The Career Refresh with Jill Griffin: Leadership Strategy for Senior Professionals · 2026-05-12 · 15 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
29 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
The episode confronts a growing paradox in corporate communication: as AI writing tools become ubiquitous, workplace correspondence is becoming simultaneously more polished and less authentic. Griffin traces how professional writing evolved from formally buttoned-up corporate prose toward more human, relatable communication - only to slide backward into AI-generated uniformity marked by overused em-dashes, symmetrical bullet points, and sterile language that strips away personality. The core problem isn't the technology itself but the deployment strategy. A Deloitte 2026 study reveals only 14% of organizations effectively integrate human and AI workflows, yet those that do see 2.5x better financial results and twice the meaningful work engagement. Griffin references MIT research showing ChatGPT users demonstrate lower brain engagement and weaker critical thinking, plus reduced retention of their own writing. She argues leaders are deploying AI first, creating a vacuum where the technology shapes output rather than serving a predetermined strategic vision. The solution requires starting with personal leadership identity and purpose (Simon Sinek's "why"), understanding what meaningful work means to individual team members, and then strategically selecting tools - not the reverse. This intentional, clarity-first approach builds trust and authenticity in an era of baseline distrust.
Overpolished AI writing lacks the natural imperfections and personality of human correspondence; the perfect symmetry, excessive em-dashes, and comparison-speak structure ("you think it's this, but it's really that") signal automation rather than thoughtful human effort, creating a trust gap.
Only 14% of organizations are effective at designing how humans and AI should work together, but those that are see 2.5x better financial results and twice as much meaningful work engagement compared to those deploying AI without strategic intention.
MIT research found that ChatGPT users have lower brain engagement and consistently underperform at critical thinking; you won't remember the nuances of what AI wrote for you because you invested minimal cognitive effort, making it harder to authentically communicate the message later.
Start by clarifying your personal "why," leadership identity, and purpose, then determine where AI can strategically serve that vision - rather than deploying AI first and letting the technology shape your output and direction.
Understand what meaningful work means to each team member - whether it's using their strengths, making a difference, being of service, or driving innovation - and design AI integration around those values rather than treating AI as the center and building human work around it.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode centers on a single thesis - AI-generated communication feels inauthentic and erodes trust - which is repeated throughout with limited substantive development. While the MIT study on ChatGPT and brain engagement and the Deloitte statistic (14% of organizations effective at human-AI integration) provide some factual anchors, most claims lack depth or supporting evidence. The core insight about over-polished AI writing lacking soul is intuitive rather than novel, and the advice to 'know your why first' is standard leadership coaching.
When writing is too polished or perfect bullets, where there's no typos, the language sounds like it's coming from your high school English class, the heart of it starts to feel like it was cut out
Deloitte uh did a 2026 study that found that only 14% of organizations are effective at designing how humans and AI should work together
The critique of over-polished AI writing is increasingly common in business discourse and not particularly fresh. The framework - know your why, understand meaningful work, integrate tools intentionally - relies heavily on familiar leadership concepts (Simon Sinek's 'Start with Why' is explicitly invoked). The observation about M-dashes and symmetrical bullets as AI signatures is surface-level pattern-matching rather than a contrarian or first-principles argument.
Everything sounds the same
people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it. So if you're a leader, understanding your why
This is a solo host monologue with no guest present. Jill Griffin is a career coach and leadership strategist, which is relevant to the topic, but there is no practitioner testimony, operator perspective, or scale-of-business evidence from someone who has actually managed teams or implemented AI strategy at scale. The episode provides no external credible voices.
Hey friends, I am Jill Griffin, and this is The Career Refresh
there's no actual guest to evaluate
The episode cites two data points (MIT study on ChatGPT and brain engagement; Deloitte 2026 study showing 14% of organizations effective at human-AI integration and 2.5x financial results), but neither is explained with depth, methodology, or data. Examples are abstract (LinkedIn posts, emails, newsletters) rather than named companies or concrete metrics. Reed Hastings' prediction about humanities is mentioned without context or validation. No case studies, dollar figures, timelines, or granular operational details.
MIT did a study on ChatGPT and your brain. And Chat GPT users had the lowest brain engagement and consistently underperformed at neural at neurolinguistics and behavioral letters
Deloitte uh did a 2026 study that found that only 14% of organizations are effective at designing how humans and AI should work together. But everyone's talking about it, but only 14% are effective
This is a solo-host format with no guest to challenge or follow-up on claims. There are no tough questions, no pushback on assumptions, and no productive disagreement. The monologue is conversational in tone but lacks intellectual rigor or testing of ideas. The host repeatedly asserts claims (e.g., 'distrust is now the default,' 'AI undermined critical thinking') without interrogating them or exploring counterarguments.
And I know you've experienced it
the recipient of the communication doesn't always know who's doing the writing. Is this a person? Is this one of our servant robot tools?
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
AI can help you outline your thoughts. But when you skip the step of making it yours, you're watering down your uniqueness, losing your voice and the signal that tells people who you are as a leader. In this episode, Jill Griffin unpacks: Why polished communication is back, and why it might be quietly eroding your credibility The MIT research on AI and your brain that every leader needs to know about How to use AI without disappearing from your own communications, and what it costs when you do Mentioned on the show: MIT Study: Your Brain on Chatgpt Support the show Jill Griffin , is a leadership strategist, executive coach, and host of The Career Refresh . She works with senior leaders to navigate complexity, strengthen teams, and lead with greater clarity and intention. With 20+ years of experience at companies like Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Hilton, and Martha Stewart, Jill brings a practical, real-world lens to leadership, decision-making, and career strategy.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Hey friends, I am Jill Griffin, and this is The Career Refresh. And today I want to talk to you about where I'm seeing a tool that could be used for good be totally overused and kind of create a disconnect both with our uh building of trust, our effective communication, and really taking a hit on our authenticity. And if you haven't guessed, it's the overuse of AI as a writing tool. So let's dig into what I'm talking about.
All right. When writing is too polished or perfect bullets, where there's no typos, the language sounds like it's coming from your high school English class, the heart of it starts to feel like it was cut out, right? We're not talking about proper literature, which is a completely different place of proper writing. We're talking about like they're this level of so polished, there's no soul.
And I know you've experienced it. You're scrolling through LinkedIn, you're getting an email or a newsletter, and you're like, yeah, this person didn't write this. You feel numb to it. You're, you don't like, you don't even know what to say to it because you're like, I don't know what to do with this.
And then if it's in human correspondence, meaning it's not a um an automated newsletter and it's like someone coming coming from your company or your a colleague and you're writing back and forth, you kind of also don't even really know what to say or where to go next because you're like, where's the human in this? We used to strive for polished, right? I kind of run a little dyslexic at times. I might have typos, you know, I'll write the way I speak, which informal uh corporate communications was not the way to do it, right?
So that skill that we built up was a strength, right? It was a strength to have really good, you know, oh, he's a really good writer or she's a really good writer or she's an effective communicator. That was really helpful. Or if a company was putting out copy either for their website or any of their promotional materials, again, it was a sign of strength to be that buttoned up.
And it it really showed the effort and almost the respect for the end reader. I'd also say that copywriters and editors were the gods of written communication. But over time, our conversation and correspondence became less and less polished. And one would say even more human, right?
And in many cases, even more authentic. Love it or hate it, we started writing almost in like shorthand, using emojis, SMF speak, bringing in a lot of slang and you know, good use of an urban dictionary and bringing it in and just kind of making it sound more real and more human, where our communication stopped sounding like the corporate prospectus or the bank website and started sounding more like relatable. And that was a really good thing. But now what I'm seeing is that we're sliding back into this super polished, but not because it was done by a skilled or thoughtful writer who's crafted it.
It's this comparison speak. It's not this, it's that. You think it's this, but it's really that. Like you can see it a mile away, the overuse of M-dashes.
And look, I love my an M-dash, but all of a sudden there's they're everywhere. And even if you're using them and you're writing yourself and not using AI, of course, now everybody is like, oh, if it's an M-dash, you know, she must be using AI. Perfectly formulated bullets, everything is in like threes and in symmetry and equal numbers. And maybe it was carefully written.
Maybe you really did tap into uh a copywriter to do it. But more often than not, I'm going to say it was the use of effective prompting, or maybe now not so effective prompting. The recipient of the communication doesn't always know who's doing the writing. Is this a person?
Is this one of our servant robot tools? This starts to create a trust problem. There's a low-grade suspicion. I read recently that distrust is now the default on everything, which just kind of makes my heart a little sad.
We are communicating more, but are we engaging, connecting, building relationships, leading with intention? Everything sounds the same. And if you're thinking about following up with the individual who wrote you that email, let's say, in person, or you're having a live conversation, you know, you're on video, the writer now you'll notice sounds completely different. Or worse, they don't necessarily remember what they wrote because they didn't write it.
MIT did a study on ChatGPT and your brain. And Chat GPT users had the lowest brain engagement and consistently underperformed at neural at neurolinguistics and behavioral letters. I mean, this is real, right? If you've used AI, and I know you have, to write something, you probably don't totally remember what you wrote.
You might you're gonna remember hopefully the whole theme of what it is, but you don't remember the nuances of what you wrote. What the MIT study found was that the overuse of Chat GPT undermined critical thinking skills. And I'll put the link to that study in the show notes if you want to read it. Because there's so little effort done into the written communication, the recipient of it is also gonna put the equal amount of effort into consuming it or engaging it.
Which brings me to the deeper problem that I'm seeing under all of this. Most leaders right now are adopting AI without first getting clear on what they're actually trying to accomplish, right? So this need, this urgency of we have to use more AI, we have to bring it into everything we're doing outside of written communication. Okay, fine.
But AI starts to fill this vacuum, and people are using it in lots of areas and it's shaping the output, it's setting direction. At some point, the AI becomes the writer, the thinker, and the human then starts to become the editor. But based on how AI works, it's someone else's vision. It's not your vision.
And that's where you start to have a clarity problem. When you know your why, your purpose, your personal mission, and I'm talking about the individual as a leader here, and then how they will impact the company and the team and their peers. When you know the reason behind what you're doing, and you start to use that because you know your reason and you know your purpose and you know your personal mission, that starts to be woven into the decisions that you make, including how you work and how you communicate.
And if you know what you're building, you know why it matters, you then know which tools to choose, the systems, and everything starts to fall into place because you're starting from that strategic center, that personal mission, that that why, as Simon Zenek would say. Even AI. So again, starting with that why and then deciding which tool to bring. Deloitte uh did a 2026 study that found that only 14% of organizations are effective at designing how humans and AI should work together.
But everyone's talking about it, but only 14% are effective. And those that do this are two and a half times more likely to see better financial results. They're twice as likely to provide meaningful work to their people. So the gap there isn't about the technology.
It's really then about the clarity of how we're going to use it. If we're deploying the technology first without actually thinking through, we're not just plugging the technology of AI into our process. We need to pause and have like a full systems reboot route and go about from a system thinking and thinking where are the best places to deploy AI so that AI is being used as a strategic thought partner to the human. And therefore, it is generating right the two time, two and a half times more likely financial results, and then also having uh people feeling more meaningful work.
Meaningful work is not coming from, you know, learning how to write better prompts, it's coming from knowing what meaningful work looks like to you. And meaningful work, again, is a really a personal choice. For some people, meaningful work might be I want to use my strengths and skills today. For other people, it might be about making a difference or connecting with others or being of service.
Like meaningful work is a very personal thing. So understanding that about the teams that you're overseeing and the people that you're working with is going to create a big difference in the impact of the output and the overall morale and happiness of your team. To get to a place where more people are feeling the impact of doing meaningful work, you need to understand what meaningful work means to them. Within your team, sure, your division, your division, your department, your company has a mission and a goal.
But understanding what is really going to motivate your team and your peers, are they coming from a place of making a difference, being of service, uh, making an impact, putting cool stuff out in the world because that they love the curiosity and the innovation, the creation behind it, understanding what meaningful work is to your team and then thinking about again, how are you integrating the AI into it versus starting with AI at the center and building the human bits around it.
It doesn't necessarily work. So, in order to do this, you really need to start with your why. Again, through the Simon Senex way, starting with your why and getting clear on your purpose. As Simon says, that's kind of funny, right?
Um, as Simon Senex says, people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it. So if you're a leader, understanding your why and the communication that you're putting out there and how you're approaching things and leading intentionally, that is gonna help your team understand why they're there and who they're following. It's also gonna help your end users and your end customers do the same thing. This requires a level of pause, of clarity, getting really clear on who you are and who you want to be in this moment.
And then the courage, right? To speak your opinion when everyone's like, oh, we need to do this, ah, you know, it's to address uncertainty. That's how you build trust. That's how you build authenticity, that's how you get a place where people are uh working better together, collaborating better, having that meaningful work, and increasing, you know, your overall financial results within your ability.
As leaders, we need to lead intentionally, and this is going to require clarity and the courage to speak your actual opinion, not from the AI bots. It's going to be needed to call out inequities, understanding what meaningful work looks like to your team. Is it using their strengths and their skills? Is it aligning to their values?
Is it being of service? You know, that intellectual curiosity, innovation, clarity, they want to be able to stretch and flex every day. What does meaningful work mean to them? And then how are you building your processes to really take the best of both human and AI and integrate it versus starting with how do we plug AI into the system?
That's how you build trust. And in this time of great uncertainty and continued baseline of distrust, that's what we need from leaders. So starting with your why, getting clear again as who you are as a leader, knowing your leadership identity and why you want to do the work that you do and coming back to that purpose, that needs to be the center. We need to put the heart and soul back into things.
I also recently read that Reed Hastings from um Netflix was talking about how humanities, that his prediction is that the studying of humanities is going to become really important in the next couple of years, especially because everything is so bots and robotized. Again, I use AI regularly in my work, but I think first, I get clear in what is it that I'm trying to say. And sure, maybe I need to lean on AI a little bit to optimize a headline or something to get it to perform better in our very algorithmic world.
Sure, but I'm not outsourcing my brain to AI. I wouldn't be working with people consistently and referrals if I was, because people don't want to talk to robots. They want to talk to humans. And if you want to also think through what your why is, what your purpose, what your leadership identity is, who you want to be as a leader in these moments.
And as I say, leader, you it's not about a title. You're a leader at all aspects of an organization. You choose to be a leader, it's how you show up. It's a lifestyle choice.
All right, friends, if this sounds like something you're curious about, understanding your why, your leadership identity, how do you lead with intention? How do you navigate the complexities of today's workplace? How do you deal with the team dynamics? How do you upskill your team so that they're not coming to you and then you're inadvertently being the bottleneck for anything?
Is this work that you want to talk about and actually integrate this into your career strategy so we can create what you want to do next? Reach out. I'd love to talk to you. Each month I open a small amount of spots to bring on new senior leaders to do this work.
And we also have a lot of fun together. So, friends, reach out. And as you think about this week, lead with intention, really think through clarity and always, always, always be kind. All right.
I'll see you soon.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.