JPMorgan Chase & Co. has introduced artificial intelligence tools to help managers write employee performance reviews, potentially transforming one of management's most time-consuming annual tasks. This move promises relief for supervisors while raising important questions about the quality and authenticity of feedback employees receive.
The Double-Edged Sword of AI Assistance
According to human resources experts, incorporating AI into performance assessments can save managers significant time and might even generate more comprehensive feedback than human-written reviews alone. However, they caution that over-reliance on artificial intelligence could result in generic, impersonal evaluations that fail to address individual employee needs.
Benjamin Levick, who leads AI and operations at corporate card company Ramp, noted that this technology shift will redefine workplace boundaries. "I don't know if they'll be full-blown uncomfortable or feel dehumanizing," Levick stated. "There's of course a risk of that if you're very clunky with how you utilize AI, but I do think that there's a way to thread the needle of infusing AI in more managerial practices."
JPMorgan's Careful Implementation
JPMorgan has established specific guidelines for AI use in performance management. The banking giant permits supervisors to use an internal chatbot to help compose performance write-ups but explicitly warns that the technology is "not a substitute for human judgment." The company also prohibits managers from using AI tools to assign performance scores or make compensation and promotion decisions.
Levick argues that time-constrained managers might actually be doing their employees a disservice by not using available AI tools. "I'd feel pretty bad if an AI just wholesale read everything that I wrote, looked at everything I did, and just assigned me a grade, and then my manager read the script at the end," he explained. "That's the wrong way to do it, but I would probably also feel bad, honestly, if my manager only has a couple few hours to do this process."
The Human Factor in Automated Reviews
Peter Cappelli, a management professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and director of its Center for Human Resources, points out that human managers bring their own limitations to the review process. "Bosses, like all humans, are prone to bias and faulty memory and may put too much weight on the recent past when reviewing a longer period," Cappelli noted. He suggests that AI can sometimes provide more objective assessments than human managers alone.
However, employees may view AI-assisted reviews as less credible. "I get a reason to discount this and not pay any attention to it because I don't think it actually came from my boss," Cappelli said. "It said I did a good job. Does the boss really think that?"
Research has demonstrated that when people have access to AI tools, they often delegate analytical tasks to the technology and depend less on their own judgment. This dynamic presents particular challenges in performance reviews, where employees might feel processed rather than personally evaluated, potentially increasing cynicism toward a process many already view as performative.
Additionally, because chatbots tend to be sycophantic, AI-assisted reviews might be excessively positive and fail to adequately address performance issues. Experts recommend that managers carefully review any AI-generated content for fairness, tone, and accuracy before sharing it with employees.
