Against AI Mandates
Will tying AI usage to performance reviews increase productivity or distraction?
The last post argued that good technology needs advocates that convince, not mandates that coerce. The contrast between advocacy and enforcement, between convincing and coercing, is topical at this time of AI hype.
According to Business Insider, Julia Liuson, president of the Microsoft developer tools division, shared a memo encouraging managers to consider AI as “part of your holistic reflections on an individual’s performance and impact.”
Microsoft is heavily invested into the AI game, so it’s no surprise they push hard for it internally. But they are not the only ones.
Shopify’s CEO Tobi Lutke considers using AI efficiently “a fundamental expectation of everyone at Shopify,” and plans to “add AI usage questions to our performance and peer review questionnaire.”
The sensationalist media has capitalized on leaders pushing AI with headlines such as “No AI, no job” but Tobi’s mandate, and I’d like to think those of most other leaders, is far more nuanced.
The e-commerce giant’s CEO wants his employees to explore what he considers a promising opportunity together. “Learning to use AI well is an unobvious skill,” Tobi writes, “My sense is that a lot of people give up after writing a prompt and not getting the ideal thing back immediately. Learning to prompt and load context is important.”
It’s one thing to advocate for AI literacy, it’s another to essentially mandate people change their workflows to introduce AI. Tobi says employees are “welcome to try” opting-out of learning how to integrate AI in their craft, but when performance reviews explicitly include questions about AI usage, what choice do they really have?
For sure, it’s a leader’s job to set the company’s technological direction. 37 Signals CEO David Heinemeier Hansson caught heat online for requiring employees to transition from macOS to Omarchy, his bespoke Linux distribution. His response to critics is that picking technologies to bet on and invest in is “literally the job description.” “Omarchy is our distribution,” David explained on the Rework Podcast, “It was born at 37 Signals, it was born from me pouring 37 Signalness into it.” Going all in on Omarchy is a bet on a development environment the company controls and can tailor to its needs, like it already does with Ruby on Rails, Kamal, Hotwire, and other non-negotiable tools.
David’s mandates at 37 Signals, from Omarchy to Ruby on Rails, set environmental constraints that focus development. Can we say the same about mandating AI use?
Leaders who push for AI adoption believe it will help with a variety of tasks. Many critics have argued the promised productivity increase has yet to materialize, but let’s assume it’s just a matter of time, a combination of tools maturing and people learning how to use them. If that’s the case, it will soon be pretty easy to identify who uses AI well: they will be the most productive teams and individuals.
If overall productivity is what businesses care about, does it matter how a person or team becomes more productive? A good employee delivers what they promised within the timeframe they agreed upon. If they can improve output quality or delivery time, does it matter if that’s done by using AI or by, say, improving their work environment to reduce distractions?
My concern is that adding AI usage to performance reviews distracts people from useful work. On top of “build great products” they now have to “prove you use AI.” This will inevitably result in a lot of theater, with folks showcasing how they use AI, instead of actually using AI to solve problems.
I get that leaders, especially at big companies, have the long-term interests of the business in mind. By pushing teams to master a new promising technology, they are laying the groundwork for remaining competitive in the future. But what we need is convincing, not coercing.
If a new tool or workflow helps people do more with less, those who are committed to their craft will naturally adopt it. The only thing they need is for someone to show the benefit and demonstrate the adoption cost is worth it. No mandates required!
Leaders who want to bet on the revolutionary effects of AI should invest in teaching employees how to use it well. Incentivize learning by rewarding those who demonstrate how integrating AI in their work made them more productive. Adding AI usage metrics to performance reviews does the opposite: It penalizes those that don’t use AI—regardless of why they don’t.
Mandates also make me question the trust leadership has in their teams and the hiring process that got them on board. Who doesn’t want to automate toil in favor of higher bandwidth for applying their creativity? Trust your teams will appreciate the benefits and do all they can to take advantage of them.
A good leader sets a bold vision for the future. A great leader trusts teams to make the best decisions to turn that vision into reality.
I benefit daily from using AI tools, but am skeptical of AI mandates. They seem a misguided way to promote AI usage. Mandates might result in AI adoption, but it will be in a performative way, one that proves compliance over generating leverage.
What about you? What’s your company’s expectation on AI usage?