Will Gen AI Drive Association Communication Teams to One?
Generative AI (Gen AI) is revolutionizing communications faster than most association leaders ever imagined. During a recent scenario planning session with an association of over 100 staff, I guided its executive team through a series of simulations that forecast what their communications operations might look like in the coming years. We explored both promising and worrisome possibilities, including challenges and risks, and settled on the most likely scenario, informed by the current trends in Gen AI deployment: a transformative path that reduces an initial team of just under 20 communications professionals down to one solitary practitioner by 2030. The exercise served as a wake-up call for leaders determined to stay ahead of the curve while preserving the enduring credibility of their association.
Gen AI Drives a Cascade of Transformations
Our scenario planning exercise focused on how generative AI could embed itself deeper into communications, rapidly automating content creation, analytics, and even strategic decision-making. We structured each stage around milestones linked to how quickly large language models and multimedia generation tools might improve, informed by what we’ve seen over the last couple of years and the best estimates of what will happen by 2030.
Starting with just under 20 communications staff at the start of 2025, by the end of 2025, our simulation showed that the association’s communications team would rely on Gen AI for the large majority of routine tasks, shrinking down to around 17. That includes drafting announcements for chapters, writing short-form emails to volunteers, and running the initial wave of data analytics to gauge member feedback. Most staff would still handle hands-on creative work, but they would also experiment with AI to accelerate the content cycle. Our planning showed that while competition for members’ attention remained fierce, communications was still a fundamentally human-led enterprise. Yes, they used AI tools, but mostly to remove drudgery from a packed schedule that included coordinating with volunteer leaders across various chapters.
One year later, in 2026, the AI adoption we envisioned became more assertive. In the scenario, the communications department contracted to about 14 people, largely because advanced models could now parse extensive member data in real time, identify sections of the membership ripe for higher engagement, and produce more sophisticated digital content. Some team members pivoted to new roles, acting as brand stewards who managed AI systems rather than drafting messages themselves. Others refocused on coordinating communication at conferences, spearheading outreach in chapters, and cultivating relationships with the media. During that year, generative AI crossed a threshold where it could precisely tailor messaging to unique member demographics with minimal supervision. The strategic planning process showed that this increased automation led to additional staff reductions, simply because routine tasks became easier for AI to handle.
As part of our 2027 planning horizon, we saw the communications department shedding more roles to land at around 10 professionals. The driving force behind that shift was the rise of advanced AI multimedia generation—custom videos, voice-overs, or interactive online materials that once required a small army of creatives. Sophisticated AI pipelines learned from past campaigns and adapted to user feedback on the fly. Our simulations showed the association’s leadership funneling more resources into ethical guidelines and crisis response, rather than maintaining large teams of writers and graphic designers. When the AI proposed a thousand variations of a digital event banner, it required only a small group of human curators to approve or reject the options. This transition jolted many leaders in the room, but they recognized the time savings and saw that, despite the shock, it was an almost inevitable progression of technology.
By 2028, our scenario planning indicated that only four to five communications staff would remain. At first glance, that drop seemed drastic, but we probed further. AI systems would track member engagement in real time, making subtle adjustments to messaging, tone, and calls to action for maximum effectiveness. In the scenario, the AI even learned from fleeting cultural moments—trending discussion topics in chapter meetings, viral videos shared among volunteers, or emerging policy changes in the industry—by scanning social media and internal forums. Meanwhile, the five individuals who stayed on were not editing press releases; they were forging strategic narratives, managing nuances in cross-cultural communication among different chapters, and flagging ethical pitfalls. The planning team recognized this stage as a period of heightened risk, where an unsupervised AI engine might inadvertently alienate large segments of the membership if it failed to recognize context or sensitive topics. These communications professionals acted like guardians, safeguarding the association’s reputation and regulating AI-driven experiments to avoid controversy.
Gen AI Driving Down to One
Next year, 2029, marked the turning point when the AI’s adaptability reached near-autonomous levels. Our simulations revealed that only two professionals remained in the communications department. They worked in close coordination with the executive suite, serving as the final checkpoint between the fully autonomous AI and the association’s overarching vision. Their responsibilities included briefing top leaders on engagement outcomes, interpreting massive data streams, functioning as protectors of the association’s integrity, and shaping communications strategy at quarterly planning sessions.
In one scenario example, the AI identified an opportunity to partner with a major nonprofit-led campaign and needed human input on whether the messaging was appropriate for the diverse sections of the membership. The two-person team scouted potential cultural pitfalls, evaluated the risk to the association’s standing as an industry standard-bearer, and conferred with the executive leadership on the move’s alignment with the organization’s public commitments. Though the AI proposed the initiative, these two specialists served as interpreters for the rest of the association, contextualizing the opportunity, its potential benefits, and its ethical boundaries. That model demonstrated just how crucial it was for senior staff to remain tied to AI-driven decisions, despite the system’s nearly autonomous capabilities.
By 2030, our scenario envisioned the communications department reduced to a single “Head of Brand Integrity.” This individual worked closely with the association’s top executives in regular check-ins, especially whenever the board approved major new programs for chapters or sections. Whenever the leadership announced a pivot toward a new strategic priority or a high-profile advocacy campaign, this single communications professional fed updated directives to the AI and monitored the system’s revisions. Generative AI handled negotiations with media outlets, designed real-time content experiences for members, and tracked global trends in microseconds. If a minor crisis flared—perhaps the AI overlooked an important cultural reference in an overseas message for international chapters—the “Head of Brand Integrity” alerted top executives and enacted swift corrections. The AI then absorbed those lessons and recalibrated its approach. Though only one person remained, that individual had enormous influence, bridging the gap between bottom-line objectives and authentic connections with members across every chapter.
The executives at the scenario planning exercise recognized that the widespread use of Gen AI promised remarkable benefits: immediate feedback loops, custom outreach to different sections, and significantly reduced overhead for communications campaigns. But it also introduced ethical hazards, which become more pressing as AI takes over daily decision-making. The scenario planning led participants to reflect on whether intangible human qualities—empathy, moral judgment, cultural sensitivity—might still anchor the association’s reputation in this new era, justifying the retention of that “Head of Brand Integrity.”
Embracing the Future
“Scenarios are not guarantees; they are strategic sketches that help leaders plan.” I underscored this principle when we concluded the session. Our participants understood that the timeline we projected—going from just under 20 communications staff down to a single role—was one of many potential outcomes. Some felt our dates were too aggressive; others found them too cautious. Most believed we captured the trajectory accurately.
The purpose of scenario planning is not to insist on a single future but to prepare organizations for substantial shifts if they occur. A communications department that transitions from a robust staff to a small corps of strategists, and finally to one solitary caretaker, may appear extreme. Yet the trend lines are visible already. AI models write newsletters, edit videos, create social media content, and track metrics continuously. It may only be a matter of time before these tools become so capable that the few remaining human supervisors operate on a more strategic—and ethical—plane of thinking.
An association’s brand and credibility thrive when they connect with members’ genuine needs and cultural awareness. That kind of resonance depends on empathy—a capacity that, in our scenario, machines mimic more effectively each year but never wholly supplant. Someone must still step in if AI crosses a line. Our workshop participants recognized that the lone communications professional who remains in 2030 wields considerable influence as the conscience of the automated machine, ensuring the association’s vision stays intact while harnessing the full power of generative AI.
Executives who embrace the unstoppable rise of Gen AI in communications will find new opportunities, but they must also establish firm boundaries. That includes clarifying brand values, defining ethical redlines, and setting protocols for AI oversight. Doing nothing, as we stressed in the workshop, is the only truly hazardous choice.
Organizations that cling too tightly to manual processes risk ceding ground to associations that automate more swiftly. Yet handing over complete control to machines could lead to communications devoid of warmth or authenticity. Our scenario is designed to help leaders strike a balance, leveraging AI’s expanding capabilities without extinguishing the human spark so vital to an association’s identity.
I remember one executive remarking that losing so many creative voices felt like tearing out the association’s soul. Another executive countered that in an era of instantaneous data updates, the soul of the organization could persist through a single visionary uniting technology and empathy. A third, the CFO, argued that the “Head of Brand Integrity” position might not be necessary at all, suggesting the role be shared by the Executive Director and General Counsel.
The debate concluded without perfect agreement, which is precisely the value of scenario planning. It lays out a spectrum of possibilities so associations can chart their own path, whether that means full-scale automation, a balanced approach, or a resolute commitment to preserving human craftsmanship.
These choices are never simple, yet they shape the competitive landscape of tomorrow. By the workshop’s end, leaders realized that this unsettling scenario forced them to confront urgent questions about technological advancements, cost efficiencies, and the enduring need for human insight. They left determined to start realigning their communications strategy while upholding the association’s core values. Although the scenario itself will not decide the future, one reality stands firm: generative AI will keep rewriting the rules, and communications professionals who adapt will end up making history rather than merely observing it.
Key Take-Away
Can Gen AI drive your communications staff to one? Explore the new human roles required to protect brand integrity from AI risks. Share on XImage credit: fauxels/pexels
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky was named “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times for helping leaders overcome frustrations with Generative AI. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.