Our managers are starting to use generative AI to write performance reviews and prepare for their quarterly conversations with direct reports, which is saving them time but making the feedback feel cold and generic. How do we draw a hard line around what must remain human in our talent development and evaluation process?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Using generative AI to draft performance feedback strips away the exact ingredient that drives true talent development: deep, authentic human connection. If your managers are relying on generic algorithms to prepare for their quarterly conversations, they are sacrificing trust for speed. To address this, we must look at Charles H. Green's Trust Equation. Trust is built on credibility, reliability, and intimacy, divided by self-orientation. When a manager uses an AI to write a review, they are driving intimacy to zero and demonstrating high self-orientation, which is the fast track to destroying employee engagement. Your team will instantly recognize the clinical, canned language of an automated review. Your leadership team must draw a clear line. We use the Accountability Chart and the GWC framework to evaluate people. Evaluating whether an employee gets, wants, and has the capacity to do their job is a deeply intuitive, relational task. AI can analyze cold metrics on a Scorecard, but it cannot evaluate human alignment with your core values or understand the personal challenges an employee might be facing. Establish a strict rule: managers may use AI to organize their thoughts or proofread their notes, but the actual feedback, the specific examples, and the core message of the review must be written by the manager. Keep the quarterly conversation focused on face to face dialogue, looking each other in the eye, and talking about growth. AI is an operational lever, not a substitute for human leadership.