---
id: "question-resolving-model-contradictions"
type: "open-question"
source_timestamps: ["§ Effect #2: Duplication and Contradiction"]
source_url: "https://hbr.org/2025/09/dont-let-ai-reinforce-organizational-silos"
source_title: "Don't Let AI Reinforce Organizational Silos"
tags: ["change-management", "conflict-resolution"]
related: ["concept-ai-duplication-contradiction", "entity-western-pacific", "concept-purpose-first-approach"]
resolutionPath: "Establishing an AI ethics or strategy board within the CoE with explicit authority to override departmental AI recommendations based on corporate risk appetite."
sources: ["tail2"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-tail2"
originDay: 2
articleStem: "hbr-tail-130-ai-reinforce-silos"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/09/dont-let-ai-reinforce-organizational-silos"
sourceTitle: "Don’t Let AI Reinforce Organizational Silos"
---
# How are active contradictions between legacy departmental models resolved during the transition to a purpose-first approach?

**Open question:** How are active contradictions between legacy departmental models resolved *during the transition* to a purpose-first approach?

The [[entity-western-pacific]] example ([[concept-ai-duplication-contradiction]]) highlights a live conflict between finance (risk avoidance) and marketing (customer acquisition). While the [[concept-purpose-first-approach]] is the long-term fix, the article doesn't explain the immediate governance mechanism for resolving the tie when two AI models give conflicting directives *today*.

**Resolution path:** Establish an AI ethics or strategy board within the CoE with explicit authority to override departmental AI recommendations based on corporate risk appetite. This connects to the enrichment's multi-speed / federated governance framing (IBM, Mario Thomas) — a central authority sets tie-break rules while local teams execute.