In a recent LinkedIn post, Ahana Banerjee discusses the common pitfall of companies adopting artificial intelligence not out of genuine need, but due to top-down mandates. Banerjee, founder of Clear, contrasts this approach with her company’s problem-first methodology, highlighting the inefficiencies and political maneuvering often seen in larger organizations when AI is implemented without a clear use case.
The ‘AI Mandate’ vs. Genuine Strategy
Banerjee observes that many companies implement AI not because it solves a specific problem, but because leadership has decreed it must be used. This often leads to departments scrambling to find applications, primarily to satisfy a directive rather than to create tangible value. She states:
“Most companies don’t have an AI strategy. They have an AI mandate. Someone at the top announces that the company “must use AI”, and several departments start scrambling to apply it somewhere (anywhere) so somebody can add a reassuring green tick to a presentation.”
This contrasts sharply with the founder’s ability to make decisions based on what is truly best for the business, a freedom Banerjee feels is often hampered by internal politics and competing priorities in larger structures. According to Banerjee, intelligent employees can spend an inordinate amount of time navigating these complexities instead of focusing on innovation.
Clear’s Problem-Centric Approach to Technology
At her company, Clear, Banerjee explains that the process begins with identifying a genuine bottleneck. Only then is it determined whether AI, or any other technology, can effectively improve the situation. The decision to adopt or discard a solution is based purely on its performance and impact.
She elaborates on this philosophy:
“We didn’t begin with, “How can we use more AI?” We began with the repetitive work slowing us down, then built workflows around the places where AI could genuinely help. If it doesn’t save time, improve the output or allow our tiny team of two FTEs to do something we otherwise couldn’t, we don’t need it.”
Banerjee points out that this pragmatic approach, while seemingly obvious, is often overlooked in favor of demonstrating compliance with arbitrary directives. The focus shifts from problem-solving to proving adherence to a mandate.
The Advantage of Agility and Freedom
While acknowledging that startups have their own disadvantages, Banerjee emphasizes the significant benefit of agility. Clear, with its small team and limited resources, can move swiftly from identifying a problem to testing a solution and making a decision, without the extensive bureaucratic hurdles found in larger corporations. This freedom, however, comes with the responsibility of owning the outcomes.
As Banerjee notes, when there’s no bureaucracy to prevent a bad decision, there’s also no bureaucracy to deflect blame. She expresses a preference for this environment:
“I would choose that every time. Imo, work is far more fulfilling when talented people can focus their energy on doing what genuinely matters – not merely demonstrating to somebody more senior that an arbitrary mandate has been fulfilled.”
Ultimately, Banerjee advocates for a work environment where talented individuals can direct their energy towards meaningful contributions rather than navigating organizational politics to fulfill externally imposed requirements. She concludes her post by offering to share documentation on Clear’s AI workflows for those interested in their practical application.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Ahana Banerjee on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on September 14, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →