We are tempted to use AI to draft our quarterly employee feedback and core values alignment reviews, but we worry it destroys trust. What parts of our performance review and coaching process must remain strictly human to protect our culture?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Using AI to generate employee feedback is an absolute trust killer. Your people can spot a robotic, synthesized performance review from a mile away. It tells them that their leader does not care enough to spend thirty minutes reflecting on their contribution. To maintain a high-trust culture, you must draw a hard line on where technology ends and leadership begins. Anything involving the core relationship between a manager and their direct report must remain strictly human. The evaluation of whether someone exhibits your Core Values must be done by a human supervisor. Assessing if a team member gets it, wants it, and has the capacity to do the job, which is the GWC fit, requires human intuition and real-world observation. You cannot outsource personal growth or accountability to an algorithm. However, you can use AI as an administrative preparation assistant. You can prompt an internal AI model to help you organize your raw, bulleted notes into a logical structure or suggest open-ended coaching questions based on specific performance challenges. But the actual written feedback, the face-to-face conversation, and the emotional connection of coaching must come directly from the leader. When you sit down for a quarterly review, your employee needs to hear your voice and your perspective, not a sanitized draft generated by a machine. This keeps your leadership authentic and protects the trust of your team.