This study captured the perspectives of 887 working adults to explore views of professionalism, authenticity, and effectiveness of AI-generated messages. With a 3 (message type) × 2 (disclosed vs. undisclosed) × 2 (ChatGPT-generated vs. Google-generated AI messages) design, professionals generally view AI-generated content favorably in all conditions. Across all messages, professionals consistently rated the AI-generated messages as professional, effective, efficient, confident, and direct. They rate sincerity and caring slightly lower in some disclosed conditions, particularly for ChatGPT-generated messages, suggesting the importance of tool selection when using generative AI for workplace writing. Those professionals who use AI more frequently for work are more likely to view AI-assisted writing as authentic, effective, and confidence-building. Implications for teaching business communication, including the need to address AI literacy, and suggestions for future research are provided.
Brown-DevlinN.LimH.TaoJ. (2022). Examining the influence of algorithmic message personalization on source credibility and reputation. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884221126489
ByronK. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.31193163
4.
CampbellK. S.NaidooJ. S.SmithJ. (2021). When your boss says, “you need to sound more professional”: Writing style and writer attributions. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(4), 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211025735
5.
CardonP. W.FleischmannC.AritzJ.LogemannM.HeidewaldJ. (2023). The challenges and opportunities of AI-assisted writing: Developing AI literacy for the AI Age. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86(3), 257–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231176517
6.
CardonP. W.FleischmannC.LogemannM.HeidewaldJ.AritzJ.SwartzS. (2023). Competencies needed by business professionals in the AI Age: Character and communication lead the way. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231208166
7.
CardonP. W.GetchellK.CarradiniS.FleischmannC.StappJ. (2023). Generative AI in the workplace: Employee perspectives of ChatGPT benefits and organizational policies. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b3ezy
8.
CardonP. W.MaH.FleischmannC. (2023). Recorded business meetings and AI algorithmic tools: Negotiating privacy concerns, psychological safety, and control. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(4), 1095–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211037009
9.
ClaureH.KimS.KizilcecR. F.JungM. (2023). The social consequences of Machine Allocation Behavior: Fairness, interpersonal perceptions and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 146, 107628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107628
Dell’AcquaF.McFowlandE.IIIMollickE.Lifshitz-AssafH.KelloggK. C.RajendranS.KrayerL.CandelonF.LakhaniK. R. (2023). Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality (Harvard Business School Working Paper 24-013). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4573321
12.
FuL.NewmanB.JakeschM.KrepsS. (2023). Comparing sentence-level suggestions to message-level suggestions in AI-mediated communication [Conference session]. CHI ‘23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Hamburg, Germany (Article No. 103, pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581351
13.
FuY.FoellS.XuX.HinikerA. (2023). From text to self: Users’ perceptions of potential of AI on interpersonal communication and self. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.03976
14.
GetchellK. M.CarradiniS.CardonP. W.FleischmannC.MaH.AritzJ.StappJ. (2022). Artificial intelligence in business communication: The changing landscape of research and teaching. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 85(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906221074311
15.
GliksonE.AsscherO. (2023). AI-mediated apology in a multilingual work context: Implications for perceived authenticity and willingness to forgive. Computers in Human Behavior, 140, 107592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107592
16.
GubalaC.LarsonK.MelonçonL. (2020). Do writing errors bother professionals? An analysis of the most bothersome errors and how the writer’s ethos is affected. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(3), 250–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920910205
17.
HancockJ. T.NaamanM.LevyK. (2020). AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz022
18.
HohensteinJ.JungM. (2020). AI as a moral crumple zone: The effects of AI-mediated communication on attribution and trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106190
19.
HohensteinJ.KizilcecR. F.DiFranzoD.AghajariZ.MieczkowskiH.LevyK.NaamanM.HancockJ.JungM. F. (2023). Artificial intelligence in communication impacts language and social relationships. Scientific Reports, 13, article 5487. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30938-9
20.
HotchkissG. B.DrewC. A. (1916). Business English: Its principles and practice. American Book Company.
21.
JessmerS. L.AndersonD. (2001). The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. North American Journal of Psychology, 3(2), 331–345.
22.
KellyS.GaytanJ. (2020). The effect of instructors’ immediate behaviors and clarity on student writing apprehension. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490619868822
23.
KrugerJ.EpleyN.ParkerJ.NgZ.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925–936. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925
24.
LiC.WangJ.ZhangY.ZhuK.HouW.LianJ.LuoF.YangQ.XieX. (2023). Large language models understand and can be enhanced by emotional stimuli. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.11760
25.
MascleD. D. (2013). Writing self-efficacy and written communication skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569913480234
26.
MenR. L.ZhouA.TsaiW.-H. S. (2022). Harnessing the power of chatbot social conversation for organizational listening: The impact on perceived transparency and organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 34(1–2), 20–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2022.2068553
27.
MieczkowskiH.HancockJ. T.NaamanM.JungM.HohensteinJ. (2021). AI-mediated communication: Language use and interpersonal effects in a referential communication task. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449091
28.
MollickE. [@emollick]. (2023, November15). It is not an exaggeration to say that many (most?) people are never going to write their own first drafts . . . [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1724979700383044086
29.
NoyS.ZhangW. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4375283
30.
PataranutapornP.LiuR.FinnE.MaesP. (2023). Influencing human–AI interaction by priming beliefs about AI can increase perceived trustworthiness, empathy and effectiveness. Natural Machine Intelligence, 5, 1076–1086.
31.
RiapinaN. (2023). Teaching AI-enabled business communication in higher education: A practical framework. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231199249
32.
ShelbyA. N.ReinschN. L. (1995). Positive emphasis and you-attitude: An empirical study. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 32(4), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369503200401
33.
SillarsA.ZornT. E. (2021). Hypernegative interpretation of negatively perceived email at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(2), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318920979828
34.
SmithA. B.JonesC. D. (2021). “I can’t reply with that”: Characterizing problematic email reply suggestions [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan (Article No. 724, pp. 1–18). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445557
WaltherJ. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
37.
WeissD.LiuS. X.MieczkowskiH.HancockJ. T. (2022). Effects of using artificial intelligence on interpersonal perceptions of job applicants. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(3), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0863
