In a recent LinkedIn post, Suzanne Lucas, a recognized authority on HR and workplace issues, highlights a growing concern for businesses: the use of artificial intelligence, specifically tools like ChatGPT, in crafting employee performance reviews. Lucas warns that while the use of AI for such tasks might seem like a shortcut, it carries significant legal risks that many managers are overlooking.
Lucas directly addresses the common corporate policy against using AI for performance reviews, stating, “Yeah, your policies are only valid if you enforce them, which you aren’t.” She suggests that despite official guidelines, the reality on the ground is that managers are increasingly relying on AI to generate these critical documents.
The Hidden Dangers of AI in Performance Management
While Lucas acknowledges that AI tools can be helpful in drafting and refining text, her primary concern lies in the legal ramifications. She points out a critical oversight by managers who may be using AI without fully understanding its implications in a legal context.
“What I do have a problem with is managers who don’t understand that if your employee sues, their AI prompts are discoverable,” Lucas writes. This statement underscores a crucial point: the records of AI interactions, including the prompts used to generate performance reviews, can become evidence in legal proceedings.
Discovery and Documentation Risks
Lucas illustrates this risk with a stark example. She describes a hypothetical scenario where a manager, intending to terminate an employee, might use AI to create a performance review. “So while you’re trying to build a case with careful documentation showing that Jane was a poor performer, your manager is typing into ChatGPT. ‘Write performance review for employee with chronic migraines who needs to be terminated.'”
This example highlights how AI prompts could inadvertently reveal biased intent or a lack of genuine, documented performance issues, rather than the carefully constructed narrative managers might believe they are building. The ease with which AI can generate text might lead managers to bypass thorough, human-driven assessment and documentation, potentially weakening their position in a lawsuit.
Enforcement and Accountability
Lucas’s post implicitly calls for greater awareness and stricter enforcement of policies regarding AI use in HR processes. She suggests that the perceived efficiency of AI tools should not come at the expense of due diligence and legal compliance. The underlying message is that while AI can assist, it cannot replace the critical thinking, ethical considerations, and legal understanding that human managers must apply, especially when dealing with sensitive employee evaluations.
The article serves as a critical reminder for businesses to re-evaluate their internal policies and provide adequate training to managers on the responsible and legally sound use of AI tools in performance management. As Lucas concludes with a darkly humorous, “Happy Holidays!”, the underlying warning is clear: unchecked reliance on AI for performance reviews could lead to significant legal and ethical challenges.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Suzanne Lucas on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on December 5, 2025 | View original post on LinkedIn →