Managers are using AI to write performance reviews – and it shows

As AI use ramps up at work, where are the pros and cons, and for whom? New research from professional development firm Highwire shows where AI has entered the feedback loop — and where it’s both a potential problem and a solution for employee development.

Highwire surveyed 1,034 corporate employees on how AI is infiltrating manager-employee relationships. It found that 78% of managers reported using AI to “help draft, edit, summarize, or inform feedback or a performance review” in the last year. Most of those managers, perhaps unsurprisingly, noted that AI sped up the process of prepping that feedback (Highwire told ZDNET it did not ask managers what else they noticed about using AI).

However, only 16% of non-managerial employees surveyed were told AI influenced their review. Maybe concerns about being perceived poorly for using AI are behind that drop in transparency: an Atlassian study from June found that owning AI use at work backfired.

The details of how managers are using AI for feedback matter here, though. Having an AI tool format or summarize human-written observations, for example, is a different level of intervention than handing AI some performance data and asking it to crank out a review top to bottom.

As for how that feedback is landing with employees: 54% of those surveyed said feedback “has become more specific and actionable.” But 34% found feedback more generic, and 32% said it was less useful. A third of employees potentially pulling less value from their reviews than before AI entered the picture isn’t minor, even if the majority is finding a benefit.

The findings about rehearsing with AI are echoed in AI video company Synthesia’s latest release, Sessions . The new feature lets employees practice conversations with one of the company’s AI avatars and get an assessment from an “AI coach” — essentially an automated, scaled version of the one-on-one training managers typically give to employees.

Synthesia told ZDNET that it developed the feature based on feedback from enterprise customers wanting to expand access to those managerial touchpoints without stretching human bandwidth (though the company maintains Sessions is not a replacement for mentorship). For Synthesia customers, a tool like Sessions fills training gaps they couldn’t fix before (though data on how effective those training experiences are for employees remains to be seen). Both Highwire’s take and Synthesia’s investment in Sessions points to a simulation trend at work, with AI playing a greater role in how employees learn.

It’s worth taking the intentions of Highwire’s survey with a grain of salt. Much the opposite of Synthesia’s mission, Highwire’s business relies on companies needing human-led professional training that invests in their employees’ people skills. That doesn’t necessarily include teaching managers how to farm out responsibilities to AI, and it doesn’t see rehearsing with AI as a valid alternative to employee-manager prep. “Highwire conditions the human skills that can’t be automated,” the company’s site reads.

Still, the takeaway isn’t far off from other, less-than-desirable AI work trends. Some employees might argue that unhelpful AI-generated performance reviews fall under the workslop umbrella.