With over 75% of professionals using AI in their daily work, writing and editing messages with tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot or Claude has become a commonplace practice. While generative AI tools are seen to make writing easier, are they effective for communicating between managers and employees?
A new study of 1,100 professionals reveals a critical paradox in workplace communications: AI tools can make managers’ emails more professional, but regular use can undermine trust between them and their employees.
“We see a tension between perceptions of message quality and perceptions of the sender,” said Anthony Coman , Ph.D., a researcher at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business and study co-author. “Despite positive impressions of professionalism in AI-assisted writing, managers who use AI for routine communication tasks put their trustworthiness at risk when using medium- to high-levels of AI assistance.”
In the study published in the International Journal of Business Communication, Coman and his co-author, Peter Cardon, Ph.D., of the University of Southern California, surveyed professionals about how they viewed emails that they were told were written with low, medium and high AI assistance. Survey participants were asked to evaluate different AI-written versions of a congratulatory message on both their perception of the message content and their perception of the sender.
While AI-assisted writing was generally seen as efficient, effective, and professional, Coman and Cardon found a “perception gap” in messages that were written by managers versus those written by employees.
“When people evaluate their own use of AI, they tend to rate their use similarly across low, medium and high levels of assistance,” Coman explained. “However, when rating other’s use, magnitude becomes important. Overall, professionals view their own AI use leniently, yet they are more skeptical of the same levels of assistance when used by supervisors.”
While low levels of AI help, like grammar or editing, were generally acceptable, higher levels of assistance triggered negative perceptions. The perception gap is especially significant when employees perceive higher levels of AI writing, bringing into question the authorship, integrity, caring and competency of their manager.
The impact on trust was substantial: Only 40% to 52% of employees viewed supervisors as sincere when they used high levels of AI, compared to 83% for low-assistance messages. Similarly, while 95% found low-AI supervisor messages professional, this dropped to 69-73% when supervisors relied heavily on AI tools.
The findings reveal employees can often detect AI-generated content and interpret its use as laziness or lack of caring. When supervisors rely heavily on AI for messages like team congratulations or motivational communications, employees perceive them as less sincere and question their leadership abilities.
“In some cases, AI-assisted writing can undermine perceptions of traits linked to a supervisor’s trustworthiness,” Coman noted, specifically citing impacts on perceived ability and integrity, both key components of cognitive-based trust.
The study suggests managers should carefully consider message type, level of AI assistance and relational context before using AI in their writing. While AI may be appropriate and professionally received for informational or routine communications, like meeting reminders or factual announcements, relationship-oriented messages requiring empathy, praise, congratulations, motivation or personal feedback are better handled with minimal technological intervention.