When “Faster With AI” Slows You Down: The Morale & Profitability Trade-Off

Every CPO and Head of Product is feeling the pressure: “Ship faster with AI. Cut costs. Do more with less.”

The irony is that racing ahead with AI often creates more waste than value. Agencies are already popping up with the sole purpose of cleaning up “AI slop” code — a growing problem researchers call workslop (Axios, 2025).

And while companies obsess about efficiency and profitability, the human cost is often overlooked.

The Morale Factor

Research shows the impact is real:

• 57% of employees worried about automation report declines in productivity and confidence (Oliver Wyman Forum, 2024).
• AI resentment is rising when staff feel sidelined or displaced (Forbes, 2025).
• Poorly managed rollouts increase technostress, burnout, and job dissatisfaction (ScienceDirect, 2025).
• Even with positives (52.4% of workers report morale gains from AI), the split shows just how uneven the experience can be (Workable, 2024).

The impact? Declining trust in leadership and shrinking tenure for your best people.

The Profitability Factor

Profitability is the metric everyone talks about—but the results are uneven:

• Only 26% of companies move past pilots to achieve scalable value from AI (BCG, 2024).
• SaaS companies embedding AI into daily operations are 7% more likely to be profitable than dabblers (SaaS Capital, 2024).
• At scale, a 1% increase in AI adoption correlates with ~0.17% increase in firm value (NYUAD JSS, 2024).

But here’s the bigger question: who is this AI really for?

If AI adoption is purely about short-term profit, what do companies owe employees whose roles are eliminated, reshaped, or left unclear? And if mass layoffs ripple across industries, it raises an even deeper paradox:

👉 If AI optimizes everything in software and displaces large segments of the workforce, doesn’t that shrink the very Total Addressable Market (TAM) of consumers for those same products? Profitability today could undermine demand tomorrow.

That said...

Every major tech shift causes short-term disruption. Productivity drops, roles shift, and then the economy adjusts. So is this just the same story all over again or is this something that goes a bit deeper, technologically and culturally?

History shows that after waves of automation, new industries emerge, new roles are created, and long-term GDP often grows. Early adopters frequently do pull ahead.

But this time, the scale and speed of AI’s impact is unprecedented. Unlike previous waves, AI doesn’t just change what we make — it changes how we think, communicate, and collaborate. The adjustment period may be longer, messier, and more uneven across industries. Which is why treating AI adoption as a design problem — balancing people, process, and product — matters more than ever.

Intentional Velocity & Human-Centered AI

The way forward isn’t “go faster” or “stop until it’s perfect.” It’s intentional velocity—adopting AI with care, balance, and humanity.

That means:

1. Rolling out in stages, not org-wide overnight.
2. Measuring morale as carefully as revenue.
3. Giving employees growth paths—so AI is seen as a tool for career advancement, not replacement.
4. Building cleanup and QA into every workflow.

And to be clear: I’m not anti-AI. I use AI daily in design and product workflows, and I’ve seen its potential firsthand. It absolutely has a place. But without a human-centered strategy, we risk creating brittle organizations, disengaged teams, and—ironically—smaller markets for our own products.

The companies that thrive won’t just ask, “How profitable is this AI?” They’ll also ask, “Whose lives and careers are we reshaping—and are we doing right by them?” This all may sound a bit Doug Rushkoff, but I believe humans are important.

‍