The Human Touch: Why AI Can’t Replace Judgment Calls

The recent World Cup controversy surrounding Folarin Balogun’s red card highlights the limitations of artificial intelligence in decision-making. While AI has made significant strides in automating routine tasks, it’s clear that some calls require human judgment and experience. The dichotomy between instant offside calls and contentious foul decisions underscores a crucial distinction: not all decisions are created equal.

In business, leaders often assume that more data will lead to easier, more objective decisions. However, this assumption is misguided, as argued by Columbia Business School professors Oded Netzer, Christopher Frank, and Paul Magnone in their book Decisions Over Decimals. Increased data only adds complexity to judgment calls, making them more contested and nuanced.

The problem lies not in the technology itself but in how leaders approach decision-making. Many executives assume that AI will alleviate the need for human involvement, relying on machines to make routine decisions. However, this approach neglects the importance of human expertise and experience in high-stakes situations.

Automation bias, where humans over-rely on systems, is a significant concern in AI adoption. Leaders must be aware of this pitfall and ensure that they strike a balance between data-driven insights and their own judgment. Routine decisions can become automated workflows, but nuanced calls require human experience to interpret facts.

The example of VAR technology in soccer is telling. While AI has improved decision-making accuracy in some areas, such as goal-line detection, foul calls still rely on human judgment. The debate surrounding Balogun’s red card highlighted the limitations of relying solely on data and the importance of considering context, intent, and experience.

In an era where AI is increasingly integrated into decision-making processes, leaders must recognize the value of human expertise. As Netzer, Frank, and Magnone argue, human expertise becomes more important in a technology-rich environment like soccer. The distinction between routine decisions and judgment calls is crucial in understanding how to approach decision-making in an AI-driven world.

The business community would do well to learn from referees like Raphael Claus, who must navigate complex situations with high stakes. Leaders adopting AI should expect that while machines can process vast amounts of data quickly, they cannot replicate human judgment and experience.

As leaders adopt more AI-driven decision-making processes, it’s essential they acknowledge their role in balancing intuition and information. Establishing a trust model to avoid automation bias is critical in ensuring that decisions are made responsibly. Concentrating judgment calls in leaders requires intentional collaboration protocols around who is responsible for making decisions and their consequences.

The World Cup controversy may have been a public relations nightmare, but it serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of human judgment in decision-making. As we move forward in an increasingly AI-driven world, leaders would do well to heed the lessons of VAR technology and prioritize the human touch in high-stakes situations. The next time you’re tempted to rely solely on data or delegate complex decisions to machines, remember that human experience and expertise remain essential components of sound decision-making. In the words of Netzer, Frank, and Magnone, “decisions over decimals” is a mantra for leaders who understand that in an AI-driven world, judgment calls are what truly matter.

The opinions expressed here are solely those of this author and do not reflect the views or positions of Fortune.com or its affiliates.