Great discussion. I am not sure AI disrupts the principles of performance review anymore then excel or PowerPoint did. Fundamentally, most organisations compete through some form of differentiation- mainly price or premium positioning. So the job of the performance cycle is to align the outcomes of people’s activities with delivering that and provide feedback on how effective that activity was. Performance reviews should always distinguish between being effective and being active, whatever tools are being used to enhance performance.
Very good points! But maybe it is easier now to be "active" in terms of generating output with AI models? And if that is true, the role of the manager(s) is increasingly important to make that distinction?
Yes, that may be true. I think the issue is that people lend too much intelligence to outputs of LLMs. So they end up sounding like many management consultants, lots of great words and theory but absent of any context or tacit knowledge. There will be many lost hours on the amount of noise that people will create using LLMs, due to the ease in creating artefacts of corporate theatre.
I think we need to counter the vendor hype and educate people on what an LLM actually is and importantly isn’t. This is a role HR can play in how we design work and integrate AI into job design.
Great discussion. I am not sure AI disrupts the principles of performance review anymore then excel or PowerPoint did. Fundamentally, most organisations compete through some form of differentiation- mainly price or premium positioning. So the job of the performance cycle is to align the outcomes of people’s activities with delivering that and provide feedback on how effective that activity was. Performance reviews should always distinguish between being effective and being active, whatever tools are being used to enhance performance.
Very good points! But maybe it is easier now to be "active" in terms of generating output with AI models? And if that is true, the role of the manager(s) is increasingly important to make that distinction?
Yes, that may be true. I think the issue is that people lend too much intelligence to outputs of LLMs. So they end up sounding like many management consultants, lots of great words and theory but absent of any context or tacit knowledge. There will be many lost hours on the amount of noise that people will create using LLMs, due to the ease in creating artefacts of corporate theatre.
100% agree with that take!
But how do we "combat" that?
I think we need to counter the vendor hype and educate people on what an LLM actually is and importantly isn’t. This is a role HR can play in how we design work and integrate AI into job design.