AI in – As AI becomes a standard workplace tool, school leaders are grappling with a new dilemma: Does using technology to draft professional feedback diminish the human connection?
A friend recently shared the news of his promotion, glowing with the satisfaction of a job well done. He mentioned that his boss had sent an email filled with positive comments about his performance. Then, as an afterthought, he added with a shrug and a laugh, “I think he used AI.”
He seemed unbothered by the possibility, noting that the promotion was what ultimately mattered. Yet the moment lingered. Why does the suspicion of artificial assistance often feel like it cheapens a professional milestone?. The boss had clearly observed the work, made a deliberate decision, and recognized qualities worth praising. If the technology simply smoothed the rough edges of the message, did the sentiment actually lose its weight?.
This is the growing friction point for school leaders today. As AI becomes a fixture in administrative tasks—from drafting routine reports to organizing complex schedules—the threshold for what feels “authentic” is shifting. The challenge is no longer about whether someone used a digital tool; it is about where the thinking actually happened.
There is a critical distinction between AI-assisted expression and AI-substituted judgment. When a leader observes a teacher’s classroom presence. their rapport with students. and their professional growth. they are gathering the raw material for feedback. Using AI to articulate that observation more clearly is a tool for communication. However. when a leader asks software to generate an appraisal for an employee they barely know—adopting praise or targets they haven’t independently verified—they are offloading their core responsibility.
Authenticity relies on specificity, not just syntax. A generic email praising a teacher for “tireless dedication” can feel hollow because it describes almost anyone. True trust is built when a message reflects evidence: a specific moment where a teacher supported a struggling student or managed a difficult conversation with a parent. If the polish of a message obscures the proof that someone actually noticed, the human connection fractures.
Leaders are currently navigating this paradox. To maintain integrity. it is useful to ask three questions before clicking ‘generate.’ First. could you explain the evidence behind these words without looking at the screen?. If you label someone as innovative or effective, the reasoning must come from your own observations. Second. are you asking for help expressing your thoughts. or are you asking the AI to perform the thinking you’ve avoided?. Finally, would you stand behind every sentence if the recipient asked you about it face-to-face?.
Ultimately, my friend’s promotion wasn’t defined by the phrasing of an email. His boss was the one who watched him work, made the decision to advance his career, and held the responsibility for the choice. AI may have shaped the letter, but it didn’t do the thinking.
As these tools become embedded in our daily lives, we must recalibrate our definition of authenticity. It is no longer useful to ask if a human typed every character. Instead, we should ask: Did a human do the thinking?. Did a human make the judgment?. And is a human ready to stand behind the result?. That is where genuine leadership remains.
AI in schools leadership professional authenticity workplace communication school administration teacher feedback