INTHEBLACK November 2026 - Magazine - Page 54
WORK SMART
Workplace expert Michelle Gibbings points
to a potential downside of more tech tools:
increased neural switching. Despite a
professional’s confidence in their own
multitasking, the research clearly shows
that humans can lose effectiveness when they
constantly jump between tasks, she argues.
“When we are simultaneously managing
multiple AI tools, toggling between
tasks and constantly reviewing outputs,
we are placing greater demands on
our attention,” says Gibbings. “We are
touching more elements and working
at a much faster pace than in the past,
and this constant switching can increase
cognitive load and leave us feeling mentally
fatigued by the end of the day.”
WHEN AI WORKS
UPSKILL
with CPA Australia’s
Advanced Prompting
for Financial
Statement Analysis
online course
READ
an article on how
accounting firms can
keep up with AI
54 INTHEBLACK November 2026
AI can produce in seconds what once took hours,
but a fast answer is not always a finished piece
of work. The risk is greatest in organisations
that treat the technology purely as an
accelerator, with no thought given to
how it should be used, says Tuffley.
Without guardrails — for example,
which tools to use for what purpose
and what good output looks like — AI
becomes another layer of work rather
than a replacement for it. “People end
up wading through AI-generated material,
cross-checking outputs and comparing
versions, all while under pressure to deliver
faster than before,” says Tuffley. “If it is taking
people longer to do their jobs by using the
technology, then that is a recipe for overload.”
When AI removes work rather than merely
speeding it up — for example, summarising
large datasets, sorting through volumes of
information and spotting patterns — the payoff
is real. That frees professionals to do the parts
of the job that are distinctly human, he says,
such as relationship-building, judgement and
higher-order analysis.
ENSURE APPROPRIATE
HUMAN OVERSIGHT
The challenge, says Gibbings, is that some tools
are too agreeable. “If you go back and ask it to
check something, it can sometimes reinforce
your view rather than genuinely challenge it.”
Therefore, it is important that professionals craft
the correct prompt and also understand what
they can do to challenge the output rather than
take it at face value.
“There is no doubt that AI can help,” she says.
“There are things that used to take hours that you
can now do very, very quickly.” However, the real
work is deciding where AI belongs in a given
process and where human judgement and
oversight are still needed. “That is a conversation
for each organisation, because guardrails are
really important in all of this.”
For leaders, that means being deliberate about
what they discuss with their teams. How people
approach it varies, she says. Some organisations
are being explicit about when and where
employees should use the technology; others
have people who are simply nervous to use
AI at all.
The role of leaders is to build an environment
where people feel comfortable
experimenting with AI,
Gibbings says, while
ensuring appropriate
human oversight to
verify the output is
legitimate and accurate.
“If you are not using
it, ask ‘Why not?’,”
she says. “How can you
experiment in a way that
is safe and in line with
company guardrails, to see
where it might help you with
your work?”
ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS
Being overwhelmed by the possibilities AI offers
is easily avoided, says Tuffley.
He outlines a four-part framework for constraining
outputs and steering clear of a data rabbit hole:
“Tell the tool who you are, who the audience is,
what you want and what level of language to use.
“Asking the right questions is absolutely
critical,” he continues. “You do not get good
answers unless you ask good questions first.”
That means keeping the scope narrow.
“If the use of AI is disciplined and very specific,
then yes, there are big benefits,” Tuffley says. “But
if it is adopted in an undisciplined way, then it
tends to create more problems than it solves.” ■
