Algorithmic decision-making? The user interface and its role for human involvement in decisions supported by artificial intelligence
Abstract
Artificial intelligence can provide organizations with prescriptive options for decision-making. Based on the notions of algorithmic decision-making and user involvement, we assess the role of artificial intelligence in workplace decisions. Using a case study on the implementation and use of cognitive software in a telecommunications company, we address how actors can become distanced from or remain involved in decision-making. Our results show that humans are increasingly detached from decision-making spatially as well as temporally and in terms of rational distancing and cognitive displacement. At the same time, they remain attached to decision-making because of accidental and infrastructural proximity, imposed engagement, and affective adhesion. When human and algorithmic intelligence become unbalanced in regard to humans’ attachment to decision-making, three performative effects result: deferred decisions, workarounds, and (data) manipulations. We conceptualize the user interface that presents decisions to humans as a mediator between human detachment and attachment and, thus, between algorithmic and humans’ decisions. These findings contrast the traditional view of automated media as diminishing user involvement and have useful implications for research on artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making in organizations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Humans and algorithms form an assemblage in which components of differing origins and natures are put together and relationships between them are established.
“In this, humans and algorithms form “an assem-blage in which the components of their differing origins and natures are put together and relationships between them are established” (Bader and Kaiser, 2019: 656).”
From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Bader and Kaiser, 2019
Without algorithmic competencies and the active role of workers in constructing them, artificial and human intelligence do not yield "an assemblage of human and algorithmic intelligence".
“Without algorithmic competencies and the active role of workers in constructing them, artificial and human intelligence do not yield “an assemblage of human and algorithmic intelligence” (Bader and Kaiser, 2019).”
From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Bader and Kaiser, 2019
Cites
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455 · see citing works
Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H. L., & Storey, V. C. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703503 · Cited by 6,250 · see citing works
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760 · see citing works
The social power of algorithms
Beer, D. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1216147 · Cited by 945 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Our third contribution addresses the literature on the relationship of algorithms to human practices, those practices’ reaction to the algorithms (Gillespie, 2014), and the algorithms’ relevance to social outcomes (Beer, 2017; Newell and Marabelli, 2015).”
BackgroundWorking and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005 · Cited by 929 · see citing works
Debating big data: a literature review on realizing value from big data
Günther, W. A., Rezazade Mehrizi, M. H., Huysman, M., & Feldberg, F. (2017) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.003 · Cited by 880 · see citing works
Big Data Research in Information Systems: Toward an Inclusive Research Agenda
University of Virginia, Abbasi, A., Sarker, S., University of Virginia, Aalto University, Chiang, R., & University of Cincinnati (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00423 · Cited by 688 · see citing works
Sharma, R., Mithas, S., & Kankanhalli, A. (2014) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.17 · Cited by 516 · see citing works
Algorithms, Governance, and Governmentality: On Governing Academic Writing
Introna, L. D. (2016) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243915587360 · Cited by 339 · see citing works
Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0703 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Algorithmic management in a work context
Jarrahi, M. H., Newlands, G., Lee, M. K., Wolf, C. T., Kinder, E., & Sutherland, W. (2021) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517211020332 · Cited by 532 · see citing works
“In this, humans and algorithms form “an assemblage in which the components of their differing origins and natures are put together and relationships between them are established” (Bader and Kaiser, 2019: 656).”
BackgroundHuman-machine collaboration in managerial decision making
Haesevoets, T., De Cremer, D., Dierckx, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106730 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Keding, C., & Meissner, P. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120970 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Effective human–AI work design for collaborative decision-making
Jain, R., Garg, N., & Khera, S. N. (2023) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-04-2022-0548 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration
Bezrukova, K., Griffith, T. L., Spell, C., Rice, V., & Yang, H. E. (2023) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011231160574 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Spektor, F., Fox, S. E., Awumey, E., Begleiter, B., Kulkarni, C., Stringam, B., Riordan, C. A., Rho, H. J., Akridge, H., & Forlizzi, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579466 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Wei, J., Qi, S., Wang, W., Jiang, L., Gao, H., Zhao, F., Al-Bukhaiti, K., & Wan, A. (2025) · Contemporary Mathematics · doi:10.37256/cm.6220256459 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“To enhance AI literacy, researchers emphasize involving both top management and impacted employees in AI initiatives, given that acceptance varies across organizational levels [111, 114].”
- Authors
- Bader, V., & Kaiser, S.
- Affiliations
- Universität der Bundeswehr München (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Bader, Verena
- Venue
- Organization
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-06-21
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 655-672
- ISSN
- 1350-5084 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7323
- OpenAlex
- W2950920612
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 9
- FWCI
- 28.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Keywords
- algorithmic decision-making, user interface, workplace decision-making, workarounds, data manipulation, human-algorithm interaction, telecommunications companies
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
