthen in our work?
We can let AI lead us.
Or we can choose to lead AI.
Anna van den Breemer-Kleene
EY Nederland Partner Consulting, Public Sector, AI
