ChatGPT Turned My Disgruntled Employee Into Our Resident HR Leadership Expert… And Honestly… I'm Kind of Over It.
I never thought I'd write that headline.
In fact, if you would have asked me a year ago whether AI was going to change the workplace, I probably would have talked about productivity, automation, content creation, meeting notes, or coding.
I don't think I would have predicted this.
Over the past year, I've had a front-row seat to hundreds of leadership conversations as an executive coach. I hear both sides of the table. I spend time with founders, CEOs, executive teams, and employees trying to navigate difficult situations.
Lately, I've noticed a pattern that I can't ignore anymore.
It usually starts the same way.
Someone gets frustrated.
Maybe they didn't get the promotion.
Maybe they feel unheard.
Maybe they genuinely have a concern that deserves attention.
Maybe they're right.
But instead of walking into someone's office and having the hard conversation, they open ChatGPT.
Thirty minutes later, they're holding what sounds like an HR investigation, an employment law review, and a graduate thesis in organizational psychology.
One executive I coach recently told me they received a 25-page document from an employee outlining every concern they had about the organization.
Twenty-five pages.
My first reaction?
I laughed.
Not because the concerns were funny.
Because I knew exactly what had happened.
Someone had discovered that AI is incredibly good at helping you build a case.
Here's where I need to be careful.
This is not an article about employees speaking up.
Please do.
Healthy organizations need people who ask hard questions. Some leaders absolutely need to be challenged. I've coached enough executives to know that leadership isn't always right.
Sometimes the employee is.
What concerns me isn't that people are speaking.
It's how they're preparing to speak.
Most people don't ask AI…
"Where might I be wrong?"
They ask…
"Help me say this better."
"Make this stronger."
"Rewrite this so it's more persuasive."
"What laws support my position?"
Do you see the difference?
One prompt is searching for truth.
The other is recruiting an advocate.
And AI is incredibly good at being an advocate.
That doesn't make it malicious.
It just means it's doing exactly what you asked.
Then I realized something uncomfortable.
Leaders are doing the exact same thing.
I've watched executives ask AI to write disciplinary emails they didn't want to write.
I've seen leaders use AI to justify decisions they had already made.
I've watched organizations craft responses that sound compassionate while completely avoiding the difficult conversation sitting underneath them.
Different people.
Same temptation.
We've somehow started confusing polished communication with sound judgment.
Those aren't the same thing.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that AI isn't creating this problem.
It's exposing one that was already there.
Human beings have always been remarkably good at building stories where we're the hero.
We collect evidence that supports our position.
We ignore evidence that doesn't.
We interpret motives.
We fill in gaps.
We convince ourselves we have the whole story when we're really holding one piece of it.
AI just happens to make that process faster.
And infinitely more articulate.
That's why I think every organization encouraging employees to use AI should also have an AI communication policy.
Not because AI is dangerous.
Because influence has become incredibly inexpensive.
For the first time in history, anyone can create an email, complaint, proposal, rebuttal, or formal document that sounds polished, intelligent, emotionally compelling, and legally sophisticated in a matter of minutes.
That changes organizations.
It changes leadership.
It changes HR.
It changes how conflicts unfold.
What worries me most isn't that AI will replace conversations.
It's that it will replace curiosity.
I'm watching organizations become more articulate while simultaneously becoming less interested in understanding one another.
We're documenting before asking questions.
Building cases before seeking context.
Preparing rebuttals before pursuing understanding.
Winning arguments while losing relationships.
I don't want AI to disappear.
I use it every day.
I think it's one of the greatest tools ever created.
But I also think we're asking far too little of it.
Instead of asking AI to make our arguments stronger…
What if we asked it to make our thinking better?
What if every difficult email ended with this prompt?
"Now argue the other side."
"What assumptions am I making?"
"What context might I be missing?"
"How would the other person likely interpret this?"
"What would an objective third party say about my perspective?"
Those prompts don't just produce better writing.
They produce better leaders.
Maybe that's the real opportunity.
Not to become more persuasive.
To become more discerning.
Because in a world where everyone has access to the same intelligence…
Discernment becomes the competitive advantage.
Get the Free Leadership Guide Behind Every Keynote
The Unbreakable Things Leadership Guide — the framework Michael uses with Fortune 500 executives. Free, no pitch.
