[debo_]

Unfortunately at this scale, when you are this soft on the message, everyone ignores it and keeps doing what they were doing before. Carrot and stick are both required for performance management at this scale. You can argue whether the bet is worth it or not, but to even take the bet, you need a lot more than some resources and a "please".

[munk-a]

If performance was the true goal then we'd just naturally see slow adopters unperform and phase out of that company. If you make good tooling available and it is significantly impactful the results will be extremely obvious - and, just speaking from a point of view of psychology, if the person next to you is able to do their job in half the time because they experimented with new tooling _and sees some personal benefit from it_ then you'll be curious and experiment too!

It might be that these companies don't care about actual performance or it might be that these companies are too cheap/poorly run to reward/incentivize actual performance gains but either way... the fault is on leadership.

[NewsaHackO]

Two things: 1) Employees are not that easy to replace. These employees have already been onboarded, screened, and proven, at least to this point, to be the type of people the company wants. If an employee starts lagging behind solely because they are stubborn about adopting AI, yes, the company can fire them, but then it has to go through the entire hiring process again and risk bringing in someone new, when it could have simply improved performance by helping the existing employee use AI. 2) Companies themselves have performance metrics that are compared to those of other companies. If an employee is not using AI and has reduced output, then the company’s overall output and its profits are affected. No investor cares if the reason is that other companies have a higher rate of AI adoption; investors care that the company was not able to get its employees to use AI effectively to increase profits.

[tikhonj]

It's not inevitable, it's just poor leadership. I've seen changes at large organizations take without being crudely pushed top-down and you'd better believe I've seen top-down initiatives fail, so "performance management" is neither necessary nor sufficient.

[mjhay]

The executives pushing AI use everywhere aren’t basing it on actual performance (which is an orthogonal concept). It’s just the latest shiny bauble.

[debo_]

Performance management isn't rating how people are doing. It's transforming the resources of the company into something that you want it to do. If they want to transform the current state of the company into something that has AI use as a core capability, that is performance management.

There are good books on this: e.g. https://www.amazon.ca/Next-Generation-Performance-Management...

[mjhay]

lol

[debo_]

Good answer bro

[mjhay]

Yes.

[goatlover]

If everyone is ignoring it, it can't be that great. If it's that great, people will adopt it organically based on how it's useful for them.