Maksim Belov is chief technology officer of Coherent Solutions.gettyConsider two teams working on the same project. One is using AI to generate, test, validate rollback scenarios and execute database migration scripts with minimal supervision. The implementation effort is high, but the risk of failure is relatively low. Another team is treating that same database migration as the last place AI should operate autonomously, because the risk and blast radius are too high. The key question was never whether to use AI; it was how much autonomy to allow in a specific context, and who is positioned to make that call. That person is the team lead.A CTO can define strategy, tools, governance and broad policy, but “use AI here, not there” means something different on every product, module, client environment and domain. Only someone who knows the product and the domain constraints of that specific engagement can make the right call about how much latitude to give AI. What Good Looks LikeThe standard indicators of a well-functioning team still apply in an AI-native environment: short cycle times, high quality and strong user satisfaction. But teams that are succeeding with AI are adjusting where and how much discretion to allow, and revisiting that calibration constantly.Over the last year or two, many organizations have been experimenting, normalizing tools, building maturity models and documenting AI development. The shift now is that customers and product organizations routinely expect AI-assisted delivery, and the question is increasingly becoming how organizations translate AI capability into solid results.​​​​​A good team lead weighs the cost of execution against the cost of a mistake. If implementing a task is expensive and the probability of error is low, they may let AI operate with high autonomy. If the stakes are high but the implementation effort is moderate, they can direct engineers to do it manually, accepting a small hit to throughput in exchange for minimizing the chance of a costly failure.Planning sessions should reflect this shift. A good lead now drives conversations that didn't exist two years ago: What’s the risk of giving AI full independence on this specific problem? How are we using AI to solve this particular task, and is that the right approach given what’s at stake?Set Team Leads Up For SuccessOrganizations should give leads the structures that make good judgment repeatable. That starts with a planning autonomy calibration ritual, where the lead explicitly asks: What parts of this workstream can AI handle independently? What requires human review? What should remain human-led?It also means documenting autonomy tiers by workstream or module, so teams are not relying on individual developer preference. Those tiers might run from AI-assisted only, to AI-generated with mandatory review, to AI-executed with validation, to AI-autonomous within defined guardrails. And it requires an escalation protocol for high-risk AI output, where certain thresholds automatically require senior engineering review: data migration, security-sensitive code, regulated workflows, core business logic, production infrastructure, customer-impacting decisions or anything with difficult rollback.Watch For Leaders You Didn’t ExpectExisting technical leaders tend to sort themselves into groups. Some jump in and become AI leaders, while others resist. But the most interesting group is those who step up and become leaders who might not have done this before AI arrived. The shift in how teams operate has created an opening for people with strong systems thinking and comfort with ambiguity, people the traditional structure didn’t always make visible.That’s why I’ve learned to keep an open mind about where these new leads come from. I look at how people apply AI in design reviews, whether they're thinking long-term about accountability, and what their decision-making pattern looks like when the stakes are uneven. I also pay attention to who calibrates risk well and who can help the team turn AI from individual experimentation into repeatable delivery performance.The gap between talking about AI-native delivery and actually achieving it comes down to who is making judgment calls in the middle. CTO strategy and individual developer skill both matter. But the team lead is the one deciding how much latitude AI gets on any given workstream, and that's the decision that determines success. Invest in those people, and the rest will follow.Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?