An analysis published by Zinkgular in RR. HH. Digital poses a question that should make any executive team uncomfortable: if artificial intelligence accelerates how an organization functions, what happens when what is accelerated is mediocre thinking?
The answer is as clear as it is uncomfortable: AI doesn't transform, it amplifies. It multiplies the quality of judgment of those who use it, but also their errors, their biases, their blind spots.
The reference article suggests that the real competitive advantage in the AI era won't be about who has access to technology—because technology is becoming democratized—but rather about who can use it with sound judgment. And that judgment isn't installed with a software program. It develops or doesn't, depending on the quality of the organization's thinking and leadership.
What the article doesn't say — but axiology can
The article's thesis is correct. But it has a limit: it remains at the analysis level without offering the instrument. It states that judgment matters, but it doesn't explain how to measure it, how to evaluate it before errors occur, or how to develop it deliberately.
From formal axiology—the science of value developed by Robert S. Hartman—a person's value judgment is exactly that: measurable. The Hartman Test evaluates the cognitive structure from which someone makes decisions: which dimensions of reality they prioritize, how they rank what matters, how they weigh options when resources are scarce or when the context is ambiguous.
The culture that allows — or prevents — thinking
The article identifies a phenomenon that any HR professional will recognize: a culture where thinking comes at a cost. Organizations where dissent is met with exclusion, where questioning is interpreted as disloyalty, where self-censorship takes hold silently and gradually.
At an individual level, when a person's values significantly diverge from those the system rewards or demands, evaluative stress appears: the professional learns to silence themselves to survive in the environment. At a relational level, certain combinations of profiles between manager and collaborator generate self-censorship structures.
The Hartman Value Profile (HVP) allows these dynamics to be identified before they become entrenched: it detects the level of value alignment between a person and the organization, and anticipates points of tension that can generate self-censorship or creative blockage.
The profiles that AI will amplify — for better or worse
When AI accelerates operations, it amplifies what is already there. Some value typologies will be clear competitive advantages in this environment:
- Profiles with high Systemic capacity: They structure complex problems well, defining the right questions for AI systems.
- Profiles with high Intrinsic judgment capacity: They evaluate the human impact of decisions proposed by AI—a key capacity when efficiency might go against people.
- Profiles with well-calibrated Extrinsic orientation: They execute with speed without losing sight of the outcome criteria.
And there will also be profiles that AI will expose: the decision-maker who operates primarily by convention or hierarchy (poorly calibrated Systemic) may make faster, less considered decisions. The manager who optimizes metrics without considering the human factor will do so on a larger scale and with less room for correction.
Implications for HR and leadership
The article suggests that future leaders will not be those who best know how to use AI tools, but those who best know how to integrate them with sound judgment into their decision-making processes.
The appropriate assessment tool for this challenge is precisely the Hartman Value Profile (HVP): because what it evaluates is not whether someone knows how to use AI, but the quality of judgment with which they will make decisions when AI accelerates results.
Applicable reports: Candidate Selection + Professional Profile — Evaluation of decision-making style, judgment consistency, and development potential.