Agentic AI is no longer a distant frontier. It’s already reshaping product roadmaps across industries. But behind the hype, there’s growing tension between ambition and accountability. To understand how companies are navigating this balance, we surveyed 1,000 business leaders in decision-making roles. They included C-level executives (CEOs, owners, partners, and presidents), as well as vice presidents, directors, managers, analysts, and consultants.
The study explored how many teams are shipping agentic AI features, which roadblocks are slowing adoption, and what concerns, from prompt injection to rogue agents, are keeping security leaders up at night. The results reveal a growing alignment gap: while many teams are eager to innovate with AI agents, unresolved questions about safety, ownership, and trust are stalling real progress.
There’s no shortage of interest in agentic AI, but internal misalignment is holding many companies back. Office politics are creating more drag than technical limitations, as eager teams clash with more risk-averse stakeholders. While some groups are ready to move fast, others are hitting the brakes. Regulatory fears, differing definitions of safety, and mismatched risk tolerance are putting teams at odds and slowing progress across the board.
CISOs and legal teams are a common source of resistance: 44% of company leaders said these groups have blocked agentic AI launches due to safety concerns, either occasionally (36%) or frequently (8%). The pressure to ship doesn’t always come with alignment. In fact, 16% of leaders admitted to releasing an AI feature they weren’t fully confident was safe because executives pushed it forward anyway.
Disagreements over what qualifies as “safe” are even more disruptive. Nearly half of leaders (49%) said that debates about safety have slowed or killed AI projects, with 38% saying this happens occasionally and 11% saying it happens frequently. That kind of decision gridlock points to a deeper issue. Teams are trying to implement autonomous technology without shared rules or trust.
The most common sources of tension when deciding to launch agentic AI reflect this internal divide. Compliance and regulatory concerns topped the list at 27%, followed by differing definitions of “safe” (23%) and risk tolerance mismatches between teams (14%). Another 12% pointed to unclear approval processes, and 12% said the lack of defined ownership gets in the way.
Even with all this friction, some companies are still moving forward. Overall, 37% have already deployed agentic AI features, and another 20% plan to do so in 2026. Among tech companies, adoption is even higher, as 51% have launched agentic tools and 19% will within the next year.
However, these launches do not always reflect true readiness. Nearly 1 in 5 company leaders (19%) said their teams are not technically ready to deploy agentic AI, and 56% are only somewhat ready.
Many teams feel prepared to manage rogue AI behavior, but some leaders admit that their readiness for agentic AI is all just smoke and mirrors.
In a candid admission, 35% of tech leaders said their company is “faking” AI readiness, projecting confidence externally while scrambling and lacking real safeguards internally. This disconnect becomes especially problematic when autonomous systems are allowed to act independently without clear accountability.The contrast in what’s considered “safe” is striking. More than half of companies (53%) said they are likely to approve customer support bots, and 50% are comfortable deploying internal copilots to boost productivity. But support quickly drops off for more complex use cases. Only 26% are likely to greenlight revenue-generating agents, and just 14% support autonomous decision-makers. Teams seem more willing to automate assistance than authority, drawing a hard line between helpful and high-risk.Despite these concerns, 69% of companies said they’re confident they could detect rogue AI behavior in real time. That confidence may stem from designated ownership: 62% of respondents said they know exactly who is responsible for stopping rogue AI behavior if it occurs. Still, that leaves 38% of companies without a clear point of accountability, hardly reassuring in a world of autonomous agents.The fear is not unfounded. When asked about their biggest concerns, 47% of leaders pointed to hallucinations or misinformation, followed by 38% who feared user manipulation or deception. Others cited data exfiltration (32%), autonomous escalation (26%), and prompt injection (14%).
Confidence, it turns out, is not the same as clarity. While 21% of companies have a comprehensive system in place to detect misaligned agent behavior, more than half (52%) said their systems are still in progress. Another 26% said they have no such system at all.
As companies push to adopt agentic AI, many are doing so with high hopes but unclear plans. And in an environment where AI can act on its own, the difference between being ready and acting ready could define who moves safely and who moves too fast.
Agentic AI is forcing companies to confront a difficult reality. Technical capabilities alone don’t guarantee a safe or successful deployment. Leadership teams must bridge the trust gap between what they want to build and what their security teams can support.
Our data shows a growing urgency to move beyond vague readiness claims and toward real accountability. That means defining risk thresholds, assigning ownership, and investing in tools that give every stakeholder, from engineers to CISOs, greater visibility and control. Without those foundations, companies risk falling into “AI washing” — publicly signaling AI leadership or innovation without the underlying systems, safeguards, or readiness to support it.
The right solutions will help fast-moving product teams deliver powerful AI features without sidelining safety. The question isn’t whether your company will launch agentic AI. It’s whether you’ll be ready when you do.
Frontegg surveyed 1,000 business leaders across the United States in 2025. Respondents included C-level executives (CEO, owner, partner, president), as well as vice presidents, directors, managers, analysts, and consultants. This study explored their readiness, deployment plans, and concerns around agentic AI features. Respondents worked across the following industries: 18% technology/software, 12% healthcare, 10% retail/e-commerce, 9% financial services, 8% education, and 43% in other industries.
Frontegg is the identity layer that secures every entry point into SaaS products — MCP, API, or portal. Whether users interact via point-and-click or via conversations in GenAI interfaces, Frontegg delivers a unified, enterprise-grade layer of control. Frontegg’s low-code platform allows developers to quickly set it up, then invite non-developers to work self-sufficiently. Frontegg serves leading companies worldwide, from fast-growing startups to household names, including Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and Nvidia.
This information may be shared for noncommercial purposes with proper attribution. If you reference this data, please include a link back to Frontegg for full credit.
