The Human–AI Interface: Structured Prompts for Boards and Presidents
AI Prompts 2
By Rick Aman onWhy “Seeding” context in a prompt changes AI output quality
“There’s nothing artificial about artificial intelligence. It’s inspired by people, it’s created by people, and most importantly, it impacts people.” Fei-Fei Li - Great bridge to the Human–AI Interface and governance responsibility.
Seeding the Human–AI Interface
“There’s nothing artificial about artificial intelligence. It’s inspired by people, it’s created by people, and most importantly, it impacts people.” — Fei-Fei Li A strong bridge to the Human–AI Interface and governance responsibility.
Most leaders approach AI the way they approach a search engine. Type a question. Scan the response. Decide whether it feels useful. When the output is thin or generic, the tool gets blamed. In reality, the issue is usually the input. This is where seeding changes the relationship between leaders and AI.
Seeding is the intentional loading of accurate, relevant institutional context into an AI prompt so the output reflects your mission, strategy, constraints, and operating environment rather than generic best practices. In simple terms, you are teaching the AI about your organization before asking it to advise you. Without seeding, AI speaks in averages. With seeding, it starts to reason inside your world and the future you want to create.
Leaders who skip this step often conclude that AI is interesting but not useful. Leaders who practice seeding experience something different. The outputs feel grounded. The risks surface earlier. The options are framed in ways that match how decisions actually get made. The conversation shifts from novelty to decision support. That shift is where value shows up.
Why Seeding Changes the Game
Unseeded prompts tend to produce advice that sounds polished but misses the mark. The recommendations assume resources you do not have, timelines you have not vetted, or authority structures that do not exist in your governance model. The ideas are not wrong. They are misfit or simply generic, fitting almost any organization.
AI is trained on broad patterns. When you do not give it context, it fills the gaps with what is typical. Typical rarely fits the specific challenges boards and executive teams face. Leadership lives in nuance. It lives in constraints, tradeoffs, and local conditions. Seeding gives AI access to those realities.
Seeding also improves risk awareness. Generic AI advice tends to lean optimistic. It suggests moving faster, scaling sooner, and experimenting broadly. In regulated or mission-driven environments, this can create blind spots. When leaders seed the prompt with their risk profile, compliance boundaries, funding constraints, and political context, the output becomes more balanced and applicable to the specific institution. Instead of simply proposing opportunities, AI begins to surface exposure and second-order effects.
The practical result is not perfect answers. The result is better starting points for leadership conversations. Seeding shifts AI from sounding smart to being strategically relevant. Multiple iterations help as the AI hones in on the specific characteristics of your organization.
What Leaders Should Seed
Seeding works best when it is disciplined and selective. Leaders do not need to provide everything. They need to provide what defines decision making in their context.
Start with identity and purpose. What is the mission and vision of your organization, what does your institution love, and why do you exist. This anchors the output in relevant outcomes rather than trend-chasing. Without this, AI cannot distinguish between what is attractive and what is appropriate for your organization.
Add direction and time horizon. Where are you headed over the next two to three years. Are you in a growth phase, a repositioning phase, or a stabilization phase. AI needs this directional frame to avoid recommending actions that conflict with leadership intent.
Name constraints clearly. Budget, staffing capacity, governance processes, policy limits, risk tolerance. Constraints are often treated as caveats. In seeding, they are core inputs. They shape what is realistic and what is irresponsible.
Describe the operating environment. Market conditions, workforce dynamics, regulatory pressures, community expectations, and competitive forces. This context helps AI reason about feasibility and timing rather than defaulting to generic assumptions.
When these four elements are present, the output changes. The recommendations feel more situated. The risks feel more relevant. The options begin to resemble what leaders would actually debate in a boardroom.
What Happens Without Seeding
When leaders skip seeding, three patterns emerge quickly.
First, advice becomes generic. The output sounds like it could apply to almost any organization. This creates the impression that AI is shallow. In truth, the prompt was shallow.
Second, risk is misframed. AI may underplay regulatory, financial, or reputational exposure because it does not know your boundaries. This leads leaders to dismiss the tool as naive. The problem is not naivety. The problem is missing context.
Third, recommendations drift away from governing intent. When AI is not seeded with board priorities and leadership constraints, it can nudge conversations toward directions that feel misaligned. Over time, this erodes trust in the tool and reduces adoption at the leadership level.
These failures are subtle. They show up as outputs that feel disconnected from reality. This is often the moment when leaders conclude that AI is fine for writing tasks but not useful for strategy. In most cases, AI was never given the conditions to be useful.
Seeding as a Leadership Habit, with a College Example
Seeding becomes powerful when it is treated as a leadership habit rather than a clever prompt technique. Boards and executive teams that agree on what gets seeded into AI prompts create consistency in how the tool is used. This consistency improves the quality of analysis and reduces noise in strategic discussions.
Consider a fictitious example.
An unseeded prompt might read:
“Provide recommendations for how a community college can use AI to improve student success.”
The response will likely include broad suggestions such as chatbots for advising, predictive analytics for retention, and personalized learning tools. These ideas are not wrong. They are simply unmoored from any real context.
Now consider a seeded version for High Desert Community College:
“High Desert Community College serves approximately 5,000 students in a largely rural region, with a high percentage of working adults and first-generation learners. Our mission emphasizes workforce alignment, access, and regional economic mobility. Over the next three years, our strategic direction is to strengthen short-term credentials and deepen employer partnerships in health care and advanced manufacturing. Constraints include flat state funding, limited IT staffing capacity, and strict data privacy and compliance requirements. Our environment includes regional labor shortages, transportation barriers for students, and declining high school graduate numbers.
Using this context, outline two to three realistic AI-enabled initiatives that could improve student persistence and workforce alignment within existing capacity and governance limits. Identify key risks and the governance questions a board should ask before moving forward.”
This approach does not guarantee perfect answers. What it changes is the quality of the conversation. The AI is now operating within High Desert’s reality. The ideas are more likely to align with workforce priorities instead of abstract innovation. Risks around capacity and data privacy surface earlier. The options are framed in ways a board can realistically govern. Just as important, leadership now has something concrete to react to, refine, and integrate until a useful path forward emerges.
The leadership value is not just in the output. It is in the discipline of clarifying who you are, where you are headed, and what constrains you before inviting AI into the conversation. That discipline strengthens strategic clarity even before the tool responds.
Summary: Why Seeding Matters AI
AI does not think for trustees. It reflects the boundaries and context they provide. Seeding is how leaders move AI from generic output to strategic relevance. It is the practice of loading purpose, direction, constraints, and context into the prompt so the tool reasons inside your organization’s reality rather than speaking in averages. When seeding becomes a leadership habit, AI stops being a novelty and starts becoming a disciplined partner in foresight and decision readiness.
-----
Aman & Associates works with governing boards and executive teams to clarify purpose, strengthen strategic direction, and use AI as disciplined support for leadership, not a substitute for it. Through board retreats, strategic futuring, and executive advisory work, we help leaders shape direction early rather than react after results are already set.
Rick Aman, PhD Aman & Associates
rick@rickaman.com | www.rickaman.com/articles