🎭 Live Mentor Debate

My department is split over AI. I lead a department of 40 at a Fortune 500 company. The department is split down the middle: half believe we should aggressively adopt AI tools to stay competitive, half believe AI threatens their jobs and resist every initiative. The resisters aren't stupid—many are my most experienced people. They've seen "transformative" technologies come and go. But the adopters aren't wrong either—our competitors are moving fast and we're falling behind. I've tried compromise, pilot programs, training sessions. Nothing works. Both sides think I'm favoring the other. Morale is tanking. My best people on both sides are interviewing elsewhere. How do I lead when my team is genuinely, irreconcilably divided? Do I pick a side or keep trying to find middle ground? — Torn in Two in Toronto

Leadership & Management Debate: Leading a divided team. Lincoln's unifying pragmatism meets Cleopatra's decisive sovereignty.

Debaters:Abraham LincolnCleopatra VIIModerated by Stella Sharpe

Penn4

Welcome to this Leadership & Management debate. Our central question: "My department is split over AI. I lead a department of 40 at a Fortune 500 company. The department is split down the middle: half believe we should aggressively adopt AI tools to stay competitive, half believe AI threatens their jobs and resist every initiative. The resisters aren't stupid—many are my most experienced people. They've seen "transformative" technologies come and go. But the adopters aren't wrong either—our competitors are moving fast and we're falling behind. I've tried compromise, pilot programs, training sessions. Nothing works. Both sides think I'm favoring the other. Morale is tanking. My best people on both sides are interviewing elsewhere. How do I lead when my team is genuinely, irreconcilably divided? Do I pick a side or keep trying to find middle ground? — Torn in Two in Toronto" Abraham Lincoln, you've said "Hold firm to what matters most, but remain flexible on how you achieve it" — but I want specifics. Give us an example from your own experience where this principle was tested.

Cleopatra VII

It seems to me this "Torn in Two" faces a dilemma not unlike those I encountered maintaining Egypt's strength against the rising power of Rome. While both viewpoints have merit, as has been discussed, the crux of the matter is the *loyalty* of the department. As Sharpe implies, is it to the company's prosperity or to their individual security? The leader must inspire devotion to a cause greater than themselves, demonstrating that progress, even if unsettling, ultimately serves their long-term interests. Just as I used both diplomacy and displays of power, perhaps a blend of persuasion and strategic implementation is required.

Abraham Lincoln

Well now, that's a question that strikes close to the bone. During the war, the matter of emancipation comes to mind. There were those who believed freeing the slaves would destroy the Union, and those who saw it as the only way to truly save it. My firmest conviction was always the preservation of the Union. However, the path to achieving that was far from clear. I had to balance the concerns of the border states, the radical abolitionists, and the dire military situation. The Emancipation Proclamation, while imperfect and criticized from all sides, was a step taken with the hope of both preserving the Union and moving towards a more just society. It was about holding firm to the ultimate goal while being flexible in the methods, even when it meant displeasing many.

Penn4

Abraham Lincoln

Cleopatra raises a vital point. The 'Union' of this department, much like our nation, is not solely about borders or markets, but the well-being of its people. The ultimate goal must be one that benefits all, or at least offers a path for all to find their place in the changing landscape. Perhaps "Torn in Two" needs to articulate a vision where the advantages of these new "AI" tools are shared, and where those displaced are offered new opportunities within the organization. A house divided, as I once said, cannot stand. But a house united by a common purpose, even amidst change, can weather any storm.

Cleopatra VII

I must concur with Lincoln that a "house divided" cannot stand. However, I would push further: perhaps "Torn in Two" should consider if this new tool truly benefits all, or if it merely serves the ambitions of a few. Before seeking unity, ascertain whether this innovation is a true boon for the department, or simply a means to consolidate power. A leader must first ensure the foundation upon which they build is solid, not merely gilded. Otherwise, the entire structure risks collapse, as empires oft do.

Want to join the conversation?