From Text to Insight: Leveraging Large Language Models for Performance Evaluation in Management
0
š¬
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations.
- The researchers conducted comparative analyses across two studies, including various task performance outputs, to demonstrate that LLMs can serve as a reliable and even superior alternative to human raters in evaluating knowledge-based performance outputs.
Plain English Explanation
The study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, can be used to evaluate the performance of employees or teams in an organization more objectively than human raters. The researchers compared the ratings given by LLMs to the ratings given by human raters on various tasks and found that the LLM ratings were more consistent and reliable. They also found that combining multiple LLM ratings on the same performance output showed strong correlation with the aggregated human performance ratings, similar to the "consensus principle" observed in performance evaluation literature. However, the researchers also note that LLMs can be subject to biases, such as the "halo effect," just like human raters. Overall, the study suggests that LLMs have the potential to be a valuable tool for performance evaluation, but their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance assessment.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted two studies to explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in organizational task performance evaluations. In the first study, they compared the ratings given by GPT-4 to the ratings given by human raters on various knowledge-based task performance outputs. The results showed that the GPT ratings were comparable to human ratings, but exhibited higher consistency and reliability.
In the second study, the researchers looked at the correlation between combined multiple GPT ratings on the same performance output and the aggregated human performance ratings. They found a strong correlation, similar to the "consensus principle" observed in performance evaluation literature, where multiple raters converge on similar assessments.
However, the researchers also found that LLMs are prone to contextual biases, such as the "halo effect," where the overall impression of a person or entity influences the evaluation of their specific attributes. This mirrors the biases often observed in human performance evaluations.
Critical Analysis
The study highlights both the potential and limitations of using LLMs for organizational task performance evaluations. While the results suggest that LLMs can be a reliable and even superior alternative to human raters in certain contexts, the researchers note that their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation.
One potential limitation of the study is that it only focuses on knowledge-based task performance outputs, which may not be representative of all types of organizational tasks. Additionally, the researchers acknowledge that LLMs are susceptible to contextual biases, just like human raters, which could limit their objectivity in certain situations.
Further research is needed to explore the broader applications of LLMs in performance evaluation, as well as to address the issue of contextual biases. Investigating the performance of LLMs in evaluating different types of organizational tasks, and understanding how to mitigate their biases, could be valuable areas for future study.
Conclusion
This study contributes to the growing body of research on the use of AI models in management and organizational settings. The findings suggest that LLMs, such as GPT-4, have the potential to enhance the objectivity and reliability of organizational task performance evaluations, particularly in knowledge-based domains. However, the researchers also highlight the limitations of LLMs, including their susceptibility to contextual biases. By addressing these challenges, future research can further refine the theoretical and practical applications of AI in management and human resources.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
š¬
0
From Text to Insight: Leveraging Large Language Models for Performance Evaluation in Management
Ning Li, Huaikang Zhou, Mingze Xu
This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations. Through comparative analyses across two studies, including various task performance outputs, we demonstrate that LLMs can serve as a reliable and even superior alternative to human raters in evaluating knowledge-based performance outputs, which are a key contribution of knowledge workers. Our results suggest that GPT ratings are comparable to human ratings but exhibit higher consistency and reliability. Additionally, combined multiple GPT ratings on the same performance output show strong correlations with aggregated human performance ratings, akin to the consensus principle observed in performance evaluation literature. However, we also find that LLMs are prone to contextual biases, such as the halo effect, mirroring human evaluative biases. Our research suggests that while LLMs are capable of extracting meaningful constructs from text-based data, their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation. By highlighting both the potential and limitations of LLMs, our study contributes to the discourse on AI role in management studies and sets a foundation for future research to refine AI theoretical and practical applications in management.
Read more8/13/2024
0
Large Language Model as an Assignment Evaluator: Insights, Feedback, and Challenges in a 1000+ Student Course
Cheng-Han Chiang, Wei-Chih Chen, Chun-Yi Kuan, Chienchou Yang, Hung-yi Lee
Using large language models (LLMs) for automatic evaluation has become an important evaluation method in NLP research. However, it is unclear whether these LLM-based evaluators can be applied in real-world classrooms to assess student assignments. This empirical report shares how we use GPT-4 as an automatic assignment evaluator in a university course with 1,028 students. Based on student responses, we find that LLM-based assignment evaluators are generally acceptable to students when students have free access to these LLM-based evaluators. However, students also noted that the LLM sometimes fails to adhere to the evaluation instructions. Additionally, we observe that students can easily manipulate the LLM-based evaluator to output specific strings, allowing them to achieve high scores without meeting the assignment rubric. Based on student feedback and our experience, we provide several recommendations for integrating LLM-based evaluators into future classrooms.
Read more7/9/2024
š¬
0
Large Language Models on Wikipedia-Style Survey Generation: an Evaluation in NLP Concepts
Fan Gao, Hang Jiang, Rui Yang, Qingcheng Zeng, Jinghui Lu, Moritz Blum, Dairui Liu, Tianwei She, Yuang Jiang, Irene Li
Educational materials such as survey articles in specialized fields like computer science traditionally require tremendous expert inputs and are therefore expensive to create and update. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant success across various general tasks. However, their effectiveness and limitations in the education domain are yet to be fully explored. In this work, we examine the proficiency of LLMs in generating succinct survey articles specific to the niche field of NLP in computer science, focusing on a curated list of 99 topics. Automated benchmarks reveal that GPT-4 surpasses its predecessors, inluding GPT-3.5, PaLM2, and LLaMa2 by margins ranging from 2% to 20% in comparison to the established ground truth. We compare both human and GPT-based evaluation scores and provide in-depth analysis. While our findings suggest that GPT-created surveys are more contemporary and accessible than human-authored ones, certain limitations were observed. Notably, GPT-4, despite often delivering outstanding content, occasionally exhibited lapses like missing details or factual errors. At last, we compared the rating behavior between humans and GPT-4 and found systematic bias in using GPT evaluation.
Read more5/24/2024
0
An Empirical Analysis on Large Language Models in Debate Evaluation
Xinyi Liu, Pinxin Liu, Hangfeng He
In this study, we investigate the capabilities and inherent biases of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of debate evaluation. We discover that LLM's performance exceeds humans and surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art methods fine-tuned on extensive datasets in debate evaluation. We additionally explore and analyze biases present in LLMs, including positional bias, lexical bias, order bias, which may affect their evaluative judgments. Our findings reveal a consistent bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 towards the second candidate response presented, attributed to prompt design. We also uncover lexical biases in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, especially when label sets carry connotations such as numerical or sequential, highlighting the critical need for careful label verbalizer selection in prompt design. Additionally, our analysis indicates a tendency of both models to favor the debate's concluding side as the winner, suggesting an end-of-discussion bias.
Read more6/5/2024