The product world has a somewhat accepted idea to prototype to production framework. AI code generation is great in that world because there is a process to discover what problem to solve.
System maintenance doesn't have a clearly defined "what problem to solve" path. Maybe it's smallest deployable increment to confirmed value delivery. But that's harder to systematize. And AI code generation is probably not a helpful tool here.
Ran it through the analysis grinder. Here are the results. Should that be a prerequiste before publishing a thought piece?
Main Points, in Order of Importance
1. Most White Collar Work Is Relationship-Based, Not Transactional
The central claim. A dominant share of workplace "questions" aren't requests for correct answers -- they are social, trust-based exchanges where the relationship and the advisor's judgment are the actual product.
2. Two Kinds of Question-Answering That Keep Getting Conflated
The foundational distinction. Transactional questions have a correct answer and an imminent need. Relationship-based questions use the question as a pretext for social exchange, shared perspective, and felt understanding. AI handles the first well; it cannot substitute for the second.
3. AI Cannot Replace Trust and the Weight We Give to Respected Opinions
Even a correct AI answer carries less weight than advice from someone whose judgment you trust. This isn't irrational -- it reflects that the value in consulting, advising, and managing is partly in the relationship itself, not just the information delivered.
4. Strategy Consulting as the Illustrative Case
A concrete test domain. Buyers of consulting aren't purchasing correct answers; they want advice from trusted people, catharsis in being heard, and help clarifying their own thinking. None of that is substitutable by an AI regardless of output quality.
5. Human Factors Intensify in Procedural Organizations
An underappreciated corollary. In government and military contexts, lacking market feedback mechanisms, human trust and social organization become even more load-bearing, not less.
Opinion
It's a short, clear piece with a genuinely useful distinction at its center -- but it doesn't fully earn its conclusion.
The two-question-types framework is clean and rings true experientially. Most people have felt the difference between wanting an answer and wanting a conversation, and the observation that these get conflated in AI replacement debates is fair and underappreciated.
Where it falls short is in the leap from "relationship-based questions exist" to "therefore white collar work won't be replaced." The argument proves that AI can't fully substitute for trusted human relationships -- it doesn't prove that organizations will continue to pay for those relationships at current rates, or that AI won't restructure which human interactions are deemed worth paying for.
A client might still want a trusted advisor but find that one advisor supported by AI can now serve ten clients instead of three.
There's also an implicit assumption that the relationship-based component is dominant in most white collar work. That may be true in strategy consulting, but it's a significant empirical claim that the piece asserts rather than argues across the broader category of white collar work.
Why lectures don't work.
"Lectures don’t work because the medium lacks a functioning cognitive model. It’s (implicitly) built on a faulty idea about how people learn—transmissionism—which we can caricaturize as “lecturer says words describing an idea; students hear words; then they understand.” When lectures do work, it’s generally as part of a broader learning context (e.g. projects, problem sets) with a better cognitive model. But the lectures aren’t pulling their weight. If we really wanted to adopt the better model, we’d ditch the lectures, and indeed, that’s what’s been happening in US K–12 education."
Why books don't work
"In this section we’ve seen that, like lectures, non-fiction books don’t work because they lack a functioning cognitive model. Instead, like lectures, they’re (accidentally, invisibly) built on a faulty idea about how people learn: transmissionism. When books do work, it’s generally for readers who deploy skillful metacognition to engage effectively with the book’s ideas. This kind of metacognition is unavailable to many readers and taxing for the rest. Books aren’t pulling their weight. Textbooks do more to help, but they still foist most of the metacognition onto the reader, and they ignore many important ideas about how people learn."
Here's his credentials:
Earned his B.A. from Duke University in 1983 and his Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology from Harvard University in 1990. He is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he has taught since 1992.
Great article. Not just for its crisp analysis of what Nadella did wrong, but even more so for how he could have expressed his thoughts clearly and gotten it right.
Covey would probably encourage you to understand the insecurities of these people and address them in a more positive way. Your mileage from his advice may vary.
Thanks for your assessment. I actually chose Peer 1 because of the recommendation from FogCreek and I'll still thank you even after this incident.
I think it's ironic, that Peer 1 is getting accolades from Business Insider's squarespace article, while their misinforming email has hurt my firm and the small companies that use our software.
I won't hold my breath for an apology email.
That's life in the big city.