---
type: "synthesis"
tags: ["co-creation", "participation", "convergent-prescription"]
articles: ["a040", "a041", "a042", "a052", "a078"]
id: "cross-build-with-not-for"
sources: ["adoption"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-adoption"
originDay: 9
articleStem: "hbr-seg-adoption"
sourceUrl: "(unified vault: 11 sources)"
sourceTitle: "HBR — People Ⅲ-A · Adoption / trust / literacy / psych-safety"
---
If the corpus has one prescriptive consensus, it is: **stop imposing AI top-down; co-create it with the workforce.** Five articles arrive at this independently, using different vocabulary.

- **A041 (Pernod Ricard)** names the mechanism most cleanly: [[concept-pull-vs-push-adoption]] — engineer *pull* ('I want this') instead of management *push*. Captured in [[quote-pull-vs-push]].
- **A040 (Deloitte)** demands designing AI *with* workers via internal foundries ([[action-co-create-ai-tools]]); its metaphor [[quote-fixing-the-rudder]] warns against training people to sail while fixing the rudder.
- **A042 (Zaki)** makes co-creation Pillar 1 ([[action-cocreate-strategies]]) and grounds it in [[concept-procedural-justice]] — participation confers *perceived fairness*.
- **A052 (Hermann et al.)** operationalizes it as collaborative [[action-redesign-workflows|workflow redesign]] and the Empower step of AWARE.
- **A078 (manufacturing)** puts it in the title — [[framework-building-ai-with-workers]] — and derives it from executive uncertainty.

The emergent theory beneath all five: co-creation works because it simultaneously (a) restores autonomy (SDT — see [[cross-identity-threat-fobo]]), (b) confers procedural justice, (c) surfaces tacit frontline knowledge, and (d) manufactures the peer validation that drives adoption (see the champions cluster: [[concept-technology-ambassadors]], [[action-peer-activators]]). Caveat from A038's [[counter-mandates-context-dependent]] and A052's own nuance: co-creation is resource-intensive and some standardization is legitimately necessary — see [[cross-mandate-tension]].