Algorithms, leadership, and morality: why a mere human effect drives the preference for human over algorithmic leadership

Abstract

Algorithms are increasingly making decisions in organizations that carry moral consequences and such decisions are considered to be ordinarily made by leaders. An important consideration to be made by organizations is therefore whether adopting algorithms in this domain will be accepted by employees and whether this practice will harm their reputation. Considering this emergent phenomenon, we set out to examine employees' perceptions about (a) algorithmic decision-making systems employed to occupy leadership roles and make moral decisions in organizations, and (b) the reputation of organizations that employ such systems. Furthermore, we examine the extent to which the decision agent needs to be recognized as "merely" a human, or whether more information is needed about the decision agent's moral values (in this case, whether it is known that the human leader is humble or not) to be preferred over an algorithm. Our results reveal that participants in the algorithmic leader condition-relative to those in the human leader and humble human leader conditions-perceive the decision made to be less fair, trustworthy, and legitimate, and this in turn produces lower acceptance rates of the decision and more negative perceptions of the organization's reputation. The human leader and humble human leader conditions do not significantly differ across all main and indirect effects. This latter effect strongly suggests that people prefer human (vs. algorithmic) leadership primarily because they are human and not necessarily because they possess certain moral values. Implications for theory, practice, and directions for future research are discussed.

Ethics in human–AI teaming: principles and perspectives

“…This indicates that the mere perception that a team is at least partially composed of AI teammates can undermine team trust and communication. This is consistent with recent literature that demonstrates how people prefer human leaders to algorithms, not for any moral reasons but for the 'human effect'-simply because an algorithm is not human [58].…”

“…Just like computers may be run in 'safe mode' which excludes certain functionalities (especially in terms of access to external networks), carebots designed to, for instance, work with people with compromised cognitive capacities may need to be programmed to guard their privacy via "embedded protective technological solutions" [86]. Even then, outcomes may be controversial: a resounding success in the eyes of engineers, or a spooky exercise in dehumanization in the eyes of the public [87].…”

The reputational and ethical consequences of deceptive chatbot use

“…We explained that, as in most organizations, SPARK consists of different hierarchical layers and that they will have to execute several tasks. To make this clear, a visual representation of the organization’s hierarchy was provided [see Appendix B ; 98 ]. They learned that one member will hold the position of senior manager, another will hold the position of middle manager, and that three others will hold employee positions.…”

Developing authentic assessment through open educational practices

“…The COVID-19 pandemic disruption and advancements in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) have brought digital learning spaces and workplaces into sharper focus (McGuire & De Cremer, 2022). ARTT is an evolving collection continually adapts to changing needs and challenges in technologyenhanced learning.…”