Most leaders can see the indicator light blinking: employees who are capable but stretched, outdated tools or processes, new technologies our teams aren’t fully prepared for. But the immediate pressures of the day—the revenue targets, the hiring fires, the strategic priorities—feel more tangible. And so, the skills conversation gets deferred. Again.

At a recent event on the future of skills, I heard a leader in training and change management at a large organization make a sweeping generalization:

The younger workforce adopts AI with much less friction than the older generation.

I get it. Generational dynamics are always at play in the workplace. But this framing? It was too simplistic and, frankly, counterproductive. No wonder their adoption rates are lower than target.

This isn’t just about calling out ageism (though let’s call it what it is). It’s about how these kinds of over-simplifications undermine real, lasting change.

In an earlier post, I discussed the difference between capability drift and skill gaps. While “gap” suggests something binary (you have the skill or you don’t), “lag” captures a more realistic and nuanced truth: skills can be present but behind market expectations. This matters, because designing for acceleration of capability—not just filling a gap—requires a different strategy.

Where does that lag show up? In an organization’s ability to stay in the market and play in the market.egins with an idea.