Key Takeaways

• Contested terrain is the map CHROs need right now: Prasad Setty defines contested terrain as the set of open questions about AI's future where credible experts hold divergent views. Understanding that landscape, rather than waiting for certainty, is what lets operating leaders act without paralysis.
• Practice leads theory in the AI era: Because AI in the workforce is moving faster than academic research can follow, the Valence Research Initiative prioritizes applied, lived lessons from real organizations over theory alone.
• Every AI interaction develops people or creates dependency: Setty argues that CHROs, CEOs, and the C-suite must intentionally design environments where AI contributes to individual development, since the alternative is dependency by default.
• AI adoption is a choice, not a foregone conclusion: Parker Mitchell notes that leaders choose the types and purposes of AI they bring into their companies. Asking "how can AI help us flourish?" leads further than asking "what is easiest to automate?"
• Power users of Nadia improved at every performance level: Early research codified Nadia usage into a power user index measuring frequency, regularity, diversity of requests, and cognitive engagement. Power users saw a lift regardless of where they started: lower performers moved toward the middle, middle performers became high performers, and top performers were more likely to stay at the top.

‍

Defining Contested Terrain in the Age of AI

Contested terrain describes the questions about AI's future where informed experts hold widely divergent views, and where uncertainty can paralyze leaders who need to act. Prasad Setty distinguishes contested terrain from common ground, and notes that the terrain shifts fast: debates from two years ago are settled today, and today's open questions may soon resolve.

[00:00:02.500] Parker Mitchell: Prasad, I am so excited to kick off these conversations with you. We've been talking about this idea, a term of yours called the contested terrain. And I just think it is a great concept for what CHROs are facing today in this age of AI. So maybe you could kick it off by sharing with our audience, what do you mean by the term contested terrain?

[00:00:25.079] Prasad Setty: Parker, so good to have this conversation with you. And I'm sure it's going to be a series of intellectually stimulating, but hopefully useful practically as well as we go forward. And I like the distinction between what we think of as common ground and what is contested terrain. And the ground moves so quickly that we are talking about anything to do with AI and what we might have considered to be contested terrain a couple of years back is probably now common ground. And in the future, some of the things that we talk about today as contested terrain might end up being very clear in our minds. And I think to me, contested terrain is all of those possibilities where different people who are thinking about the future unfolding in different ways perhaps have a wide variety of divergent opinions. And then that can be very paralyzing for people who actually are in operating roles and need to take action about it. And what I was thinking that we'd explore is to say, which of those kinds of divergent paths that different people are speculating about are the ones that we might want to take a bet on? And do we even understand that landscape so that we don't feel like we know all the answers, but we do understand the terrain and we know how to explore it.

What Contested Terrain Means for HR Leaders

Contested terrain, as defined by Prasad Setty, Chair of the Valence Research Initiative, refers to the open questions about AI in the workforce where experts hold divergent opinions about how the future will unfold. For CHROs and other operating leaders, the goal is understanding the landscape well enough to place informed bets, rather than waiting for consensus that may never arrive before change makes the question obsolete.

Launching the Valence Research Initiative

The Valence Research Initiative exists to cut through the noise around AI in the workforce and surface practical signals for leaders. Chaired by Prasad Setty, the initiative focuses on applied, lived lessons because in this era, practice leads theory.

[00:01:51.159] Parker Mitchell: We are launching the Valence Research Initiative. We are so proud to have you as the chair. Can you share a few words about why you think this is an exciting initiative at this moment in the conversation about AI in the workforce?

[00:02:05.579] Prasad Setty: There are many questions that people are struggling with and thinking through. And what I'm hoping that the research initiative comes out with is good options, views, how to manage the chaos, and all the noise that we see around us when it comes to AI in the workforce to really tease out the signals, to explore what is common ground, contested terrain. And in this era, because things are moving so quickly, practice leads theory. So I'm looking for not just research in that sense, but it's truly applied. It's truly lived lessons and learnings.

What the Valence Research Initiative Is

The Valence Research Initiative is a research effort from Valence, chaired by Prasad Setty, focused on AI in the workforce. The initiative aims to separate signal from noise for enterprise leaders by mapping common ground and contested terrain, and by prioritizing applied research: lived lessons from real organizations rather than theory alone, because practice currently leads theory in enterprise AI.

AI Choices: Development Versus Dependency

Leaders have real choices about the types and purposes of AI they bring into their organizations, and those choices shape whether AI builds people up or hollows work out. Parker Mitchell and Prasad Setty argue that the development question, not the automation question, is the one that drives progress.

[00:02:50.520] Parker Mitchell: AI will automate some parts of work. And I think the CEOs and the media narrative is around that. But we all have choices. As individuals, we have choices. CHROs, we have choices about the types and purposes of AI that we bring into our company. And I think that that is going to reflect both the priorities, but also the path. And if we ask ourselves, how can AI allow us to be the best versions of ourselves? How can we flourish as individuals and as collections of people? We will make more progress down that path than if we just asked the question, how can AI automate the parts of the job that are easiest to automate?

[00:03:32.659] Prasad Setty: I fully agree with that. I feel like every AI interaction either leads to individual development or creates dependency. And the more that we can be intentional as individuals, but also can rely on our organizations. And this is where the CHRO, the CEO, the C-suite all come together. If we can rely on our organizations to intentionally design environments that contribute more to the development rather than the dependency, then we all win. And that's exactly the future that I'm hoping for.

How CHROs Should Approach AI Adoption Decisions

Every AI interaction either leads to individual development or creates dependency, according to Prasad Setty, Chair of the Valence Research Initiative. CHROs, CEOs, and the C-suite share responsibility for intentionally designing environments where AI contributes to development. Parker Mitchell, CEO of Valence, adds that leaders make more progress by asking how AI can help people flourish than by asking which parts of a job are easiest to automate.

Early Research: Nadia Power Users See Performance Gains

Early research on Nadia adoption found that power users improved regardless of their starting performance level. The research team codified usage into a power user index spanning frequency, regularity, diversity of requests, and cognitive engagement.

[00:04:08.300] Parker Mitchell: One of the reasons why we're launching this Valence Research Initiative is not just to explore these concepts of the future of work or the future of the organization, but it is really the support of the individual. You've been leading up some research with some of our partners. What are some of the early indicators of the research around Nadia adoption and the impact of that?

[00:04:29.939] Prasad Setty: The behavior with Nadia was codified into a power user index that took into account not just the frequency, but the regularity of the interactions, whether people came to Nadia with diverse requests and questions, and also the cognitive engagement. All of that was codified into a power index. What we found was very compelling that wherever you were in your prior performance curve, once you became a power user of Nadia compared to those who are not power users of Nadia, the power users of Nadia all saw a lift. The lowest level of performance had much higher propensity, much higher odds of getting to be more in the middle range of performance there. Those who are in the middle range of performance tended to become more high performers, and the highest performers in their distribution obviously couldn't go any higher than their highest categories already, but we could see that the highest performers stayed as high performers more so if they were power users of Nadia.

Does AI Coaching Improve Employee Performance?

Early research on Nadia, the AI coach by Valence, found that power users saw a performance lift at every level of the prior performance curve. Researchers built a power user index measuring frequency, regularity of interactions, diversity of requests, and cognitive engagement. Compared to non-power-users, low performers had higher odds of moving to the middle of the distribution, middle performers tended to become high performers, and top performers were more likely to remain top performers.

Building a Community Around AI in the Workforce

The richest benefit of the Valence Research Initiative may be the community itself: a network of thinkers, practitioners, and trailblazers comparing notes as the field evolves.

[00:05:39.620] Parker Mitchell: I had not heard that expression before, practice leads theory, but I think in this era it is more true than ever because collectively we're on this journey, and I think the community that we're going to bring together as part of the Valence Research Initiative and the conversations across it are going to be part of the richest benefit. I am so lucky to get to have these conversations with you. This is the first of many, and I'm so lucky we're going to be able to bring other thinkers and practitioners and trailblazers into this conversation. Thank you for kicking this off today with me, Prasad.