Boards that fail to govern artificial intelligence now are not choosing caution. They are choosing risk.

AI is no longer a future issue. It is not waiting for the next strategy cycle, the next risk workshop or the next board retreat. It is already in the business. It is being used to draft documents, summarise meetings, generate ideas, analyse information, write code, prepare presentations and speed up routine work.

The question is no longer whether employees will use AI. They already are.

The question is whether boards will govern that use or allow it to grow underground.

Younger people are using AI constantly, but they are not naïve about it. They understand its usefulness.

In many organisations, those closest to AI in practice are not those with the greatest power to govern it. Younger employees are experimenting. Middle managers are improvising. Professionals are finding efficiencies. But boards and senior executives are often still treating AI as a future governance topic rather than a current operational reality.

It is not simply a divide between generations. It is a divide between usage and oversight. Between experimentation and accountability. Between employees who are already moving and leaders who have not yet set the rules of the road.

The data should make boards uncomfortable.

McKinsey’s research found that 92% of companies plan to increase AI investment over the next three years, yet only 1% of leaders consider their organisations mature in AI deployment. In other words, companies are preparing to spend heavily on technology they have not yet learned to govern properly.

South Africa’s position is especially striking. We are not a low-adoption AI market. Quite the opposite. Research cited in the original paper indicates that 45.4% of South African adults use generative AI tools, while BCG’s AI at Work research found that 72% of South African workers use AI tools at least several times a week.
In the absence of formal guidance, employees will make their own choices. Some of those choices will be sensible and productive. Others may expose the organisation to serious risk. Confidential information may be pasted into public tools. AI-generated material may be used without proper checking. Customer data may be mishandled. False outputs may become internal truths. Decisions may be influenced by systems that no one has approved, tested or understood.

This is not an argument for fear. It is an argument for leadership.
Boards do not need to ban AI. In most cases, that would be unrealistic and counterproductive. The tools are too accessible, too useful and already too embedded in the daily habits of work.
But boards do need to govern AI deliberately.

That starts with understanding that the generational story is more complex than it first appears.

Gen Z and Millennials are often the most active users of AI. They are comfortable experimenting and quick to adopt new tools. But they are also highly aware of job displacement and the possibility that AI may change the shape of work before institutions are ready.
Generation X often occupies the most difficult position. Many Gen X leaders are senior enough to influence strategy but may be less confident in their own use of AI than younger colleagues. That hesitation should not be mistaken for inability. The evidence suggests that when older employees receive proper training and support, their productivity gains can be comparable to those of younger workers.

Baby Boomers may be the least engaged users of AI, but they often hold deep institutional knowledge and board-level influence. Their caution can be valuable, provided it does not become paralysis. They should not be excluded from the AI conversation. They should be equipped to participate in it.

Boards should stop asking whether older employees are too resistant or younger employees are too reckless. They should ask a better question: has the organisation created the conditions for everyone to use AI safely, productively and responsibly?
First, boards must insist on a clear AI strategy. What is AI intended to achieve in the organisation? Better productivity? Improved customer service? Faster research? Lower costs? Stronger decision-making? New products? If the answer is everything, then the strategy is still too vague.

Second, boards must define the risk boundaries. What data may be used? Which tools are approved? What decisions require human review? Who is accountable when AI produces a harmful or incorrect output? What uses of AI are prohibited?

Third, organisations must invest in training across the full workforce. AI training cannot be limited to technical teams or younger employees. It must reach executives, managers, professionals, frontline workers and board members. The productivity opportunity will only be realised if people know how to use the tools well.
Fourth, boards must set the culture. AI adoption is not only a technology issue. It is a governance issue, a people issue and a trust issue. If leaders are silent, employees will improvise. If leaders are fearful, employees will hide usage. If leaders are clear, curious and accountable, AI can become a source of disciplined advantage.
For boards, the mandate is clear.

Find out where AI is already being used in the organisation. Set a formal strategy. Define the ethical and operational guardrails. Invest in training. Strengthen data readiness. Make accountability explicit. And ensure that the full generational spectrum of the workforce is included in the transition.