Your Team Is Talking to AI More Than Each Other. That's Costing You.

Here's a question I've started asking owners: when was the last time someone on your team asked a colleague a question instead of asking AI?

Most can't answer. That's the problem.

AI is making your people faster. New research says it may also be making your team slower. Not at the task level. At the team level, where the real work of a growing company gets done.

What the Research Found

In October, Harvard Business Review published a study from researchers at BetterUp and Stanford. They surveyed 1,033 U.S. full-time desk workers on project teams across more than 20 industries.

The good news: as AI use went up, people felt their teammates had more specialized knowledge.

The bad news: the more people went to AI instead of a teammate, the more trust and coordination fell. On teams where that was the norm, coordination dropped about 22% and trust dropped about 22%.

The researchers have a name for it: "relationslipping." It's the slow erosion of working relationships when people substitute AI for each other.

Think About a Pit Crew

The authors use a Formula 1 pit crew as the model of a great team. Everyone knows their role. Nobody re-checks anyone's work. The whole thing is done in under two seconds.

That only works because everyone knows who knows what. Psychologists call it a transactive memory system. Owners just call it "the team works."

AI quietly breaks that map in two ways:

• You skip the conversation, so you never update who knows what.
• Your colleague hands their thinking to AI, so you can't see how they got there.

The result? People double-check each other's work. Effort gets duplicated. Projects hit dead ends. Then you schedule a meeting to figure out what everyone already did. Sound familiar?

Why Your Best People Do It

This is the part owners need to hear. Relationslipping isn't laziness. The research points to three drivers, and each one is a reasonable choice in the moment:

• They believe in AI. People optimistic about AI were nearly 3x more likely to go to AI over a teammate.
• Asking feels risky. People with low psychological safety were more than 2x as likely. Nobody wants to look dumb or bug a busy coworker.
• AI agrees with them. The authors cite a study in Science finding leading models affirmed users about 49% more often than humans did. Colleagues push back. AI rarely does.

And it isn't generational. The pattern showed up across age, seniority, industry, and team size.

So let me get this straight. We tell people to use AI more. We measure who uses it. We reward individual output. Then we're surprised when the team stops talking? That's an incentive problem, not a technology problem.

The Cost Shows Up on Your P&L

The human cost is real. Nearly half (49%) of workers said teammates displace them with AI at least some of the time. People who feel displaced are much less likely to feel they matter to their team, and more likely to look for another job.

The researchers modeled a 10,000-person company and estimated roughly 243 extra departures and more than $25M in turnover cost.

Most of our clients aren't 10,000 people. So here's our rough extrapolation, using the study's assumptions, for a 150-person company:

Rounded, labeled, and not precise. But it's enough to wipe out a lot of AI time savings.

AI Isn't the Villain

The authors are clear on this, and so are we. In their words:

Some displacement is healthy. One sales manager in the study was relieved a coworker used AI when they were too busy to help. The goal isn't fewer AI conversations. It's more of the right human ones.

What We Coach Owner-Led Companies to Do

In our experience, the fix isn't a policy. It's a habit. Here's what we put in place with clients.

1. Share the Win, Don't Just Bank It

If AI saves someone 1 to 2 hours, that's a nice personal win. If they share it with 3 to 5 teammates, as a scheduled prompt or a Claude skill, it becomes a team win worth several times that. And it gives people a reason to talk. In our AI Value Drivers Program, a win doesn't count until it's taught to at least one person outside the team.

2. Stay in Daily Contact

Even among people who go to AI first, the study found about 28% higher coordination and 19% higher trust when they were in daily contact with their team, especially through Slack, Teams, or email. We add a 30-minute demo every two weeks where people show what they built and how.

3. Make Asking Safe

If asking a teammate feels riskier than asking a chatbot, the chatbot wins. Leaders go first: ask questions out loud and admit what you don't know.

4. Use AI to Prep for Conversations, Not Skip Them

The authors found a 5-minute AI role-play before a tough conversation reduced anxiety and built confidence. Use it to get ready. Then go talk.

5. Measure the Team, Not Just Usage

We run shadow AI surveys and quarterly team surveys to see who's using what, where tools are creating confusion, and whether people understand the plan. Usage dashboards tell you who's busy. Team surveys tell you if you're winning.

Every sprint, leadership sees three numbers: skills shipped, adoption rate, and documented ROI. Adoption rate is the one that tells you if the team is learning together.

One of our core beliefs at Coach.Win: people know what winning looks like. AI doesn't change that. It just makes it easier to win alone and lose together.

Your Monday Morning Move

Ask your leadership team one question this week:

"What's one AI win you've had that nobody else on the team knows about?"

Then make them share it.

Your Turn

Where are you seeing this? Has AI made your team more connected or more siloed? Tell me in the comments.

And if you know an owner who needs to read this, share it with them.

Sources

• Niederhoffer, Rapuano, Liebscher, Robichaux and Hancock, "Team Dynamics Weaken When Employees Turn to AI Instead of Colleagues", HBR.org, Oct 15, 2026, Reprint H09BZ1. Source for all survey figures, the pit crew example, and the 10,000-person turnover model.
• Science sycophancy study (49% figure) and SHRM replacement cost range (50% to 200% of salary) are as cited in the HBR article above.
• 150-person company estimate: Coach.Win extrapolation using the HBR article's assumptions (52% AI use, about 75% experiencing displacement, about 6 points extra turnover) plus an assumed avg. $60K salary.
• Client practices (share-the-win rule, shadow AI and quarterly team surveys): Coach.Win field experience.