GCs Are Way Beyond ‘Strategic.’ In AI Era, They Build Alignment

Artificial intelligence has made speed exponential. And when speed is exponential, misalignment goes from problematic to fatal.

That’s how a Silicon Valley technology executive put it to me recently, voicing a growing corporate leadership concern across sectors.

Take WeWork. Its collapse wasn’t because co-working was a bad idea. It’s because velocity outran alignment. The company scaled aggressively—signing long-term leases while offering short-term memberships, expanding globally without adapting locally, hiring faster than it could integrate. Strategy, governance, culture, and operations drifted apart. By the time anyone could course-correct, the cracks had compounded into fractures. Velocity didn’t create the misalignment. It exposed it—catastrophically.

WeWork’s story illustrates an established pattern. MIT reported last year that 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing, with resource misalignment identified as a primary cause.

A consensus is emerging across disciplines spanning organizational design, leadership theory, and AI implementation: Alignment—not talent or capital—has become the scarcest strategic resource in organizations operating at AI-enabled speed.

The alignment challenge will affect every leadership function. But it has particular implications for general counsel—implications the profession is now beginning to recognize and own.

From Synthesis to Alignment

The concept of the GC as an organization’s “synthesizer in chief” has been gaining currency. It’s become the subject—in the last year especially—of panels, posts, and peer-to-peer conversations. GCs function as integrators, distilling inputs across legal, business, risk, and reputational domains into coherent understanding. No other role sits at the same intersection. That cognitive work is foundational, and it remains essential.

But for many GCs, synthesis is no longer an end unto itself. It is increasingly imperative that an organization acts on that insight and executes it coherently. Synthesis allows GCs to calibrate between what is legally optimal and what is culturally sustainable, building the trust infrastructure that carries organizations through crises, and refining conflict into clarity. That’s alignment.

In slower-moving organizations, good synthesis often produced alignment organically, as there was time for leaders’ understanding to translate into coordinated action. AI velocity has eliminated that buffer. That meeting that could have been an email? Well, now that email was drafted by an AI plugin and implemented by AI agents.

In the AI age, alignment must be built deliberately.

Why Alignment Converges on the GC

The forces driving the current shift are converging on the general counsel’s office. It’s not so much an expansion of the role as an expression of what the role’s structural position has always enabled.

The GC has no profit and loss to optimize, no function to defend. When sales wants one thing and manufacturing wants another, the GC can point out the misalignment without being suspected of angling for advantage. Every other function optimizes for something: revenue, efficiency, capital allocation, or talent acquisition. Legal aims for coherence. That neutrality is architectural.

Leadership research reinforces it. A recent Harvard Business Review analysis of leadership transitions found that in volatile environments, the critical capability is what researchers call “executive intelligence.” It’s the ability to synthesize competing perspectives, challenge assumptions, and course-correct in real time—a skill that maps closely to legal training.

As lawyers, we are educated in internal consistency—trained to spot when a position in one context conflicts with another position in a different context. We parse language for consequential ambiguity. We identify where commitments don’t align with conduct. That discipline translates directly to alignment work: flagging where the organization is saying—or may be misperceived as saying—different things in different contexts.

Compliance—legal’s daily bread—is really alignment by another name. It is the alignment of organizational behavior with legal and regulatory requirements. The GC already owns this. Extending from compliance alignment to strategic alignment isn’t a category jump. It is corporate efficiency, applying the same discipline to a broader set of organizational commitments.

Legal’s own effectiveness also depends on alignment. When internal standards, historical positions, and strategic direction are clear, legal moves fast. When they aren’t, uncertainty produces caution—and caution, at scale, produces drag. Legal has intrinsic motivation to build the alignment infrastructure the enterprise needs.

And the GC sees where misalignment lands. Litigation, regulatory action, and reputational damage are the consequences of coherence failures. The patterns are visible in legal’s inbox before they surface in the boardroom. Risk visibility is alignment intelligence.

AI Creates Urgency

AI adds unprecedented urgency to the issue. AI doesn’t just automate tasks; it collapses organizational time. In this environment, misalignment compounds faster than it can be corrected.

The GC who has implemented AI in legal operations understands this firsthand. That experience is transferable. The GC becomes both the alignment function and the executive who has already learned how to align humans and machines in practice.

Together, these factors explain why alignment is converging on the GC role as a matter of organizational physics, not aspiration.

To Embrace or Deflect

This isn’t an argument for expanding legal’s role. It is an observation about where organizational need is converging. That need is landing on legal, whether we want it or not.

For GCs prepared to engage, the opportunity is substantial. Alignment work positions legal not as the function that slows things down but as the function that prevents speed from tearing the company apart. For those who deflect or defer, the risk is displacement—not by AI, but by organizational necessity. If legal doesn’t fill the alignment gap, someone else will.

For years, the profession has debated whether the GC should be “strategic.” That debate is now beside the point. AI velocity changed what the role requires. Alignment has become a structural requirement.

The legal function has long been the enterprise’s safety net, catching failures, limiting exposure, and managing fallout. The alignment imperative offers a role as load-bearing beam—the structural support that holds the enterprise together when coherence is tested by the minute.

That shift is underway. If embraced, it will reframe legal’s very reason for being.

Columnist Eric Dodson Greenberg is executive vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary of Cox Media Group. Eric writes about leadership, legal operations, and the intersection of law and AI for Bloomberg Law’s Good Counsel column.

Read More Good Counsel