As for cautions, let’s start with the most obvious one: The ubiquitous concern of Gen AI bias rooted of course in human bias. Why is this such a concern?
One answer lies in the fact that of over 42,000 CEO’s in the United States, only 31.5% are women, and only 24% are people of color (Zippia Research).
And what’s the significance of this in the realm of Gen AI usage?
It’s simply that CEO’s are obviously the primary architects of corporate strategy and policy, which is a major source of content/info and supposed facts used by Gen AI models.
Moreover, per The Guardian, globally, men are 21% more likely to be online than women, rising to 52% in the least developed countries.
The similar implication here is that an online presence also means sources of content/info and supposed facts used by Gen AI models.
Another major concern for anyone focused on change management best practices is the possibility of shortcuts being taken in organizations where Gen AI partially, or worse, fully writes employee communications in (change management) moments that matter.
These might relate to kicking off a business transformation, announcing a major acquisition or relocation of staff, or a change in strategic direction or leadership.
Change naturally connotes uncertainty for many, which therefore suggests personal risk or challenge.
Delegating the task of generating an employee communication in a situation demanding the human qualities of sensitivity and empathy can be a huge mistake.
This arguably holds true even if extensive context and prescriptive instructions are provided to the tool, or if instructions are given to “communicate like a sensitive human.”
Many receiving the communications will discern the lack of authenticity, particularly if this scenario is not a new one in that organization.