How to Prevent AI Workslop and Build Smarter Processes

In a recent Harvard Business Review piece titled, AI-Generated “Workslop” Is Destroying Productivity, the authors define “workslop” as AI‑generated content that looks polished but lacks substance, shifting the burden of interpretation, correction and decision‑making downstream to coworkers and managers. The authors also connect workslop to a broader ROI gap. Despite surging AI use, many organizations see little measurable return because pilots often proliferate without clear quality standards.

It’s a Process Problem

These organizations try generative AI through scattered, individual experimentation, which causes workslop to extend beyond issues with content quality towards a process problem. The result is output without context, controls or accountability, with little to show for the effort. Effective AI adoption starts with structure. Organizations that emphasize governance, tool selection and change management as prerequisites realize stronger ROI across all forms of AI use, extending from the enablement of generative AI tools to the development of custom AI solutions.

Business transformation professionals currently see the same pattern: AI becomes valuable only when we embed it in defined processes, integrate with the data and controls you already trust and manage adoption purposefully.

A Playbook to Embed AI: Solving the Process Problem (Without the Workslop)

Training

Training for using the generative AI tools may be nonexistent or have a heavy reliance on external content. Without the context on what one has been trained on or in what context it provides perspective on use case application, the results can lead to workslop.

Develop a training framework that supports the organization to start optimizing the use of AI, including:

• AI 101: Foundational training that demonstrates the capabilities of AI specific to the organization’s available toolsets
• Prompt training: Guidance on the art and science of effective prompting, including how to craft clear inputs and evaluate complete, accurate outputs
• Ethics and security: Training on ethical considerations and implications of AI technologies, including bias, privacy and accountability

Not everyone needs to be a black belt in AI. But everyone can, and should, learn to:

• Use AI to complete specific tasks (with clear prompts and inputs)
• Review and validate AI output with critical thinking, treating the first draft as a hypothesis, not a handoff
• Recognize when AI helps (e.g., structured summarization, classification, drafting) and when it’s noise (e.g., domain‑novice synthesis without sources)

This “human‑as‑reviewer” mindset sits at the center of responsible AI adoption and is reflected in guidance on AI governance and control frameworks for AI use.

Use Case Identification, Development, Testing and Launch

By facilitating use‑case workshop and designing pilots that prove value quickly, companies are able to support the organization’s overall appetite for change and provide direction to avoid misuse or creation of workslop.

AI does not automatically lead to increased productivity; it is effective only when integrated into well-designed processes. The future of work won’t be won by who generates the most content but by who generates the most value. The key is to deliver outputs that are safe, repeatable and scalable.

Use cases should be developed through a hub‑and‑spoke design to prevent inconsistent standards, processes and oversight across different parts of an organization when developing AI use cases. By using a hub-and-spoke model where the central hub sets AI standards, data governance, compliance guidelines and the spokes (business units) develop use cases within those frameworks, the organization avoids fragmented approaches that could lead to duplicated efforts, varying quality, increased risks and lack of coordination. This centralized yet decentralized approach ensures quality control, consistency and alignment with organizational objectives. Ultimately, this approach helps prevent workslop from slowing down processes and ensures faster cycle times.

Steps for Use Case Development

1. Start with use cases: Identify pain points where AI can enhance throughput or decision quality. Cross‑functional workshops help surface high‑value opportunities and dependencies early.
2. Validate the output: Pilot in small scopes. Measure accuracy, consistency and usability against defined acceptance criteria, then refine prompts, controls and handoffs. This is how you transition from simply experimenting with AI or showcasing its capabilities in isolated demonstrations (AI‑as‑demo) to fully integrating AI into everyday business processes and operations (AI‑as‑workflow). In other words, rather than using AI as a one-off trial or proof of concept, organizations should embed AI into their regular workflows so it consistently delivers value, increases efficiency and supports decision-making.
3. Govern the process: Set acceptable‑use standards, data quality thresholds and review protocols, and tie them to your existing control environment. The ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial Intelligence Management System Standard offers a step‑by‑step approach to roles, accountability and oversight.
4. Train for the reviewer role: Equip teams with review checklists, calibration sessions to align reviewers on how to consistently assess AI-generated outputs and “show your sources” norms.
5. Scale with change management: Successful scale isn’t a tool launch, it’s behavior change. Use change plans, communications, champions and metrics to embed AI into the daily rhythm of work.

Preventing AI Workslop and Reducing Reviewer Burden

Effectively preventing AI workslop requires a deliberate approach that minimizes unnecessary rework and lightens the load on those tasked with reviewing AI-generated output. By establishing robust review protocols, setting clear acceptance criteria and providing comprehensive upfront training, organizations can avoid ambiguity and repetitive clarification cycles. Standardized use case documentation and embedded automated checks enable reviewers to focus on meaningful evaluation rather than correcting preventable mistakes.

Consistent assessment is further supported through regular calibration sessions and the use of structured review checklists. Fostering a “show your sources” culture enhances transparency and traceability, ensuring reviewers have the information they need to make informed decisions. Proactive communication between business units and the central hub strengthens quality control, accelerates cycle times and ensures that innovation remains both decentralized and well-governed. These combined efforts not only reduce the burden on reviewers but also drive higher-quality AI adoption across the organization.

Contact us. We are here to support you in training your teams on all aspects of AI adoption.

©2025

Author’s note: Credit to Harvard Business Review and authors Kate Niederhoffer, Gabriella Rosen Kellerman, Angela Lee, Alex Liebscher, Kristina Rapuano and Jeffrey T. Hancock for introducing and contextualizing the term “workslop.” Their article is a must‑read for all professionals.