As AI becomes a coach, scriptwriter and even would-be mediator at work, Phil Floyd explores what this means for people’ trust, authenticity and conflict. He argues that while technology can support difficult conversations, healthy workplace relationships still depend on human skills such as listening, empathy, curiosity and honest face-to-face dialogue.
Wouldn’t it be better if work colleagues always said the right thing to each other? When we want to criticise a colleague for their performance, for example, some well-chosen words that are clear and diplomatic, not tainted by irritation, make all the difference when it comes to raising an issue without causing offence.
Why not then go further and use AI for running something like mediation of grievances?
That’s what generative AI, of course, is good at. Standardised messaging based on standard advice and templates of best practice. No more foot-in-mouth moments. Why not then go further and use AI for running something like mediation of grievances as well? It could cover both sides, as well as the mediator role, ask all the ‘right’ questions and provide all the most sensible answers. Conflict officially resolved, no time or emotions involved.
AI coaching for better relationships
AI is a major new factor when it comes to the state of workplace relationships and the changing nature of conflict and people’s ability to deal with it. AI is already being used, for example, to avoid the challenges and sometimes awkwardness of building up rapport and relationships. Research among regular AI users at work has claimed many employees are using the software as a form of personal coach to see them through difficult interpersonal situations and conversations, for scripting what feedback they should give, and the chance to practice by role-playing sensitive conversations. In other words, AI has become a way of replacing human judgement.
The use of AI in itself has become a reason for tensions, because there’s a divide between different groups of staff and their attitudes and levels of acceptance of the technology (typically thought to be between younger and older staff, but not necessarily, it could be by function or just personality and preferences for ways of working). Studies have suggested there are employees, typically from younger age groups, who are fully bought into the use of AI and would prefer to collaborate with the software than engage with people who might challenge them or ask awkward questions.
AI dilution?
That’s meant uncertainty over who’s using AI for what tasks, what that looks like and what it means. There are more questions around the authenticity of communications, the content and the tone. Is that a genuine compliment and enthusiasm for your work, or token, AI-generated fluff? There’s a general concern over what a report in the Harvard Business Review has described as the rise of ‘workslop’, a flow of messaging and content from employees that gives the impression of activity, but on closer examination has no real substance or purpose to it. There’s the potential for trust in relationships to be undermined, along with engagement. If there’s a mistake in the information being offered by AI there are issues of where the blame should lie, creating uncertainty and again, affecting trust. The authors of the HBR article suggested that around half of the employees surveyed who received AI-generated material from their co-workers thought they were “less creative, capable, and reliable than they did before receiving the output”. 42% thought they were consequently “less trustworthy” and 37% as “less intelligent”.
Conflict for good?
The rise of AI in workplaces is highlighting the importance of human qualities, how much meaning and sense of purpose comes from working with other people, even if it’s not always easy — especially if it’s not always easy. Trust at work is built on experiences of relationships and the impact of different situations, positive and negative. Disagreements and conflict are part of that. Without some forms of constructive conflict nothing is ever challenged, and opportunities for growth and innovation are missed.
In terms of people development and training there’s a fundamental need for clear guidance on when AI should be used and how to flag its use, as a basis of clarity and trust and to be explicit about the importance of not feeding any confidential or commercially sensitive content into open, public AI platforms, which can then re-use that information in its responses.
And at the same time there is an all-important need to focus on skills involved I human connections and conversations, and encouraging them actively, allowing for the space needed for co-workers to meet face-to-face, to have real conversations, informal and otherwise. There needs to be an emphasis on the ability of staff, especially line managers, to have those difficult conversations, and the particular skills needed: listening, self-awareness, situational awareness, curiosity and empathy.
Phil Floyd is Head of Investigations CMP
