There is a coffee shop I go to regularly. The woman behind the counter knows exactly what I'm going to order. The moment she sees me, she smiles and says, "Americano?" I still wait my turn like everyone else. Nothing is faster. Nothing is automated. Yet that small moment changes the entire experience. It feels personal because someone remembered.

Companies spend billions trying to recreate that feeling. CRM platforms become more sophisticated. Recommendation engines become smarter. AI promises hyper-personalization at scale. Yet somewhere along the way, many organizations end up removing the very human interactions that made customers feel understood in the first place.

That thought stayed with me during our recent EVOLVE session with Patricia Amaro. Patricia has spent years leading transformation at companies including Mars, Reckitt and Unilever, and much of her work today revolves around what she calls regenerative leadership. During our conversation she made an observation that kept coming back to me: AI does not fix organizations. It amplifies them. If leadership is weak, incentives are misaligned, or collaboration is broken, AI will scale those problems just as efficiently as it scales productivity.

For years, organizations have treated technology as the starting point for transformation. Patricia's argument turns that assumption on its head. Before asking what AI can improve, leaders may need to ask what kind of organization they are asking it to improve in the first place.

Most organizations don't wake up intending to resist change. They simply become very good at optimizing for the game they have created. If promotions depend on quarterly targets, quarterly targets become the priority. If mistakes are punished more heavily than inaction, people learn that protecting their careers is often safer than trying something new. After a while, these behaviours stop feeling like choices. They become the operating system.

Patricia shared two examples that captured this perfectly. One organization had become obsessed with speed. Every decision was measured against immediate delivery, leaving little room to invest in initiatives that would only pay off years later. Another had the opposite problem. Every new idea had to fight through layers of governance designed to protect the existing business, making experimentation so expensive that innovation rarely left the meeting room.

Neither company lacked capable people. Both were producing exactly what their incentives rewarded.

That is why Patricia kept pushing the conversation away from technology and back towards leadership. AI will never change an incentive system. It will simply help organizations execute that system more efficiently. If the incentives encourage learning, collaboration and long-term thinking, AI can accelerate them. If they reward fear, politics and short-term optimisation, those behaviours will scale just as quickly.

Technology rarely fails on its own. More often, it runs into an organization that is asking people to behave one way while rewarding them for behaving another. Patricia saw this repeatedly throughout her career. Building digital businesses at companies like Mars, Reckitt and Unilever was never primarily a technology challenge. The technology was usually available. The harder work was creating an environment where people felt safe enough to question established ways of working, test new ideas and occasionally fail without damaging their careers.

That experience is increasingly reflected in the data. Gallup continues to report that only around one in five employees worldwide describe themselves as engaged at work, while the majority remain disengaged or actively disconnected from their organization. At the same time, Deloitte's most recent Human Capital research argues that sustainable performance increasingly depends on organizations creating environments where people can adapt, learn and exercise judgment rather than simply execute predefined tasks.

Those findings point in the same direction. Organizations often invest heavily in digital capability while leaving the human operating system largely untouched.

Patricia used a phrase that stayed with me throughout the session: organizations should be managed as living systems rather than machines. Machines respond to instructions. Living systems respond to relationships, trust, incentives and purpose. They evolve through interaction. That distinction becomes increasingly relevant as AI takes over more predictable work. The competitive advantage shifts towards the parts of organizations that technology cannot automate as easily: curiosity, collaboration, judgment and the ability to navigate complexity together.

One idea kept resurfacing throughout the discussion: organizations rarely reject change because they lack intelligent people. More often, they reject it because the existing system has become very good at protecting itself. Every process, approval layer and reporting structure was created to solve yesterday's problems. Over time, those same mechanisms begin resisting tomorrow's opportunities.

Patricia illustrated this with a story from her own career. After successfully building a B2B platform in Brazil that eventually generated more than €400 million in annual revenue, she encountered the same reaction when trying to replicate the model elsewhere. Different countries. Different leadership teams. Different markets. The objections were almost identical. It won't work here. Our market is different. Our customers behave differently.

That pattern appears well beyond one company. Research from McKinsey has consistently found that the majority of large-scale transformation programs fail to achieve their intended outcomes, with organizational resistance, leadership alignment and employee engagement among the most common reasons. Technology is rarely the limiting factor.

Patricia made another observation that deserves more attention. Nature does not survive by resisting change. It survives by adapting to it. Organizations often attempt the opposite. They spend enormous energy defending existing structures, even when the environment around them has already changed.

That is why so many transformation programs feel exhausting. Companies often believe they are introducing something new, when in reality they are asking an old system to behave differently without changing the conditions that shaped its behaviour in the first place.

Organizations rewards certainty. The executive who has the answer or the manager who moves quickly. The meeting that ended with a decision. That model worked reasonably well when markets moved slowly and most business problems had precedents.

The environment is changing. AI is evolving monthly. Consumer expectations shift constantly. Regulation struggles to keep pace with technology. In that kind of environment, certainty becomes harder to manufacture and often more dangerous to project.

Patricia described regenerative leadership as having the courage to step into the unknown while creating enough safety for others to do the same. That sounds less like traditional management and more like designing an environment where good decisions can emerge from many perspectives instead of one.

Google's Project Aristotle, which studied hundreds of teams over several years, concluded that psychological safety was the strongest predictor of high-performing teams. Not intelligence. Not seniority. Not individual talent. Teams performed better when people felt comfortable challenging ideas, admitting uncertainty and learning from mistakes.

That may become one of the defining leadership capabilities of this decade.

AI can generate answers.

It cannot create an environment where people are willing to ask better questions..

One sentence from Patricia stayed with me long after the session ended. Organizations, she argued, should be managed as living systems rather than machines. At first, it sounds like semantics.

Machines are designed for predictability. If one component fails, you replace it. If output declines, you optimize the process. The relationship between cause and effect is expected to be visible and repeatable.

Organizations rarely behave like that.

A new leader joins and performance improves for reasons that never appear in a dashboard. One conversation changes the direction of a project. A trusted colleague convinces an entire team to support an idea that had previously been rejected. Two departments, working under the same strategy and incentives, produce completely different outcomes because the relationships inside those teams are different.

Those are not exceptions.

They are characteristics of living systems.

That helps explain why so many transformation programmes disappoint. Leaders often try to redesign organizations as if they were redesigning processes. Patricia argued the opposite. The work begins by understanding how people relate to one another, what motivates them, what they fear and where trust already exists. Only then does technology become an accelerator instead of another layer placed on top of existing dysfunction.

One of the last things Patricia said stayed with me more than anything else. She described the session itself as "planting seeds." It was a simple expression, but it captured something many organizations struggle to accept. Change rarely happens because one presentation was convincing or one new technology became available. It happens when ideas reach people who are ready to act on them.

That requires a different kind of patience. Leaders often measure success by the number of initiatives launched, the speed of implementation or the pace of execution. Living systems follow a different rhythm. Some ideas take root immediately. Others need months, sometimes years, before the conditions are right. Trying to force that process often produces compliance rather than commitment.

Perhaps that is why Patricia kept returning to curiosity instead of certainty, dialogue instead of instruction, and relationships instead of hierarchy throughout the conversation. Those qualities rarely appear on quarterly reports, yet they often determine whether an organization is capable of adapting when the environment changes around it.

AI will continue to evolve. Business models will continue to evolve with it.

The more enduring question may be whether our organizations are evolving too.

EVOLVE is a private community of senior commerce leaders, founders, operators, investors, advisors, and board members across 50 + markets.

We bring together VCs, PEs, family offices, board-level leaders, ambitious founders, and senior operators across commerce markets through ongoing structured conversations.

The community exists to accelerate access to people, perspectives, and opportunities that would be difficult to create alone.

Every week, members engage with experienced practitioners building, investing in, and scaling companies across commerce, technology, retail, marketplaces, payments, and adjacent industries.

The room stays small by design.

The conversations stay practical for the same reason.

That is EVOLVE.

If you’d like to learn more how to partner with, please email us at
[email protected] or [email protected]