Will monitoring AI adoption improve leadership selection?
The team at Accenture think so. The Financial Times has reported that the firm plans to use, the use of AI, in its selection of leaders.
An email to staff said “Use of our key tools will be a visible input to talent discussions.”
This is hot on the heels of a spokeswoman saying the company was trying to be “the reinvention partner of choice” and “That requires the adoption of the latest tools and technologies to serve our clients most effectively.”
The news landed badly, with some staff members threatening to “quit immediately” if they were affected by the monitoring programme, others described the internal tools as “broken slop generators”.
Back in September, Accenture made it clear they would exit employees who did not adopt AI.
The big question though … will the AI measure really drive leadership selection, or is it just another meaningless measure.
What gets truly measured and actioned is a strong signal to the organisation.
Not acting on the adoption of AI, either in selection, or the performance review of senior leaders says 'we don't really care'.
Yet the tough conversations are often not had for risk of upsetting others.
Is Accenture prepared to stand by its measures? We will see!
SOURCE
FT Article (Paywall): https://www.ft.com/content/ac672f97-a603-4c56-afa3-4a5273d45674
Also reported: https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/accenture-links-promotion-prospects-to-employees-use-of-ai
Previous article: https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/accenture-exiting-workers-unsuited-to-ai-environment
*** There is a suggestion that the measure is as simple as how often you log into the system (quantity) not what you use the tools for (quality).
BESCI AI OPINION
Ironically, if Accenture doesn't use the data in its selection, making it a visible part of the conversation, the measure will quickly fall into decline.
If it is a quantity based measure, then it risks falling foul of Goodharts Law - when a measure becomes a target it attracts sketchy behaviour to achieve it.
