Control in most companies sits with people who approve work, not people who do it. Capabilities used to be scarce and locked inside specific roles, which justified building control structures around people. If you needed specialized knowledge to draft contracts or query databases or build prototypes, you needed processes to manage access to the few people who had it.
Intelligence is becoming a tool people can access directly. You can draft a working first version of almost anything, get expert feedback, and refine it without waiting for someone's permission. The scarcity that justified the control structure disappeared, but the structure itself stayed because many approval layers exist to maintain hierarchy, not protect quality.
AI native means shifting control from people to tools. You stop controlling who can do what and start ensuring everyone has access to the capabilities they need to do work. This shift eliminates gatekeeping as a function. If your value comes from being the person who says yes or no, direct access to intelligence makes you obsolete. If your value comes from building better tools and improving outcomes, you become more valuable.
Most companies will add AI to their existing structures and wonder why nothing changes. Some will rebuild assuming people can act directly when they have the right tools. Those organizations will move faster than organizations built on approval chains.
The question isn't whether you adopt AI. It's whether you trust people to act when they have tools that let them try.