Cited by 85Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationAI and HR Technologies

Effective human–AI work design for collaborative decision-making

Jain, Ruchika, Garg, Naval, Khera, Shikha N.·2023·Kybernetes

Abstract

Purpose: With the increase in the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision-making, organizations are facilitating human–AI collaboration. This collaboration can occur in a variety of configurations with the division of labor, with differences in the nature of interdependence being parallel or sequential, along with or without the presence of specialization. This study intends to explore the extent to which humans express comfort with different models human–AI collaboration. Design/methodology/approach: Situational response surveys were adopted to identify configurations where humans experience the greatest trust, role clarity and preferred feedback style. Regression analysis was used to analyze the results. Findings: Some configurations contribute to greater trust and role clarity with AI as a colleague. There is no configuration in which AI as a colleague produces lower trust than humans. At the same time, the human distrust in AI may be less about human vs AI and more about the division of labor in which human–AI work. Practical implications: The study explores the extent to which humans express comfort with different models of an algorithm as partners. It focuses on work design and the division of labor between humans and AI. The finding of the study emphasizes the role of work design in human–AI collaboration. There is human–AI work design that should be avoided as they reduce trust. Organizations need to be cautious in considering the impact of design on building trust and gaining acceptance with technology. Originality/value: The paper's originality lies in focusing on the design of collaboration rather than on performance of the team.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/k-04-2022-0548

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI, as a useful tool, can help improve employees' performance by providing individual feedback, thereby clearly playing a helpful and positive role in the work environment.

    “AI, as a useful tool, can help improve employees ' performance by providing individual feedback, thereby clearly playing a helpful and positive role in the work environment (Jain et al., 2022).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 109 · Cited by 85

Authors
Jain, R., Garg, N., & Khera, S. N.
Affiliations
Delhi Technological University (IN)
Venue
Kybernetes
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2022-07-05
Volume
52
Issue
11
Pages
5017-5040
ISSN
0368-492X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283783607
Cited by
85
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 4
FWCI
13.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Kybernetes (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
Keywords
human-AI collaboration, job design, collaborative decision-making, division of labor, trust in AI, role clarity, feedback style, interdependence, technology acceptance, AI decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review