Toward human-centered AI management: Methodological challenges and future directions

IF 11.1 1区 管理学 Q1 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
Mengchen Dong , Jean-François Bonnefon , Iyad Rahwan
{"title":"Toward human-centered AI management: Methodological challenges and future directions","authors":"Mengchen Dong ,&nbsp;Jean-François Bonnefon ,&nbsp;Iyad Rahwan","doi":"10.1016/j.technovation.2024.102953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As algorithms powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) are increasingly involved in the management of organizations, it becomes imperative to conduct human-centered AI management research and understand people's feelings and behaviors when machines gain power over humans. The two mainstream methods – vignette studies and case studies – reveal important but inconsistent insights. Here we discuss the respective limitations of vignette studies (affective forecasting errors, biased media coverage, and question substitution) and case studies (social desirability biases and lack of random assignment and control conditions), which may lead them to overrate negative and positive reactions to AI management, respectively. We further discuss the advantages of a third method for mitigating these limitations: field experiments on crowdsourced marketplaces. A proof-of-concept study on Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk; as a world-leading crowdsourcing platform) showed unique human reactions to AI management, which were not perfectly aligned with those in vignette or case studies. Participants (<em>N</em> = 504) did not differ significantly under AI versus human management, in terms of performance, intrinsic motivation, fairness perception, and commitment. We suggest that crowdsourced marketplaces can go beyond human research subject pools and become models of AI-managed workplaces, facilitating timely behavioral research and robust predictions on human-centered work designs and organizations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49444,"journal":{"name":"Technovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497224000038/pdfft?md5=34b2005ae396879997317164b07f359e&pid=1-s2.0-S0166497224000038-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technovation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497224000038","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As algorithms powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) are increasingly involved in the management of organizations, it becomes imperative to conduct human-centered AI management research and understand people's feelings and behaviors when machines gain power over humans. The two mainstream methods – vignette studies and case studies – reveal important but inconsistent insights. Here we discuss the respective limitations of vignette studies (affective forecasting errors, biased media coverage, and question substitution) and case studies (social desirability biases and lack of random assignment and control conditions), which may lead them to overrate negative and positive reactions to AI management, respectively. We further discuss the advantages of a third method for mitigating these limitations: field experiments on crowdsourced marketplaces. A proof-of-concept study on Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk; as a world-leading crowdsourcing platform) showed unique human reactions to AI management, which were not perfectly aligned with those in vignette or case studies. Participants (N = 504) did not differ significantly under AI versus human management, in terms of performance, intrinsic motivation, fairness perception, and commitment. We suggest that crowdsourced marketplaces can go beyond human research subject pools and become models of AI-managed workplaces, facilitating timely behavioral research and robust predictions on human-centered work designs and organizations.

实现以人为本的人工智能管理:方法论挑战与未来方向
随着由人工智能(AI)驱动的算法越来越多地参与到组织管理中,开展以人为本的人工智能管理研究,了解当机器获得超越人类的力量时人们的感受和行为变得势在必行。小插曲研究和案例研究这两种主流方法揭示了重要但不一致的见解。在此,我们将讨论小故事研究(情感预测误差、有偏见的媒体报道和问题替代)和案例研究(社会可取性偏差、缺乏随机分配和控制条件)各自的局限性,这些局限性可能会导致它们分别过高估计人们对人工智能管理的负面和正面反应。我们进一步讨论了第三种方法的优势,即在众包市场上进行实地实验,以减少这些局限性。在亚马逊Mechanical Turk(Mturk,世界领先的众包平台)上进行的概念验证研究显示了人类对人工智能管理的独特反应,这些反应与小故事或案例研究中的反应并不完全一致。在绩效、内在动力、公平感和承诺方面,人工智能与人工管理下的参与者(504 人)没有明显差异。我们认为,众包市场可以超越人类研究对象池,成为人工智能管理下的工作场所模型,从而促进及时的行为研究,并对以人为本的工作设计和组织做出可靠的预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Technovation
Technovation 管理科学-工程:工业
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
11.20%
发文量
208
审稿时长
91 days
期刊介绍: The interdisciplinary journal Technovation covers various aspects of technological innovation, exploring processes, products, and social impacts. It examines innovation in both process and product realms, including social innovations like regulatory frameworks and non-economic benefits. Topics range from emerging trends and capital for development to managing technology-intensive ventures and innovation in organizations of different sizes. It also discusses organizational structures, investment strategies for science and technology enterprises, and the roles of technological innovators. Additionally, it addresses technology transfer between developing countries and innovation across enterprise, political, and economic systems.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信