Overreliance on AI could erode social intelligence at work

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes · Last updated: 27 September 2026

Pamela Eyring, president of the Protocol School of Washington, warned that growing reliance on artificial intelligence could weaken social intelligence in the workplace by reducing everyday practice of communication, listening and relationship-building. She told Fox Business that employers want staff who are "smart with AI" but who can also close "a billion, a multibillion-dollar deal." Eyring says AI’s convenience — instant answers and little pushback — can replace the push-and-pull of human exchange that tests ideas and builds trust, and that losing those interactions risks clients, deals and reputations.

Don't let artificial intelligence replace our social intelligence.

Pamela Eyring, Protocol School of Washington president

Why 'power skills' still matter

Eyring frames communication, listening, disagreement and relationship-building as "power skills" that remain central to business success. She uses that phrase to separate technical AI competence from the human interactions clients expect: the ability to present an idea, read a room and build trust over time.

Employers, she said, increasingly list AI familiarity among required competencies, but they still expect humans to close major transactions. That expectation drives the tension: firms want employees who can use AI to scale work while also demonstrating the judgment and presence needed when deals or client relationships turn on a conversation.

Training that focuses only on tools risks producing workers who can generate polished outputs but cannot defend or adapt them in real time. Eyring warned that losing those informal practice opportunities will hollow out the very skills companies say they value.

How AI’s convenience can hollow out practice

Eyring described a simple psychological mechanism: chatbots and assistants give agreeable, quick responses and little pushback. She said, "It doesn't dispute us. It's so nice to us, it's so good. 'Oh, that's a great idea, Pamela, let's do that.'" That smoothness deprives users of corrective friction that helps refine thinking and communication.

When employees lean on AI to draft messages, rehearse talking points or generate proposals, they remove steps where colleagues would critique or test their ideas. Over time that reduces opportunities to learn how to present under pressure, handle objections, or read subtle social cues—abilities built in conversation, not in prompts.

Eyring also pointed to concrete hiring evidence: she and clients have encountered résumés with AI placeholders left in them. Those embarrassments are a visible sign that convenience can replace attention to detail and human oversight.

The business cost of replacing people with automation

Eyring was blunt about the commercial consequences: if firms automate without preserving human connection, they risk losing clients. She said, "If it is not balanced, they are going to lose clients and that's where you lose money." The warning ties social skills directly to revenue and reputation.

Customers who cannot reach a knowledgeable person, or who eventually speak with an employee who does not understand their situation, may defect. Eyring summed the risk in two short sentences: 'Yes, it's dangerous.' That phrasing was used to underline the financial stakes, not as a technical forecast.

Her view places talent strategy at the centre of AI deployment: identify roles where human rapport preserves brand and revenue, and where automation can safely scale repeatable tasks. Failing to do so turns savings on paper into client attrition in practice.

How employers can keep social intelligence intact

Eyring urged organisations to map where human interaction creates value and to protect those points when designing AI workflows. She advised leaders to keep people in roles that require building reputation and brand through relationships, and to use AI where it augments, not replaces, connection.

She also connected the trend to culture: the shift toward casual workplace norms before and during COVID-19, plus remote work, removed many informal coaching moments. That loss means supervisors should rebuild structured opportunities for testing ideas—mentoring sessions, simulated negotiations and face-to-face client prep—so employees practise interpersonal skills.

Her final instruction distilled the argument: 'Don't let artificial intelligence replace our social intelligence.' That line serves as a practical litmus test: any AI use that reduces routine chances to communicate, disagree and listen deserves scrutiny and a human safeguard.

Case for and against preserving social intelligence

The bottom line

Pamela Eyring’s warning frames AI as a tool that can amplify capacity but also displace vital human practice. The practical test she offers is organisational: keep people where relationship, judgment and persuasion create value, and use AI to automate repeatable tasks. Firms that do not preserve those interaction points risk client relationships and the ability to close substantial deals; firms that do will likely find a clearer route to scale without sacrificing trust.

What to watch

• See whether major employers publish explicit AI-and-human staffing guidelines; no date has been set.
• Look for industry groups or professional schools to launch curricula labelled around 'power skills'; no date has been set.