Highlights of the Week in Creative Leadership – February 14, 2025

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (Clarke’s Third Law) ~ Arthur C. Clarke, “Hazards of Prophecy” (1962)

Six weeks ago, when my pass was approved, interest in the 2025 AI Action Summit organized in Paris was largely among policy makers, tech giants, entrepreneurs and investors. However, after the launch of DeepSeek, which represented both a seeming competitive threat from China and an opportunity for Europe and the rest of the world to develop less expensive generative AI technologies, media coverage expanded greatly. On the ground, I had access to opening sessions in the Grand Palais on Monday focused on overarching issues like “Harnessing AI for the Future of Work” (before exiting in the afternoon when politicians took over and delivered more of the headline statements), and then on Tuesday for the “Business Day” gathering at Station F, the world’s largest start-up campus in the Paris’s 13th arrondissement, to explore the transformative potential of AI for business development with varied global players.

Overall, the main summit celebrated what felt like the “magic mirror” of AI, with most speakers and attendees seeing an optimistic AI-driven future that reflected their own hopes and aspirations. For many, and this dominated headlines, the hopes were geopolitical and social, representing entrepreneurial, sovereigntist, European, anti-American, Gaullist, Sinophobic, or other perspectives. This was a telling shift from the last global AI summit in Seoul, South Korea, in May 2024, which emphasized security and risks in the evolution of these technologies. The Paris event repeatedly embraced the seemingly unprecedented opportunities and innovation of AI. As Google CEO Sundar Pichai put it, “The biggest risk could be missing out,” while French President Macron backed his optimism in the run-up to the event with a €109 billion investment pledge, grandly declaring, “This is a moment of opportunity for humanity.”

The pivot from the previous discussions of security, risks, and threats in Seoul marked a turn away from a “black mirror” view of AI. These broader and more concerning perspectives were still addressed in Paris at some of the official side events of the summit and more directly at an unofficial “Counter-Summit” organized at a theatre near the Grand Palais by French philosopher and digital technology expert Eric Sadin on Monday afternoon and evening (which I also attended briefly). That program highlighted many of the sweeping questions left largely out of the principal discussions and statements of the main event: environmental concerns, job replacement, military uses, the reinforcement social and economic inequality, the lack of fair and transparent governance and open-source and democratic access in technology and knowledge production, education, and policy making.

In addressing such a powerful and quickly evolving technology and its potential roles and impacts on the future, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the opposing dual perspectives represented by the “magic mirror” and “black mirror” offer ways to generalize about the disparate potential views of large summits and their participants. Even in Paris, both were on display in specific proposals. France’s President Macron championing a “Notre Dame de Paris strategy” – demonstrating how focused timelines can deliver transformative results – and the EU call to develop AI “gigafactories” and accelerate innovation using Europe’s public supercomputers, while maintaining their distinctive approach of open-source AI systems that “can spread much faster” than proprietary models. At the same time, labor leaders like UNI Global Union’s Christy Hoffman warned that “many millions are likely to be displaced by AI over the next five years.” This divide was further highlighted by the US and UK’s refusal to sign the summit’s inclusive AI declaration, with US Vice President JD Vance arguing against “killing a transformative industry” with excessive regulation.

Yet the general tone of optimism and the prevailing pursuit of action-oriented solutions potentially suggest a maturing approach to AI governance and offer opportunities and imperatives for creative leaders. Creative organizations need to navigate between AI’s transformative potential and its disruptive impact, especially in workforce development. With even traditionally secure creative roles facing AI disruption, leaders must prioritize both technological integration and human capital, fostering environments where AI augments rather than replaces human contributions and creative capacity. Leaders need to recognize that since AI integration represents a kind of Digital Transformation 2.0, they must prepare to shepherd the people in their teams and organizations through profound changes, being sure to commit to reskilling, AI literacy, and Intellectual Property training, enhancing well-being (as well as productivity), and regularly clarifying AI narratives and misunderstandings. AI-enhanced creativity can thrive, in other words, but only when leaders guide both the technology and humanity with its integration.

Paris Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit, February 10-11, 2025; https://www.elysee.fr/en/sommet-pour-l-action-sur-l-ia

How do innovative ventures succeed in established fields resistant to change? A fascinating study from two Stanford scholars – one of mission-driven entrepreneurship and international relations (Volmar), and the other of strategy and innovation in organizations (Eisenhardt) – examines two EdTech startups that took radically different approaches to disrupting higher education. The Maverick aggressively experimented and pivoted while openly challenging universities, while the Diplomat carefully built coalitions and co-created solutions with academic partners. Though opposite in style, both companies ultimately succeeded by finding ways to be both commercially viable and legitimate within the field. For creative leaders driving innovation, the key insight is that there’s no single path to industry transformation – success can come through either bold disruption or diplomatic evolution. However, the study reveals that timing and sequencing matter enormously. The Maverickapproach requires rapidly learning about market opportunities before shifting to build legitimacy, while the Diplomat path demands establishing credibility first before gradually introducing changes. This research offers valuable guidance for calibrating leadership approach to innovation based on their specific industry contexts and organizational capabilities.

Eric Volmar and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (2024)” Mavericks and Diplomats: Bridging Commercial and Institutional Entrepreneurship for Society’s Grand Challenges,” Organization Science, Published online in Articles in Advance, 13 Aug 2024;

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.13810

 Hsu and Bechky’s digital undertow metaphor is a timely warning for creative leaders: AI’s long-term effects on creative industries will be more structural than immediate. In this penetrating analysis, the two faculty members from the UC Davis Graduate School of Management examine how generative AI will reshape creative industries beyond surface-level efficiency gains. Their investigation of the TV and film sectors reveals how AI adoption creates subtle  but profound changes in how creative work is categorized, valued, and produced. For creatives, leaders, and the overall industry, the implications are far-reaching: while AI boosts efficiency, lowers barriers to entry, and promises more democratized access, it also erodes traditional markers of expertise and increases output homogeneity. In industries like film and publishing, where differentiation is key, leaders must be proactive in shaping AI’s role and positioning creative businesses accordingly. For example, the authors’ speak about the potential industry bifurcation between AI-assisted mass production and bespoke human creation that require strategic consideration. This thoughtful article sheds light for leaders on some of the deeper organizational and cultural impacts of AI integration that they will increasingly need to anticipate and navigate.

Greta Hsu and Beth A. Bechky (2024) “Exploring the Digital Undertow: How Generative AI Impacts Social Categorizations in Creative Work,” Organization Theory, Volume 5, Issue 3, July 2024, 1-16; https://bit.ly/41cq8NU

Daniel Immerwahr, an American historian and staff writer at The New Yorker, challenges prevailing narratives about technology’s impact on attention spans, offering crucial perspective for creative leaders and contributors. Rather than a crisis of diminished focus, he argues we’re experiencing an era of “obsession culture” – in which long-form content and deep engagement flourish alongside shorter formats. From 75-hour video games to marathon podcasts to streaming series, audiences demonstrate remarkable sustained attention when content resonates. The suggestion is that the real challenge isn’t capturing attention but earning it meaningfully. For creative leaders, moreover, the key potential insight for creative leaders is that attention may not be simply diminishing but is being redistributed based on perceived value and relevance. This has profound implications for content development, audience engagement strategies, and talent development. Rather than designing around presumed attention deficits, creators and creatives might better foster environments where deep engagement can flourish, while remaining mindful that contemporary audiences engage intensely with content they find compelling and that resonates deeply with their interests and needs.

Daniel Immerwahr (2025) “What if the Attention Crisis Is All a Distraction?” The New Yorker, January 20, 2025; https://bit.ly/4i06fPT

At a time when creative industries face mounting pressure (and adopt new technologies to help) to accelerate output, English organizational researcher Megan Reitz and Gameshift Research Fellow John Higgins make a compelling case for strategic pausing. They claim that the relentless “doing mode” that dominates today’s workplace is reaching unsustainable levels, with nearly 40% of managers unable to pause for reflection during their workday. As an alternative, they show how leaders can integrate “spacious mode” – a mental state that enables broader perspective and deeper engagement with complex challenges – into existing workflows. In doing so, Reitz and Higgins offer practical strategies to cultivate this mode without compromising productivity, from “guerilla spaciousness” techniques like strategic walking meetings to intentionally scheduling pauses in calendars. For studio heads, creative directors, and team leaders, the piece offers such ready approaches to build active reflection into organizational culture and prompt different thinking modes. Creative leaders who master the shift from “doing mode” to “spacious mode,” they argue, can better navigate relationships, spot opportunities, and maintain the creative vitality that drives innovation in the very real pressures of today’s business environment.

Megan Reitz and John Higgins (2025) “How to Give Yourself More Space to Think,” Harvard Business Review, February 06, 2025; http://bit.ly/4jZYBGM