CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17

Is There Fairness in AI?

van den Broek, Elmira, Sergeeva, Anastasia, Huysman, Marleen·2026·Journal of Management Studies
DOI 10.1111/joms.13276
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As predictive artificial intelligence (AI) technologies increasingly steer workplace decisions, debates around fairness have intensified. Existing research often approaches fairness either as a set of universal principles supported or undermined by algorithms, or as a product of social interpretations, thereby providing either technologically deterministic or purely social accounts. Drawing on an ethnographic study of a human resources (HR) department of a large international company that introduced AI in hiring, this study offers an alternative view that shifts focus to how fairness emerges through the ways people define, embed, and perform values with algorithms. Taking a sociomaterial perspective, we find that the introduction and use of AI resulted in crowding out expert practices of performing fairness, favouring instead the version performed by HR. Our process model explains this outcome by the growing symbiosis between HR's professional mandate for fairness and AI procedures, where each legitimizes, shapes, and protects the other over time. This study thus shows that fairness is not pre‐given but constantly redefined and enacted through evolving associations between professional mandates and AI technologies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/joms.13276

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Barocas, S. and Selbst, A. D. (2016). 'Big data's disparate impact essay'. California Law Review, 104, 671-730.
  2. Bashshur, M. R., Barclay, L. J. and Fortin, M. (2023). 'Of headlamps and marbles: A motivated perceptual approach to the dynamic and dialectic nature of fairness'. Organizational Psychology Review, 15, 127-55.
  3. Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell. 14676486, 0, · DOI
  4. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J. and Santhanam, R. (2021). 'Managing artificial intelligence'. MIS Quarterly, 45, 1433-50.
  5. van den Broek, E., Sergeeva, A. and Huysman, M. (2021). 'When the machine meets the expert: An ethnog- raphy of developing AI for hiring'. MIS Quarterly, 3, 1557-80.
  6. Callon, M. (1986). 'Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fish- ermen of St Brieuc Bay'. In Law, J. (Ed), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 32, 196-233.
  7. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, R. D., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S. and Vidgen, R. (2014). 'The sociomate- riality of information systems'. MIS Quarterly, 38, 809-30.
  8. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. and Rhodes, C. (2007). 'Business ethics as practice'. British Journal of Management, 18, 107-22.
  9. Cornelissen, J. P. and Durand, R. (2014). 'Moving forward: Developing theoretical contributions in manage- ment studies'. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 995-1022.
  10. Cornelissen, J. and Kaandorp, M. (2023). 'Towards stronger causal claims in management research: Causal triangulation instead of causal identification'. Journal of Management Studies, 60, 834-60.
  11. Daugherty, P. R. and Wilson, H. J. (2018). Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
  12. Davenport, T. H. and Harris, J. G. (2007). Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning, 1st edition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  13. Deutsch, M. (1975). 'Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?'. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-49.
  14. Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
  15. Dobbin, F. (2009). Inventing Equal Opportunity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  16. Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. (2022). Getting to Diversity: What Works and What Doesn't. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  17. European Union (2024). 'Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts'. Official Journal of the European Union, L, 259, 1-125. Available at https:// eur-lex. europa. eu/ eli/ reg/ 2024/ 1689/ oj.
  18. Fayard, A.-L., Stigliani, I. and Bechky, B. A. (2017). 'How nascent occupations construct a mandate: The case of service designers' ethos'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62, 270-303.
  19. Gehman, J., Treviño, L. K. and Garud, R. (2013). 'Values work: A process study of the emergence and per- formance of organizational values practices'. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 84-112. 14676486, 0, · DOI
  20. Glaser, V. L., Sloan, J. and Gehman, J. (2024). 'Organizations as algorithms: A new metaphor for advancing management theory'. Journal of Management Studies, 2748-69.
  21. Hughes, E. (1958). Men and Their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  22. IEEE. (2024). Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Available at https:// stand ards. ieee. org/ wp-conte nt/ uploa ds/ import/ docum ents/ other/ ec_ about_ us. pdf.
  23. Introna, L. D. (2014). 'Towards a post-human intra-actional account of sociomaterial agency (and moral- ity)'. In The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer, 31-53.
  24. Jones, M. (2014). 'A matter of life and death'. MIS Quarterly, 38, 895-926.
  25. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Kellogg, K. C., Sendak, M. and Balu, S. (2022). 'AI on the front lines'. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63, 44-50.
  27. Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J. and Mullainathan, S. (2018). 'Human decisions and machine predictions'. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 237-93.
  28. Kornberger, M., van den Broek, E. and Leixnering, S. (2025). 'AI ethics strategy lessons from H&M group'. MIT Sloan Management Review, 1-5.
  29. Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J., Russell, C. and Silva, R. (2017). 'Counterfactual fairness'. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA, 30, 4066-76.
  30. Langley, A. (1999). 'Strategies for theorizing from process data'. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691-710.
  31. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  32. Leslie, L. M. (2019). 'Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences'. Academy of Management Review, 44, 538-63.
  33. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). 'What should be done with equity theory?'. In Social Exchange. Boston, MA: Springer, 27-55.
  34. Lindebaum, D., Moser, C. C., Ashraf, M. and Glaser, V. L. (2023). 'Reading the technological society to un- derstand the mechanization of values and its ontological consequences'. Academy of Management Review, 48, 575-92.
  35. Loscher, G. and Bader, V. (2022). 'Augmenting a profession: How data analytics is transforming human resource management'. In Gegenhuber T., Logue D., (Bob) Hinings C.R. and Barrett M. (Eds), Digital Transformation and Institutional Theory. Emerald Publishing Limited, 83, 87-110.
  36. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  37. Miller, A. P. (2018). 'Want less-biased decisions? Use algorithms'. Harvard Business Review, 26.
  38. Mitchell, S., Potash, E., Barocas, S., D'Amour, A. and Lum, K. (2021). 'Algorithmic fairness: Choices, as- sumptions, and definitions'. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 8, 141-63.
  39. Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E. and Kroon, D. (2013). 'Giving sense to and making sense of justice in postmerger integration'. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 256-84.
  40. Ochmann, J., Michels, L., Tiefenbeck, V., Maier, C. and Laumer, S. (2024). 'Perceived algorithmic fair- ness: An empirical study of transparency and anthropomorphism in algorithmic recruiting'. Information Systems Journal, 34, 384-414.
  41. OECD (2023). OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market. Paris: OECD Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ 08785 bba-en. · DOI
  42. Omidvar, O., Safavi, M. and Glaser, V. L. (2023). 'Algorithmic routines and dynamic inertia: How organiza- tions avoid adapting to changes in the environment'. Journal of Management Studies, 60, 313-45.
  43. Orlikowski, W. J. and Scott, S. V. (2015). 'Exploring material-discursive practices'. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 697-705.
  44. Polli, F. (2019). 'Using AI to eliminate bias from hiring'. Harvard Business Review.
  45. Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  46. Raisch, S. and Fomina, K. (2025). 'Combining human and artificial intelligence: Hybrid problem-solving in organizations'. Academy of Management Review, 50, 441-64.
  47. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  48. Rupp, D. E., Shapiro, D. L., Folger, R., Skarlicki, D. P. and Shao, R. (2017). 'A critical analysis of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for reassessment?'. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 919-59.
  49. Starke, C., Baleis, J., Keller, B. and Marcinkowski, F. (2022). 'Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision- making: A systematic review of the empirical literature'. Big Data & Society, 9, 1-16.
  50. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  51. Teodorescu, M. H., Morse, L., Awwad, Y. and Kane, G. C. (2021). 'Failures of fairness in automation re- quire a deeper understanding of human-ML augmentation'. MIS Quarterly, 45, 1483-500.
  52. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 14676486, 0, · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Broek, E., Sergeeva, A., & Huysman, M.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm School of Economics
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Management Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-08-24
Volume
63
Issue
6
Pages
3494-3531
ISSN
  • 0022-2380
  • 1467-6486
DOI
10.1111/joms.13276
Cited by
17
References
10
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Marcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfond (2021.0133)

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