Every conversation I have with a research leader these days eventually lands in the same place. We might start with team structure, a reorg, a promotion cycle, but at some point, AI enters the chat. Our discipline is changing fast. What used to take us weeks or even months, takes us hours now. And, the people around us are starting to ask a question that sits heavy in every one of these conversations: if the research itself is getting easier and more democratized across functions (Product, Design, Marketing, Sales, and more), what exactly is our value as researchers?

I don’t think AI is going to replace researchers for a long time, but I do think it’s compressing the part of the job that used to be our clearest proof of value — the design, the execution, the analysis — into something that feels increasingly commoditized. The researchers who will thrive in this accelerated world aren’t necessarily the ones with the best methodological chops (though that is important!), they’re the ones who are going to pivot how they show up, know how to direct AI to strategically scale themselves, and how to make their work matter to the business after the data comes in.

Which brings me to the thing I’ve been thinking about most lately, something I keep coming back to in coaching conversations and something I saw over and over again during my 15 years leading research functions at Google, Twitter, Pinterest and now my own agency: the work after the work.

The 90/10 problem

Most researchers pour about 90% of their energy into the work itself: the design, the fieldwork, the analysis, the deck. That makes complete sense, because that’s the core craft, that’s what we were trained to do, and it’s what we take the most pride in. However, the impact doesn’t actually live in that 90%. Impact lives in the other 10%, which is the part that most of us skip because we’re already onto the next project on our roadmap or because we assume the work should speak for itself. Or, perhaps we have a leadership team that values volume over influence (yikes).

In a world where AI can help generate a discussion guide, synthesize interview transcripts, and draft a topline in a fraction of the time it used to take, that 90% is shrinking. The 10% — the part where you influence decisions, build relationships, and make sure your work actually changes something in your company — is becoming the entire game for our career as researchers.

What the 10% “work after the work” actually looks like in practice

The work after the work isn't glamorous, but it's what separates research that gets a polite nod from research that actually changes how a company operates. I taught a six-week course on this topic so there's a lot more to unpack, but here are a few examples of what it looks like when you, the researcher, do it in practice:

• The 24-hour pre-read sent before a big meeting with the goal, the deck, and how you expect the group to engage. It signals this is a working session, not a presentation to passively absorb while they multitask.

• The five seconds of silence at the end of your presentation ask, “How might you use these insights in your world?” and then you wait for 5 (sometimes uncomfortable) seconds. Force the dialogue amongst your stakeholders.

• The same-day follow-up email with a record of what was decided, who owns what, and by when. Not a “thanks for attending!” but a document of accountability that you’re driving.

• The quarterly impact recap where you connect your team’s work to business outcomes cross-functionally and at the company level. Not study counts (please, please, don’t boast study counts… they don’t matter if no one is using them).

None of this is the research, yet all of it is what makes the research matter. These are the behaviors that separate a researcher who delivers findings from one the business can't operate without.

Bonus: None of it is something AI can do.

What this looks like when it’s missing

I was working with a research leader at a major tech company who had exactly this problem. Her team’s work was consistently excellent with strong methodology, sharp storytelling, great feedback from stakeholders across the board. But when calibration season came around, her leadership couldn’t articulate the team’s impact beyond “they do good research.” When we dug into what was happening, the pattern was clear: her team was delivering insights and then moving on to the next study. There was no follow-up loop, no tracking of what happened after the readout, no documentation of when a product decision shifted because of something they surfaced. The research was landing in the room but evaporating within a week.

We didn’t change the research, but we did change everything around it. She started sending same-day recaps with specific action items tied to the people in the room. She built a running impact document that tracked every decision her work influenced, complete with direct quotes from the stakeholders who acted on it. She created a quarterly doc for her VP that drew a clear line between her team’s work and measurable business outcomes. A few months later, her team’s work was getting shout outs in an all-hands. Adjacent teams that had never requested research engagement started asking for it, and her function went from “helpful” to “essential.” Again, not because the research got better, but because the work after the work finally existed with intention.

The reframe

If your impact narrative starts with how many studies you ran or how many stakeholders you supported, you’re telling the wrong story. That was already true before AI entered the picture, but it’s becoming urgent now. When the execution of research gets faster and more accessible to your stakeholders, the thing that differentiates you isn’t how you do the research, it’s what you do with it once it exists.

The craft is what got you into the room, but as AI continues to chip away at the 90%, the craft alone won’t keep you in that room.

One small thing to try before your next big readout:

Write the follow-up email before you even present. Know exactly what you want the room to do with what you’re sharing, and send that email within two hours of the meeting ending. Track what happens over the following two weeks (try putting a reminder for yourself on your calendar as I’m sure you’re juggling a lot). You might be surprised how much changes when you stop treating the presentation as the finish line and start treating it as the halfway point.

This is the kind of thing I think about constantly both in the coaching work I do with research and insights leaders, and in the conversations I’m having across the industry right now. If this felt familiar, I’d love to hear from you. Reply to this email or reach out at steph@twocentsinsights.com.

That’s my two cents.