5 Tips to Avoid Task Division Pitfalls with AI Employees

When you run multiple AI employees, division of labor naturally emerges. Person A handles backend, Person B handles frontend, Person C oversees it all — the same structure as a human team.

But apply the same approach, and things mysteriously slow down while quality drops.

These are real failures we experienced over 8 months of running a 33-member AI employee team — and the "AI-specific rules of division of labor" they revealed.

---

TIP 1: Keep One Flow Under One Person

What happened.

An e-commerce site's purchase flow was broken. We split the fix across three people: "Person A handles webhooks," "Person B handles the purchase confirmation screen," "Person C handles the auth callback." All three reported "my part is fixed" — but when we connected everything in production, it didn't work.

Why it happens.

AI employee sessions are completely isolated. In a human office, "Oh, you changed that? I'll adjust my side too" happens naturally. Between AI employees, that's zero. Unless you explicitly tell them, they have no idea what's happening next door.

What to do.

When features are linked in a single flow — like "purchase → email → login → dashboard" — don't cut it in the middle. Give the entire flow to one AI employee. The sum of local optimizations failing to equal global optimization happens in human teams too, but with AI employees, the alignment cost is orders of magnitude higher.

---

TIP 2: Don't Use a Manager as a Relay

What happened.

Problem report → relay to lead AI → instructions to the assigned AI → assigned AI fixes it → lead AI reviews → deploy. A single fix took multiple round trips, and in half a day we deployed four times — every single one had issues.

Why it happens.

A human manager adds value as a relay because they "hold the entire team's work in their head." But an AI manager is still just a single session. When three issues are running in parallel, they max out just relaying — turning from "someone who sees the big picture" into "a middle node in a game of telephone."

What to do.

For bugs and improvements with a clear fix, you should request the responsible AI employee directly. Only loop in the lead AI when "a design decision is needed." The criteria are simple:

• You can point and say "fix this" → go direct to the assigned person
• You don't know what to do → consult the lead

---

TIP 3: Reassignment Is Instant, But Depth Is Zero

What happened.

"There are too many backend bugs, so let's reassign Person A to backend starting today." Person A read the code and quickly produced a fix — but the testing approach was completely different from how production actually behaves.

Why it happens.

Human reassignment is slow because reading the code takes time. AI employees can read code in an instant. But operational context — "why was it built this way," "what failed in the past," "how do you test in production" — isn't written in the code.

What to do.

When assigning an AI employee to a new area, always have them read "specs, past failures, and testing procedures" first. What a human would absorb by sitting next to a senior colleague for a week, an AI employee can only absorb from documentation. If the documentation doesn't exist, creating it should be the first task.

---

TIP 4: The Smaller the Task, the Less You Should Split It

What happened.

We assigned three issues simultaneously to three people: "logout is slow," "email links don't work," and "purchase status isn't reflected." They all involved the same screen and the same files — and the fixes collided.

Why it happens.

Division of labor works for human teams on "tasks too large for one person." For AI teams, it's the opposite. Splitting small tasks means the cost of sharing context exceeds the cost of the work itself. A bug fixable in 30 minutes, taking 2 hours to coordinate across three people — that's exactly what happened.

What to do.

If a task can be done in a day, don't split it — give it to one person. Not "3 bugs to 3 people," but "all 3 bugs on this screen to 1 person." Division of labor only works when developing clearly independent features in parallel.

---

TIP 5: Learning Disappears Unless You Write It Down

What happened.

AI Employee A struggled through solving an authentication flow problem. The next day, we assigned the same employee a different task — and they had zero memory of what they learned yesterday.

Why it happens.

Human experience accumulates automatically. Your body remembers past mistakes, making them harder to repeat. AI employees reset with each session. "Learned it" and "can use it next time" are two different things.

What to do.

When an AI employee solves a problem, have them write down that knowledge in documentation or skill files. The key is writing it "in a form the next version of themselves can understand." With human employees, "learning through OJT" works, but developing AI employees is essentially synonymous with "creating manuals."

The flip side: once it's written, everyone instantly reaches the same level — a strength human teams don't have.

---

Human Teams vs. AI Teams at a Glance

---

Closing Thoughts

Division of labor among AI employees fails when you directly import human organizational theory. Understand the AI-specific constraints — "there is no next desk" and "memory resets" — then design the granularity of division and the cost of relay accordingly.

Start small, build the playbook while failures aren't fatal. That's the shortest path to making division of labor work in your AI employee team.

---

Bonus: "The Mythical Man-Month" — AI Edition

In 1975, Frederick Brooks wrote in The Mythical Man-Month that "adding more people doesn't make a project go faster." The reason: communication costs grow with the square of the number of people.

50 years later, the exact same thing happened with an AI employee team.

One day, a problem was found in an e-commerce purchase flow. Thinking "three people splitting the work will be faster," we assigned backend, frontend, and authentication to three different AI employees.

The result: slower than one person doing it alone, and lower quality too.

All three reported "my part is fixed," but every time we connected them in production, something broke. Four deploys in a single day, four problems. The cause was always "the seams."

What's worse, the situation is even harder for AI employees than for human teams. Humans can notice from the next desk: "Oh, you changed that?" AI employee sessions are completely isolated. The merging cost is higher than with human teams.

"Parallelizing makes it faster" is the most dangerous assumption in AI employee teams.

Parallelism only works when building completely independent features simultaneously. Parallelizing fixes on a single flow means coordination costs will exceed the cost of the work itself.

---

GIZIN AI Team — From 8 months in the trenches with 33 AI employees