What Happens When We Compare Ourselves to Generative AI?

Source: https://itsoli.ai/

What happens when we compare ourselves to generative AI?  What conclusions do we reach about our own capabilities? Taly Reich and Jacob Teeny have examined these questions in a new paper titled, "Does Artificial Intelligence Cause Artificial Confidence? Generative AI as an Emerging Social Referent."  The scholars conducted several experiments in which they exposed people to precisely the same work, but told some that it was performed by AI and others that it was completed by human beings.  Interestingly, the  researchers found that people exhibit greater self-confidence (with regard to completing a creative task) when they believe that the work they observed was completed by a generative AI model rather than fellow humans. Teeny offered some explanation in this feature from Kellogg Insight:

"From a practical standpoint, self-confidence is such an important driver of innovation, and past research shows so much of our behavior is driven by the simple perception that we are capable of doing that behavior, whether it’s to undertake a piece of creative work or apply for a dream job... Much of our self-perceptions are based on how we compare ourselves to others. If we’re exposed to people we believe are really good at something, we may think, ‘Oh, I’m not as good at that [task] as I thought I was.’ But if we’re exposed to people who do something poorly or who we believe are less skilled, we think, ‘I’m actually pretty good at that.’”

Of course, simply having more self-confidence does not mean people actually will perform well on a subsequent task.   In one of their studies, Reich and Teeny show that those who had compared themselves to an AI model did no better at a creative task than the individuals who compared themselves to other humans.  

Projecting Self-Confidence, not Self-Doubt

Source: Pixabay

Kellogg Insight recently featured some very useful advice on how to project self-confidence in the workplace by Ellen Taaffe, Clinical Assistant Professor of Leadership and Director of Women's Leadership Programs at the Kellogg School of Management.   Her focus on the language people use is very constructive.  Here's an excerpt: 

On a day-to-day level, Taaffe says, you can project self-confidence by recognizing and minimizing how often you use qualifying language.

“I was recently on a call where a more junior person was sharing some good work that she had developed,” Taaffe says. “As she shared her recommendation, no one was responding. She started to speed up, audibly losing confidence before asking ‘Am I making any sense?’ I thought, Ugh. The pressure, when one is intimidated or doubting themselves, is real. It is easy to get rattled and diminish our contributions and confidence with how we communicate.”

Taaffe recommends avoiding rhetorical questions or opening qualifiers, because every “Does that make sense?” or “This may be a bad idea but…” signals doubt and indicates to listeners that the statement is less worthy of consideration.  Instead, confirm that your audience is following along using far more confident-sounding open-ended questions, such as “What are your thoughts?” or “What questions do you have?”  Taaffe also advises couching your idea in a brainstorming frame such as “What could we learn if we did…?” This has the added benefit of starting a dialogue that engages others and asks them to contribute.

Afterwards, check in with mentors and colleagues for advice about the ways your performance can continue to adjust and adapt.“

Flattery Can Lead You Nowhere

Sun Hyun Park, James D. Westphal And Ithai Stern have conducted some interesting research on "flattery" in the workplace.  We all know that some folks like to kiss up to the boss.  We can debate whether it helps the subordinate's career or not, but another interesting question is whether such flattery has any impact on the boss.  These scholars find that it may have a detrimental effect on firm performance, because of the effect it has on the boss' mindset.  In their research, Park, Westphal, and Stern don't find a direct link between flattery and firm performance.  Instead, they found that flattery can boost a CEO's self-confidence (or what they call self-enhancement).  As a result, CEOs can become less likely to change a firm's strategy when performance begins to suffer.

In a strange sort of way then, flattery can make leaders stubborn.  They become more entrenched in their existing positions, because they believe that they can work things out without any major changes in strategy.   Perhaps the finding is not earth shattering, but it is thought-provoking.  Moreover, the rigor of the research should be applauded.

What's the practical implication?  I think the advice for leaders goes beyond "surrounding yourself with people who are not just yes-men."  Leaders need to recognize that they are likely to receive many accolades, even from those who may be willing to challenge them on occasion.  Compliments come with success, formal authority, and status.  I've worked for a number of leaders with whom I've had disagreements at times (and with whom I've felt comfortable expressing dissent), yet I'm quite sure I've also complimented them quite a bit on their successes.  Leaders need to recognize that a steady stream of compliments can begin to affect their decision-making moving forward.  It may make them more reluctant to change.  Therefore, leaders need to always stimulate a robust dialogue about new strategic options, even when the current path seems the right one.