The more data we have, the more discernment we will need.

Just a few years ago, a large part of our work consisted of searching for information.

Today, the problem is almost beginning to reverse.

Information is everywhere.

We can compare hundreds of profiles, access thousands of data points, analyse a market, measure certain personality traits or ask an artificial intelligence about practically any subject.

In a few seconds.

I find this evolution fascinating.

And I do not think we have yet truly measured what it will change in the way we work.

But it reveals a paradox that interests me a great deal.

Having more information does not necessarily mean making better decisions.

You need to hire someone.

You have their CV. Their LinkedIn profile. References. Notes taken during several interviews. Perhaps an assessment.

You can compare their experience with that of other candidates, analyse their career with AI and get a summary of their strengths or potential areas of concern in a few seconds.

We have probably never had so much information to assess a person.

And yet, at some point, someone will have to decide.

Is this the right person?

Not the best on a spreadsheet.

Not the one who ticks the most boxes.

The right person, here, now, in this specific environment.

And no amount of data makes this question disappear completely.

It takes on meaning in a context.

A very assertive personality may be exactly what an organisation needs at a time of transformation.

The same personality may create difficulties elsewhere.

A rapid succession of roles may be interpreted as a lack of stability.

Or it may reveal a remarkable ability to seize opportunities.

An assessment score may draw our attention to a behaviour.

It does not automatically tell us why it exists, or how it will show up in a real situation.

Even a perfectly accurate data point can therefore lead to the wrong conclusion if we ask it the wrong question.

This is probably where discernment begins.

I use it a lot.

And the more I use it, the less I want to set it against the human.

I even find that opposition rather sterile.

The question is probably no longer whether we should use AI.

We will use it.

It will be better tomorrow than it is today. It will save us time, allow us to explore more avenues and will certainly help us identify things we would not have seen on our own.

So much the better.

But there is an important difference between getting an answer and understanding what it is worth.

An answer can be perfectly worded and yet miss something.

It can confirm an intuition that was wrong from the start.

It can give a lot of weight to a piece of information simply because it is measurable.

It can also give us a sense of certainty where there should still be a question.

And that last possibility strikes me as particularly interesting.

They reassure us.

A number seems more solid than an impression.

A score more objective than a conversation.

An algorithmic recommendation more rational than an intuition.

But people are rarely that simple.

And above all, making a decision objective does not necessarily mean removing all subjectivity.

Perhaps it means knowing where that subjectivity lies.

Why does this information influence my judgement so much?

Is it a fact or my interpretation of that fact?

Why did I immediately prefer this profile?

Is the tool confirming my analysis, or am I simply looking in its results for what I hoped to find?

These are less comfortable questions.

Yet they are essential.

Or at least, not only.

Perhaps it is precisely the ability to make what we know and what we do not yet know work together.

Data. Experience. Context. Intuition. Doubt, too.

Then accepting that, in the end, a decision has to be made with a level of information that will never be perfect.

This applies to a hire.

But also to a promotion, an investment, an organisational change or a career decision.

We can improve the quality of the information available.

We will probably never be able to fully outsource the responsibility of choosing.

For a long time, value belonged in part to whoever held the information.

Today, that information is becoming far more accessible.

Tomorrow, we will probably all have access to tools able to analyse faster than we can, remember more and detect correlations we would have been unable to identify.

The difference may then shift elsewhere.

To our ability to ask a good question.

To understand the context in which an answer was produced.

To distinguish what is important from what is simply available.

To recognise when we do not know.

And ultimately, to own the decision.

So I do not think the future pits people against technology.

I believe much more in their complementarity.

Technology can allow us to see more.

It can certainly allow us to understand more.

But between understanding and deciding, there will still be a space.

A space made of experience, context, responsibility and sometimes doubt.