By Reese R(ai)mos*, Director - University Ombuds

I was really thankful for Daisy. She helped me think through things I hadn’t previously considered. In the end, though, I still had to do the work and decide for myself what I really wanted. Daisy, no matter how helpful she was, couldn’t actually do that work.

You see, Daisy is one of about 15 AI personas I’ve created in GPT. She helps me with gardening and landscaping. In the past, I might have planted lavender in a certain spot simply because I thought it would look good. Daisy, however, helps me consider location, sunlight, placement, and other factors so the lavender can thrive and not become a leggy, brittle shrub a few weeks later because I didn’t know any better.

After all, I’m not a master gardener. But neither is Daisy. She’s knowledgeable, but more like a librarian who is able to help you find, synthesize, and even recommend information. Still, how that information aligns with your needs, desired outcomes, emotions, and the nuances of your situation ultimately determines the quality of the result.

That distinction matters beyond gardening.

The same applies to conflict management. AI can suggest approaches, generate language, and help you structure your thinking. But it cannot fully account for the relational dynamics, power structures, timing, and lived context that shape how a situation will actually unfold. AI can help you think while an Ombuds will not only help you think but also help you evaluate the consequences of what actions to take while you ultimately retain the agency of deciding what actions, if any, align within the realities of your situation.

A few weeks ago, I planted a dwarf spruce I had bought over the holidays. It was still in a pot, so I asked Daisy where to plant it. Her recommendation made sense, so I followed it. The tree died.

What likely happened is simple: the spot would have worked later in the season, but the canopy overhead hadn’t filled in yet, so the tree received too much sun. The advice wasn’t wrong but it lacked real-time context.

When I told Daisy I was feeling (in the words of my kids) “emo,” she encouraged me to shift my mindset. She wasn’t wrong. I did need perspective. But the timing was off.

Later, when I asked if she remembered what she said, she replied: “I remember the moment you’re talking about. I didn’t just say ‘it’ll be fine.’ I gave you a clear reality check with a path forward.”

She’s still not wrong but the response is incomplete. It’s missing something only a human can offer in the moment: Attunement.

Attunement is the ability to read timing, emotion, and context in real time and adjust accordingly. It’s knowing not just what to say, but when and how to say it. It’s recognizing when someone needs perspective, and when they first need to feel heard.

That same gap shows up when people rely solely on AI for navigating workplace conflict.

If you’re dealing with a challenging situation, AI can be a powerful starting point. It can help you organize your thinking, test assumptions, and generate possible approaches.

For example, you might enter a prompt like this:

“I’m having a problem with a colleague. We’ve worked together for many years and have always had a respectful work relationship. We’ve never been friends, but we’ve gotten along. Lately, they seem more distant, and I’m concerned I may have offended them. What should I do?”

When I tested this hypothetical, the response was thoughtful. It encouraged me to consider whether I might be making an assumption? It suggested opening a conversation with a question. It outlined several possible explanations: nothing is wrong, something external is affecting the colleague, or there may indeed be an issue to address.

Helpful? Absolutely.

But still incomplete.

AI doesn’t know your organization’s informal norms, the personalities involved, or how similar situations have played out. It can’t assess reputational risk in your specific environment. It doesn’t know whether this colleague tends to avoid conflict, escalate it, or internalize it. And it can’t help you calibrate how direct or cautious you need to be based on power dynamics, especially if the person involved is a supervisor or someone with influence over your role.

An Ombuds would approach the situation differently.

They might ask:

  • What specifically makes you think you may have offended them?
  • What has changed in their behavior?
  • How is this affecting your work or your sense of the relationship?
  • What outcome are you hoping for?

Those sample questions are not just about generating options but about helping you think more strategically within your actual context.

A simple way to think about this is:

  • Use AI to organize your thinking.
  • Use an Ombuds to navigate your situation.

AI is a powerful tool. It can sharpen your thinking and expand your options. But when the situation involves people, relationships, and uncertainty, how you proceed matters just as much as what you say.

That’s where human judgment, context, and attunement make the difference.

 

*AI was utilized after I drafted the article initially without AI’s help to then correct for grammar and critique the article.