My employee used artificial intelligence to ask for a raise – this is my answer

Last month I stared at the screen as E -Mail passed from one of my managers who hit my inbox:

“According to available industry data, the average annual salary of the coordinator in New York ranges from about 73 thousand to 82 thousand.

I immediately knew that the text was generated AI. Not because of the picket phrasing or precise salary range. I knew because no person asks for their very own money scared willingness to do it.

My manager’s answer was equally robotic:

“Thank you for achieving impressive progress and a growing contribution. Although we value the influence you have given, we are currently not able to take into account the increase in salaries at the moment. We are involved in recognition of your growth and we will continue to assess the possibilities …”

Two e -mile, two different people and each word sounded as if it got here from the same chatgpt template.

Because yes.

Welcome to the Opinion Loop from Hell

We observe the death of communication in the workplace and the birth of a recent style of cowardice: one in which being a skilled means processing, intelligent sound means artificial sound, and the most human thing is permission to speak the machine for you.

Ai is not the wrongdoer here. It’s a mirror. It reflects culture in the workplace, which avoids discomfort in the name of professionalism.

Here’s what happened: an employee working remotely in Portugal used artificial intelligence to ask for remuneration in New York (old employee address). The manager used artificial intelligence to reject a demand without a solution to geographical complexity.

It was like looking at people arguing through Google’s translation, except for a translation for corporate speech and again.

This is a version of hiding behind E -Mail Chatgpt Generation as an alternative of answering the phone, except now that we are hiding behind the algorithms as an alternative of being ourselves.

I faced the alternative: Fire up chatgpt for my own answer or or man.

I selected humanity: “Let’s go live on Thursday. Copy HR.”

Business cost of artificial communication

This is not a story about artificial intelligence, making us lazy. It’s about what happens when we use technology to avoid conversations that matter and cost our corporations.

The employee who used Chatgpt didn’t try to cheat anyone. She tried to sound “professional” during navigation with a complex reality that requires actual negotiations.

We avoided a conversation that required nuances and ended with a conversation that had no one.

What are we afraid when we avoid direct conversation?

But here is a harder query: what conditions did I create, which made my employee consider that only artificial intelligence could speak for them?

It was not about fear of direct. It was about culture in the workplace, where authentic requests seemed too dangerous. Where being a “professional” became someway more necessary than being human.

The manager could break this chain by responding to a person, not a prose. I could break it earlier, creating conditions in which individuals felt secure, asking for what they were price in their very own words.

Are we outsourcing with judgment or just a conflict?

But when the employee commissions a hill to ChatGPT, they really say: “I don’t trust my own words that are worth your time.” And when the manager corresponds to artificial intelligence, they say: “Your request is not worth my authentic attention.”

In this way, relationships die in the workplace – not with conflict, but with slow suffocation of real communication. And dead relationships do not increase business results.

Competitive advantage of human leadership

When I insisted on a live conversation, something extraordinary happened. Within 20 minutes, we developed a solution that recognized each the employee’s contribution and the realities of our global compensation structure.

We discussed:

• Actual creation of employee value (significant)
• Considerations on geographical remuneration (complex but managing)
• Career progression possibilities (more precious than immediate salary)
• Performance indicators associated with future increases (clear and possible to achieve)

None of this may very well be due to the exchange of AI. The solution required human judgment on honesty, business restrictions and individual circumstances.

While competitors allow AI to deal with “difficult” conversations, we build stronger relationships with our people. In the distant first world, authentic communication has turn into our secret weapon for stopping talents.

Talks about money, honesty and contribution are too necessary to convey the code. They call for presence, humility and often when there are people on the other side live.

Why does this matter for every business leader

We create a world in which the most vital conversations sound, as if it happened between chatbots. When someone’s maintenance is on the line, they deserve a human response.

The amendment does not prohibit artificial intelligence in communication in the workplace. This recognizes when the rates are too high to get artificial reactions.

Not only did I finish the AI ​​feedback loop when I insisted on live conversation. I reminded everyone committed that some problems are too complex for every little thing aside from a real human conversation.

In the world in which we teach machines to sound a man, the most radical business act is to provide people with human sound when it has the most vital thing.

Here is our policy now: if the conversation seems difficult, we have it live. If this concerns money, honesty or future, we show in person or as close as possible. No scripts. No templates. Only two people trying to gather it.