AI as a Political Actor in Organizations
Why human capital leaders need to ditch their neoliberal glasses and put on the infrared binoculars of the political economy of AI.
Thus stands the consensus among human capital leaders: AI transformation isn’t about tech. It’s about people. One recognizes here the language structure specific to LLMs (It is not X; it is Y) that now permeates managerial thinking.
This framing is a political choice that reveals neoliberal positioning, one that relies on a moralizing discourse to assert, in the same breath, technological neutrality and the individualization of responsibilities should technology fail. Consequently, the failure of AI in organizations would not be the result of the socio-technical conditions of AI itself, but that of the workers who do not adopt it, or do not adopt it correctly.
In a display of barely veiled contempt, these workers ought to be educated and trained so that they may finally discover the benefits and potentialities of AI, thereby becoming the hybrid workers whose praises the hyperscalers, aided by consultants, sing.
El Lissitzky’s Composition (1922) strips away the corporate veneer to reveal what the neoliberal framing hides: AI is not a neutral service, but a rigid structural platform designed to extract value and enforce control. The shapes don't just sit there—they collide at the very intersection where human capital meets technological infrastructure.
Just as it is madness to cherish the causes while rejecting the effects, obstinately separating AI from human workers into two impermeable silos will only produce the same difficulties already observed time and again and reported daily: ROI stalls, workers’ resistance, projects that break at the scaling step, tokenmaxxing, etc.
Within this moralizing and binary framing, AI is conceived as a product, a neutral service. Yet that is precisely where the shoe pinches. AI, and more accurately the platform supporting its functionalities, is a political actor whose logic of value extraction introduces a tension at the algorithmic frontier: access to and control over limited resources (primarily human capital and its capacity to produce value).
What workers feel at the algorithmic frontlines, and which a sterile, binary neoliberal framing is incapable of seeing, is the value extraction and the political conflict created by the introduction of platforms and their Trojan horse, AI, at the very heart of organizations.
The leaders capable of rising to the challenge of platformizing their workforce are those who move beyond the comfortable ideological positioning that places them above the fray and adopt a dialectical posture toward AI, platforms, and those who promote them. Naivety or ideological blindness are the worst enemies of human capital leaders and the best allies of AI model and platform providers.
The Silicon Kolkhoz is calling you.
Choose your camp, Comrade!
About the Author & BomaliQ
This newsletter is authored by Mathieu Lajante, PhD, Founder and Architect of BomaliQ Inc. BomaliQ provides specialized strategic intelligence for the algorithmic frontline, helping corporate leaders navigate the behavioural and political frictions of high-tech organizational transformation.
Nature of Intelligence
The insights provided in this publication are based on the stress-testing of publicly available industry reports, market data, and proprietary analytical frameworks. This content is intended for informational and strategic signalling purposes only. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the analysis, the algorithmic frontline is a volatile environment.
Limitation of Liability
The BomaliQ Risk Signal does not constitute professional consulting advice, legal counsel, or a formal business diagnosis. Readers should not make critical strategic decisions based solely on this newsletter without a rigorous, organization-specific assessment. BomaliQ Inc. and Mathieu Lajante shall not be held liable for any business outcomes or losses resulting from the use of this general intelligence.