9 months ago
JPMorgan Managers Can Use AI for Performance Reviews, With Caveats
Imagine your teacher is writing a report card about you.
Now, imagine they have a smart computer helper that can help them write it faster.
That's kind of what JPMorgan is letting its managers do for employee reviews.
The computer helper can read notes and feedback and suggest what to write.
This could help managers write better reports because they have less time and might forget things or be unfair sometimes.
But, the computer helper isn't supposed to decide your grade or if you get a raise – the manager still has to do that important part.
The big question is whether these computer-assisted reports will feel real and helpful to you, or if they will feel like they weren't really written by your boss.
It's important for the managers to use the AI helper wisely, like a tool, and not just let the computer do all the thinking.
Companies are still figuring out the best way to use this new technology without losing the important human touch in evaluating people's work.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is permitting managers to use an internal AI chatbot to assist in writing employee performance reviews.
The guidelines prohibit using AI for assigning performance scores or making pay or promotion decisions.
Proponents suggest AI can save managers time and offer more objective feedback than humans.
Critics warn of potential downsides, including reduced credibility, over-reliance on technology, and a dehumanizing process.
Other companies are also exploring AI tools for various aspects of employee evaluation and performance assessment.
- Who
- JPMorgan Chase & Co. managers and employees
- What
- JPMorgan Chase is allowing managers to use AI chatbots to assist in writing employee performance reviews.
- Where
- The guidelines are from JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial institution.
- When
- This practice is being implemented during the performance review season.
- Why
- To potentially save managers time, provide more objective assessments, and improve the quality of feedback, while mitigating risks of over-reliance and loss of human judgment.
AI as a Beneficial Tool
Risks and Limitations of AI in Reviews
Efficiency and Objectivity
AI as a Beneficial Tool
AI can save managers time and potentially provide more objective assessments than human managers prone to bias and faulty memory.
Risks and Limitations of AI in Reviews
Over-reliance on AI can lead to employees feeling processed rather than personally evaluated, and the AI might be overly positive, failing to address performance issues adequately.
Employee Perception and Credibility
AI as a Beneficial Tool
Time-strapped managers may do employees a disservice by not using available tools to thoroughly evaluate work.
Risks and Limitations of AI in Reviews
Employees may discount AI-assisted reviews, questioning if the feedback truly comes from their boss, thus reducing credibility.
Managerial Judgment
AI as a Beneficial Tool
AI can help managers summarize data and inform their opinions, especially when dealing with large amounts of information like peer feedback.
Risks and Limitations of AI in Reviews
AI tools can lead to managers offloading analysis and relying less on their own judgment, potentially resulting in 'AI workslop' if not managed carefully.
Key facts
- Company
- JPMorgan Chase & Co.
- AI Use
- Managers can use internal chatbot to help compose written performance reviews.
- AI Prohibitions
- AI tools cannot be used for assigning performance scores or making pay or promotion decisions.
- Expert Opinion (Levick)
- AI can infuse managerial practices if used thoughtfully, but wholesale use for grading is problematic.
- Expert Opinion (Cappelli)
- AI can offer more objective assessments than humans, but AI-assisted reviews may lack credibility with employees.
- Other Companies Using AI
- KPMG LLP, Shopify Inc. (for performance criteria), Rippling (Talent Signal system for new employees).
Quotes
Benjamin Levick
leader of AI and operations at corporate card company Ramp
“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. 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 and they spent all the time painstakingly manually reading the 2% of things they could get through and then wrote a review based on that very small subset.”
theprint.in
“I don’t know if they’ll be full-blown uncomfortable or feel dehumanizing. 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.”
theprint.in
Peter Cappelli
management professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and director of its Center for Human Resources
“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. It said I did a good job. Does the boss really think that?”
theprint.in
“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.”
theprint.in
Nora Jenkins Townson
founder of Bright + Early, an external HR department for tech companies
“For them to work well, you already have to have a solid definition of what success looks like, both at a company level and for each job. You still have to sit and do the thinking about what good performance means to you.”
theprint.in
