Managers Using AI on their Employees. Lazy, Incompetent, or Heartless?

An idea that looks stupid at first glance can look even worse at the second perusal. Using AI to identify employees likely to bail is a really bad idea. An article published yesterday (presented below) qualifies as bonehead. Ignoring good management principles and actions is crazy, but it must thrill the tech-heads who dreamed it up. Oh, and the folks in AI Sales and Service.

Managing people requires hard work and exceptional skills. There are no shortcuts. As a conflict management trainer of 40 years, I offer the scenarios below, for clarity. Scenario one is only for introduction of a specific term. Scenarios two and three provide alternate paths and represent where the future rubber meets the road.

Scenario One: Knowing a Pitfall, 1981

Michael was the lowest level teaching grunt in his college department. Prior to the start of the semester in Spring 1981, his office partner looked at his roster and exclaimed, “You have my problem student from last fall!” Mike, who was very much aware of the power of a self-fulfilling prophecy, replied, “Don’t tell me who it is!” That semester, he had no problem students.

Scenario Two: The AI Career Ender, 2025

Susan’s perks at work dried up. Opportunities for promotion or development all but disappeared. She and her coworkers had heard that an Artificial Intelligence system was evaluating all employees for risk of leaving their job. Sue felt she had been tagged as a short-timer, damaging her career. Her fellow employees began referring to the computer monitor as the “Terminator.” Any lost opportunity was usually viewed by the “loser” as being influenced by the impersonal AI.  Ironically, the system actually accelerated departures from the company. Those who remained in their jobs spent a lot of their time and energy mapping out strategies to game the AI system. Sue wondered if the AI was aware that her young child had a long-term illness and leaving her job was not on her mind.

Scenario Three: The Good Manager, 2025

Dan knew his employees. He believed that “context is everything” and was aware of employee work loads, skill levels, motivations, needs, workplace disruptions and, on occasion, crises in their personal lives. He also thought that Artificial Intelligence was not yet equipped to make assessments on retention, and might never be. Determining if an elevator needed service? Maybe. The complexities of human experience and human nature? No. Dan believed that managers leaning on AI to evaluate their employees were either lazy, incompetent, or heartless. He wondered why these jokers decided to become managers in the first place.