← All articles
Executive Perspectives · September 23, 2026 · 2 min read

Executive Perspectives Are Most Useful When They Admit What Didn’t Work

The executive perspective pieces readers remember are the ones willing to describe a real failure, not just a polished success story.

Executive Perspectives Are Most Useful When They Admit What Didn’t Work

Executive perspective pieces-bylined articles written by senior leaders about their own company's AI journey-are a common and useful format, but the vast majority of them follow a predictable shape: a challenge is introduced, the company's approach is described favorably, and the piece concludes with measured optimism about results. That shape is comfortable to write and comfortable to approve through a corporate communications process, but it rarely tells readers something they can't already guess.

Why the safe version is so common

An executive putting their name on a public piece is, reasonably, thinking about how it reflects on their company, their team, and their own judgment. Describing a specific initiative that failed, or a decision that turned out to be wrong, carries real risk in a way that describing a polished success story doesn't. The safe version isn't dishonest, usually-it's just incomplete in a way that limits how useful it is to another leader facing a similar decision.

📢
Put Your Brand in Front of AI Decision-Makers
Sponsored content, newsletter placements, and homepage visibility.
Get in Touch

What makes a perspective piece genuinely valuable

The executive perspective pieces that stick with readers tend to be the ones willing to describe something specific that didn't go as planned-a deployment that had to be walked back, an assumption about return on investment that turned out to be wrong, a change management effort that took much longer than expected-and what the executive actually did in response. This is a fundamentally more useful contribution to a reader facing a similar decision than a polished account of what went right.

How we edit these pieces

When working with executive contributors, we push, respectfully, for specificity over polish-asking what surprised them, what they'd do differently, and what evidence changed their thinking along the way, rather than accepting a first draft built entirely around a comfortable success narrative. Not every contributor is willing to go there, and that's a reasonable choice given the real risks involved, but the pieces that do tend to be the ones readers cite back to us months later.

An invitation to executives considering a contribution

If you've led an AI initiative and have a specific, honest account of what surprised you along the way-including what didn't work-we're a more interested audience for that account than for another polished success story.

AD
AIBW Desk
Contributing Analyst

Get this kind of intelligence daily

One email. The stories that matter for AI business operators and investors.

Related

✏️
Have a Perspective on AI Business?
Pitch a guest article to our readers of founders and operators.
Write for Us