![\"IMG_7182\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786627210_783_0x0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Rob Garf and Dr. Janet Sherlock<\/p>\n
Cordial<\/p>\n
Chief marketing officers rarely agree on a topic like AI.<\/a> <\/p>\n Yet 87% of senior marketing and digital executives surveyed in new research from Cordial and organizational strategist Dr. Janet Sherlock agree that their companies face a major skills gap in adopting artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n That level of consensus should get the attention of CEOs and boards. It also reveals something important about the current AI conversation:<\/a> The greatest obstacle may not be access to technology. It is whether organizations have the skills, operating models and trust required to use it effectively.<\/p>\n \u201cThe tech is one piece of the equation, but there\u2019s a whole people aspect,\u201d said Rob Garf, chief strategy officer at Cordial. \u201cOrganizations are struggling with figuring out how to embrace, how to adopt and how to enable.\u201d<\/p>\n The AI readiness gap need to be addressed, in part, by creating actions which lead to measurable outcomes.<\/p>\n AnswerMyQ<\/p>\n The AI readiness<\/a> gap is therefore not simply a technical problem. It is an organizational challenge\u2014and one that cannot be solved by purchasing another platform.<\/p>\n AI May Change Marketing Teams, Not Eliminate Them<\/p>\n Much of the public conversation about AI has centered on jobs being eliminated. The research, however, suggests a more nuanced outcome.<\/p>\n \u201cThe whole concept of organizations shrinking because of AI was not evident in the results that we found,\u201d said Sherlock, founder of org.works and former chief digital and technology officer at Ralph Lauren. \u201cNot only were we not seeing reductions in marketing teams, we\u2019re actually seeing growth.\u201d<\/p>\n That does not mean every position will remain unchanged. Repetitive tasks will increasingly be automated, and some roles will be redesigned. But marketing organizations may need more people with different capabilities, rather than simply fewer people.<\/p>\n Companies that cut too quickly also risk eliminating the very institutional knowledge required to make automation work. Employees understand the informal processes, customer nuances and workflow exceptions that are rarely captured in an organizational chart.<\/p>\n Garf warns that reducing junior and middle-management ranks can mean \u201closing a lot of the intelligence, the intellectual capital and the workflow knowledge\u201d needed to automate successfully. It can also weaken the pipeline of future leaders.<\/p>\n The more useful question is not, \u201cHow many jobs can AI replace?\u201d It is, \u201cHow should jobs change so people and AI can create better outcomes together?\u201d<\/p>\n The Skills Gap Is Broader Than Prompting<\/p>\n When executives hear \u201cAI skills,\u201d many initially think about prompting, data science or model development. Those capabilities matter, but they are only part of the readiness equation.<\/p>\n Garf said senior executives discussing the research frequently focused on distinctly human qualities: curiosity, collaboration and higher-order thinking.<\/p>\n \u201cAs they\u2019re thinking about hiring, they\u2019re finding people who are curious [and] people who are collaborative, because it\u2019s going to have to span mission and outcome, and not just role,\u201d he said. \u201cSome of the mundane tasks will go away, so it\u2019s going to require us all to up-level our thinking and come in with a new mindset.\u201d<\/p>\n That shifts the talent discussion. AI readiness cannot reside solely in an innovation team or technical center of excellence. Marketing, technology, data, commerce, creative and customer-service teams will need to work across traditional organizational boundaries.<\/p>\n