The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 31 of the 142 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox
Abstract
Taking three recent business books on artificial intelligence (AI) as a starting point, we explore the automation and augmentation concepts in the management domain. Whereas automation implies that machines take over a human task, augmentation means that humans collaborate closely with machines to perform a task. Taking a normative stance, the three books advise organizations to prioritize augmentation, which they relate to superior performance. Using a more comprehensive paradox theory perspective, we argue that, in the management domain, augmentation cannot be neatly separated from automation. These dual AI applications are interdependent across time and space, creating a paradoxical tension. Overemphasizing either augmentation or automation fuels reinforcing cycles with negative organizational and societal outcomes. However, if organizations adopt a broader perspective comprising both automation and augmentation, they could deal with the tension and achieve complementarities that benefit business and society. Drawing on our insights, we conclude that management scholars need to be involved in research on the use of AI in organizations. We also argue that a substantial change is required in how AI research is currently conducted in order to develop meaningful theory and to provide practice with sound advice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
31 of 142 cited sources checked · 15 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The resulting tight coupling between humans and machines, with the two influencing one another, makes it increasingly difficult, or even impossible, to decouple their influence on the resulting model (Amershi et al., 2014).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Amershi et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Passage [2] says that rapid interaction cycles tightly couple the user and system, making their influence on the resulting model difficult to decouple. The Summary says it is impossible to study the system in isolation from the user, but does not say that decoupling their influence is impossible or becoming increasingly difficult. Neither passage has a page number in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Humans, on the other hand, possess the capacity to transfer learning, allowing them to generalize from one task context to another (Parisi, Kemker, Part, Kanan, & Wermter, 2019).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Parisi, Kemker, Part, Kanan, & Wermter, 2019 source
The Introduction states that humans can transfer knowledge across domains and tasks. Section 4.3 defines transfer learning as applying knowledge acquired in one domain to a problem in a new domain, supporting the claim's description of generalizing between task contexts. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Paradox theory, however, warns that such a narrow trade-off perspective does not adequately represent reality (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 source
In “Alternative Perspectives on Organizational Tensions: Beyond Contingency Theory,” the paper says that choosing between dualities can oversimplify complex, dynamic contexts, whereas paradox theory attends to persistent tensions. It also qualifies the point: a narrower choice-based approach can be valuable in a narrower context and shorter time horizon. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“According to paradox theory, these organizational responses fuel reinforcing cycles that can be either negative or positive (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 source
In “Managing Tensions: Enabling Vicious and Virtuous Cycles,” the paper states that responses to paradoxical tensions fuel reinforcing cycles that can be negative or positive. This directly supports the citing sentence; the paper also discusses both vicious and virtuous cycles. (LLM, conf=0.95)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Contrary to automation, augmentation demands continued human involvement and experimentation (Amershi et al., 2014).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Amershi et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Interactive Machine Learning section says users can steer models through rapid interaction cycles and experimentation, supporting continued human involvement in the systems the paper discusses. The paper does not establish the broader claim that augmentation, as opposed to automation, necessarily demands that involvement. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Organizations facing such a salient tension tend to apply management strategies to address it.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 source
The paper’s “Paradoxical Tensions: Latent and Salient” section describes responses to tensions as involving management strategies. “Managing Tensions: Enabling Vicious and Virtuous Cycles” further says that awareness of tensions triggers a management strategy. The paper addresses organizational tensions generally, rather than AI specifically; the cited sentence applies that general account to its context. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Owing to their inherent complexity and uncertainty, augmentation efforts often fail (Amershi et al., 2014).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Amershi et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on evaluating interactive machine-learning systems discusses failures of proposed solutions and says the interleaving of human interaction and algorithms makes their causes difficult to identify. It does not say augmentation efforts often fail or attribute their failure to inherent complexity and uncertainty. No page number was available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Computer scientists may be expert technologists, but they are generally not trained social or behavioral scientists (Rahwan et al., 2019).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rahwan et al., 2019 source
In “The interdisciplinary study of machine behaviour,” the paper identifies computer scientists among those who commonly study machines, then says these scientists are typically not trained behaviourists. This supports the citing sentence’s paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“AI is, for example, the major driver behind the current trend toward personalized medicine, with treatments being tailored to each patient's specific biological profile (Fleming, 2018;Lichfield, 2018).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Fleming, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Pattern Recognition passage says some expect AI to accelerate a trend toward treatments designed for patients with specific biological profiles. It presents this as a potential future contribution, not as evidence that AI is already the major driver of the trend or that such tailoring is currently occurring. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not matchedcites Lichfield, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Through augmentation, humans and machines become so closely intertwined that they collectively exhibit entirely new, emergent behaviors, which neither show individually (Amershi et al., 2014).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Amershi et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section “Increasing Collaboration Across the Fields of Human Computer Interaction and Machine Learning” (page not provided) describes an inherent coupling of humans and machines and benefits from their interaction. It does not say that this coupling produces entirely new, emergent behaviors that neither exhibits alone. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 58
- It may state two separate claims as one. 67
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Overfitting is a key risk in this context, which means that a machine may learn a complete model that also explains the errors, consequently failing to generalize appropriately beyond its training data (Fan, Han, & Liu, 2014).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Fan, Han, & Liu, 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.2 (page unavailable) explains that using too many features accumulates noise and worsens classification of new observations, supporting the risk of poor generalization. It does not explicitly describe a machine learning a model that explains training errors, so that part of the attributed definition is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Setting objectives is closely related to taking responsibility for the associated tasks and outcomes; consequently, while organizations can extend accountability to machines, responsibility requires intentionality, which is an exclusively human ability (Floridi, 2008).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Floridi, 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In ‘Reply to Johnson and Miller’ (page unavailable), Floridi distinguishes human responsibility from accountability that may apply to other agents. In ‘Reply to Grodzinsky, Miller and Wolf’ (page unavailable), he says he has not attributed moral responsibility to artificial agents, but he does not say responsibility requires intentionality or that intentionality is exclusively human; he discusses artificial agents exhibiting ‘intentionality*’. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“First, machines have no sense of self or purpose, which means managers need to define their objectives (Braga & Logan, 2017).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Braga & Logan, 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says machines have no sense of self or objectives, and §4.3 says computers lack purpose and goals and function as programmed by human manufacturers and users. The paper does not specifically say that managers need to define machines’ objectives; that is a managerial inference from its argument. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In such cases, rule-based automation is impossible, but managers could use an augmentation approach to explore the problem further (Holzinger, 2016).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Holzinger, 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says some hard medical problems make full automation difficult or even impossible, and that human experts working with interactive machine learning can help discover new insights. It does not say rule-based automation is impossible in complex cases generally, or specifically propose this approach for managers. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Most managerial tasks are more complex, and their rules and models are not fully known or readily available.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“While such a transition relaxes the tension temporarily, the issue resurfaces when conditions change over time (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s “Dilemma Dilemma” passage says a choice between competing demands is temporary and the tension will resurface. “Paradoxical Tensions: Latent and Salient” adds that change can make persistent tensions salient. The paper does not address a transition to automation or show that such a transition temporarily relaxes the tension. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Augmentation is therefore a coevolutionary process during which humans learn from machines and machines learn from humans (Amershi, Cakmak, Knox, & Kulesza, 2014;Rahwan et al., 2019).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Amershi, Cakmak, Knox, & Kulesza, 2014 source
The Interactive Machine Learning section says the model updates in response to user input, while users examine its outputs and adapt their subsequent inputs. The Summary describes this as a tight coupling in which the user and learning system influence one another. That supports the reciprocal process attributed to the paper; “augmentation” is the citing authors’ framing. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites Rahwan et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Collective machine behaviour section says machines may learn from humans and humans may learn from machines, with feedback affecting both. Human-machine co-behaviour also discusses reciprocal influence, but the paper does not identify augmentation specifically as a coevolutionary process; it describes mutual learning as a possibility. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“While such differentiation allows for engaging in both automation and augmentation, integration enables the finding of linkages that transcend the two poles (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 source
In “Managing Tensions: Enabling Vicious and Virtuous Cycles” (page unavailable), the paper describes combining splitting with synergistic integration to attend to opposing poles simultaneously. Its conceptual account supports applying that distinction to automation and augmentation; it does not present those as the paper’s own example. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Paradox theory suggests that managing tensions through the dynamic strategies of acceptance and resolution fosters sustainability (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 source
Proposition 3 in “The Outcome: Sustainability” states that dynamic, ongoing strategies of acceptance and resolution for managing paradoxical tensions foster sustainability. The “Managing Tensions” section likewise describes acceptance and resolution as complementary strategies in the dynamic equilibrium model. (LLM, conf=0.95)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The two AI approaches' juxtaposition stimulates learning and fosters adaptability, allowing the combination of (machine) rationality and (human) intuition, which enables more comprehensive information processing and better decisions (Calabretta, Gemser, & Wijnberg, 2017).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Calabretta, Gemser, & Wijnberg, 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A first step toward enabling such a virtuous cycle is the acceptance of the tensions as paradoxical (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 source
In “Managing Tensions: Enabling Vicious and Virtuous Cycles,” the paper states that acceptance lays the groundwork for virtuous cycles and describes accepting tensions as paradoxical as part of that approach. This supports the citing sentence’s characterization of acceptance as a first step. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Since emotions and other subjective factors affect humans, augmentation is difficult or even impossible to replicate, which means every augmentation initiative is a new learning effort (Holzinger, 2016).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Holzinger, 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3 (page unavailable) says experiments and evaluations of interactive machine learning can be difficult or even impossible to replicate because human agents are subjective and individual. It does not specifically identify emotions as the cause or say that every augmentation initiative is a new learning effort. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“While acceptance lays the groundwork for virtuous cycles, it has to be complemented with a subsequent resolution strategy (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 source
In “Managing Tensions: Enabling Vicious and Virtuous Cycles,” the paper says acceptance lays the groundwork for virtuous cycles and describes acceptance and resolution as complementary strategies. It also says acceptance enables more challenging resolution strategies, supporting the cited sentence’s sequence. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, humans”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Binns, Van Kleek, Veale, Lyngs, Zhao, & Shadbolt, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 1) says human decision-makers can be asked to rationalise their decisions and held accountable. The paper also discusses explanations of algorithmic outputs as a route to transparency and accountability (Interpreting intelligent systems, p. 2), but it does not say that humans in the loop would explain those outputs. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Tensions' systemic nature is a central tenet of paradox theorizing (Jarzabkowski, Bednarek, Chalkias, & Cacciatori, 2019;Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Jarzabkowski, Bednarek, Chalkias, & Cacciatori, 2019 source
The Introduction states almost exactly that the systemic nature of paradoxes is a central tenet of much paradox theorizing. This supports the citing sentence’s paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.95)
- Supportedcites Smith & Lewis, 2011 source
In “Conceptual Clarity: Distinguishing Among Organizational Tensions,” the paper defines paradoxical elements as interrelated within a larger system. “Paradoxical Tensions: Latent and Salient” further describes tensions as embedded in organizational systems and as forming a system of interrelated tensions. These passages support the claim that their systemic nature is central to the paper’s paradox theorizing. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“While machine algorithms shape human actions, humans shape these algorithms through their actions, which create a recursive relationship (Beer, 2017).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Beer, 2017 source
In the Abstract, Beer describes algorithms as embedded in social practices and says their outcomes are recursively modelled back into algorithm design. In “Power and the algorithm,” he also describes algorithms shaping choices and human agents designing them. Together, these passages support the claimed two-way relationship. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“In order to fully understand the automation-augmentation paradox's societal implications, scholars could adopt a relational ontology which accepts that, in the digital age, human and machine agents are so closely intertwined in hybrid collectives that their relations determine their actions (Floridi & Taddeo, 2016).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Floridi & Taddeo, 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says that the ethics of data, algorithms and practices are intertwined, and the Abstract discusses interactions among hardware, software and data. Neither passage addresses a relational ontology in which human and machine agents form hybrid collectives or their relations determine their actions. Searches for “hybrid collectives” and “relations determine their actions” found no supporting passage in our copy; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Could not verify
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Complexifying theories is essential for understanding complex phenomena (Tsoukas, 2017), because”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tsoukas, 2017 source
The Abstract argues that theories should be complexified because theoretical complexity is needed to account for organizational complexity. The claim is a concise paraphrase of that argument, with organizational phenomena as the paper’s focus. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weick, 2007: 16 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the Symrise case, machines can neither smell nor fully predict how humans will perceive new fragrances, or the emotions and memories they trigger.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Master perfumers have these skills and can also use them to tell a compelling story about a fragrance and its meaning, which is important for its commercialization.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At the same time, the company managed to save 70 000 person-days of interviewing and assessing candidates, which resulted in annual cost savings of GBP 1 million and a reduction of the time-to-hire by 90% (from an average of four months to two weeks) (Feloni, 2017).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Feloni, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Unilever has reported that the combination of automation and augmentation has led to a 16% increase in new hires' ethnic and gender diversity, making it the”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Feloni, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Their combined advice was that organizations should prioritize augmentation, which the authors related to superior performance.”
- Also stated in: § REVIEWED MATERIALS · plain
“Building on this analysis, the three books have advised organizations to focus on augmentation rather than on automation.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Daugherty & Wilson, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § REVIEWED MATERIALS · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The authors distinguished two broad AI applications in organizations: automation and augmentation.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Daugherty & Wilson, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In addition, the two more recent books (Daugherty & Wilson, 2018;Davenport & Kirby, 2016) provided managers with ample advice on how to develop and implement such an augmentation strategy.”
- Also stated in: § REVIEWED MATERIALS · plain
“The two more recent books also provided managers with ample advice on how to develop and implement such an augmentation strategy in their organizations.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Daugherty & Wilson, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § REVIEWED MATERIALS · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The three books have developed a common AI narrative for practicing managers.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Daugherty & Wilson, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if organizations adopt a broader perspective comprising both automation and augmentation, they could deal with the tension and achieve complementarities that benefit business and society.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“However, organizations adopting a broader perspective comprising both automation and augmentation are not only able to deal with the tension but also achieve complementarities that benefit business and society.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“Managers need to use their intuition and common-sense judgment-reconciling the machine output with reality-to make a final decision about the most desirable option (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014: 92).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizations may opt for one or the other application at a given point in time, which softens the underlying tension temporarily but fails to resolve it.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Engagement with one side of the tension may set the stage, or even create the conditions necessary, for the other's existence; in addition, over time there is often a mutual influence between the opposing forces, with swings from one side to the other (Poole & van de Ven, 1989).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Poole & van de Ven, 1989 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If organizations automate a task hitherto reserved for humans, this change could affect other, closely related human tasks, and lead managers to start interacting with machines.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Managerial tasks are generally embedded in a managerial process with interdependencies between tasks.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we increase our analysis's temporal scale (from one point in time to its evolution over time) and spatial scale (from one to multiple tasks), we comprehend that, in the management domain, the two AI applications are not only contradictory but also interdependent.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The three books described the relationship between automation and augmentation as a trade-off decision: Organizations attempting to use AI have the choice of either automating the task or using an augmentation approach.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Daugherty & Wilson, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, HR managers can use their emotional and social intelligence to provide a”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016: 74
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Managers will therefore remain involved in these processes and interact with machines on a wide range of tasks.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that the two AI applications in management are not only contradictory but also interdependent.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Automation and augmentation are contradictory, because organizations choose either one or the other approach to address a given task at a specific point in time.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Fourth, machines do not possess human senses, perceptions, emotions, and social skills (Braga &”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Braga &
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Relatively routine and well-structured tasks can be automated, while more complex and ambiguous tasks cannot, but can be addressed through augmentation (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014: 138ff;Daugherty & Wilson, 2018: 107ff;Davenport & Kirby, 2016: 34ff).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Daugherty & Wilson, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eventually, organizations will face the same choice again, demonstrating the two applications' interdependent nature and cyclical relationship.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The arguments that the books have provided are difficult to refute, but their perspective is largely limited to a given task at a specific point in time.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Resolution involves seeking responses to paradoxical tensions through a combination of differentiation and integration practices (Poole & van de Ven, 1989).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Poole & van de Ven, 1989 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that organizations benefit if they differentiate between and integrate across automation and augmentation.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Prior studies have shown that maintaining overall human responsibility not only reduces human bias (Larrick, 2004), but also prevents human-machine collaboration biases (Skitka et al., 2000).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Differentiation allows organizations to benefit from both AI applications' unique benefits.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once actors accept that automation and augmentation can and should coexist, they can explore the dynamic relationship between them mindfully, which could be part of their organization's vision or guiding principles regarding the use of AI in management.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human experts are either made redundant through automation or they lose their specific skills regarding the tasks they no longer pursue.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As these studies have shown, assigning the overall responsibility for processes to humans leads to increased vigilance and verification behavior, the consideration of a wider range of inputs prior to making decisions, and the use of greater cognitive complexity when processing such information.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the continued human involvement implies that human biases persist, which means augmentation outcomes are never fully consistent, reliable, or persistent (Huang, Hsu, & Ku, 2012).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Huang, Hsu, & Ku, 2012 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In such contexts, automation and augmentation provide different, partly conflicting, but also complementary logics and functionalities that organizations require.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To conclude, while automation can free up resources for potential search activities, it is also associated with short-term thinking, the loss of human expertise, and lock-in effects that, together, fuel a reinforcing cycle, which makes it increasingly difficult for organizations to implement such search activities.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these solutions may be appropriate within the strict boundaries that time and space impose, the use of AI in management causes an organizational tension that persists across time and space.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Automation enables organizations to drive cost efficiencies, establish faster processes, and ensure greater information-processing rationality and consistency.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their cognitive limitations mean that humans' search field is restricted, while machines do not face such information-processing limitations (Davenport & Kirby, 2016: 17).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016: 17
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the optimal balance between automation and augmentation depends on contingencies, such as organizations' AI expertise and the nature of the environmental contexts they face, organizations will experience a persistent tension between these interrelated applications of AI in management.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Paradoxical Tension
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“By switching, the machine's independent output can be used to challenge human intuition and judgment, with human feedback enabling further rounds of machine analysis (Hoc, 2001).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hoc, 2001 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By managing paradox, organizations enable learning and creativity, promote flexibility and reliance, and unleash human potential.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Prior research has shown that automation can deskill humans, make them complacent, and diffuse their sense of responsibility (Parasuraman & Manzey, 2010;Skitka, Mosier, & Burdick, 2000).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Managers limiting their perspective to either automation or augmentation risk developing partial and incomplete managerial solutions.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stimulating an exchange between organizational actors with different perspectives, such as data scientists and business managers, could develop more complex understandings of the phenomenon.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“However, paradox scholars have also acknowledged that narrow organizational attention to just one of the tensions' poles can trigger unintended organizational and societal consequences (Schad & Bansal, 2018).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schad & Bansal, 2018 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Excluding humans at this stage may help break path dependencies and promote greater novelty.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As described above, augmentation provides complementary benefits arising from the mutual enhancing of human and machine skills.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, retaining human responsibility for managerial processes promotes integration, which transcends automation and augmentation.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Paradox theory offers a more constructive response to tensions by envisioning a virtuous cycle, with organizations overcoming their defensiveness to embrace these tensions and viewing them as an opportunity to find synergies that accommodate and transcend the opposing poles (Schad et al., 2016).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schad et al., 2016 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“To legitimize their large augmentation investments, organizations experiencing failure may be tempted to reinforce their augmentation efforts further, which could escalate their commitment (Sabherwal & Jeyaraj, 2015;Staw, 1981), with failure leading to continued augmentation, in turn leading to continued failure.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Management Strategies
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By juxtaposing and integrating their different perspectives, theories, and methodologies, computer scientists and management scholars can jointly create a foundation for meaningful research on the use of AI in management.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With respect to managerial tasks, humans will remain”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limited work to date has provided separate accounts with clear-cut contrasts between augmentation and automation.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Differentiation allows for independent analyses with (i.e., augmentation) and without (i.e., automation) human involvement.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Management scholars are particularly well-equipped to study these human-machine interactions in real-world settings, as well as to explore the organizational and societal implications thereof.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While augmentation allows for identifying patterns in large volumes of patient data, automation makes the design and manufacture of tailored drugs economically viable.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Currently, computer scientists, roboticists, and engineers are the scholars most commonly studying AI.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Automation could free up scarce resources for augmentation, which, in turn, could help identify the rules or models that enable automation.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These applications provide complementary functionalities that are both potentially useful for organizations.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, a one-sided focus on automation could cause extensive job losses and result in the deskilling of managers who relinquish tasks to machines, which could lead to the further risks of rising unemployment and social inequality (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014: 171; see also Autor, 2015).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014: 171
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Autor, 2015 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Integration ensures that machine outputs are used to challenge humans, and human inputs to challenge machines (Hoc, 2001), allowing for mutual learning (Panait & Luke, 2005) and debiasing (Larrick, 2004).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This virtuous cycle could help organizations reduce the digital transition's negative effects on their employees and the labor market at large.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if organizations adopt a more comprehensive perspective, the outcomes could be positive for both business and society.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, AI's dual applications in management provide organizations with a range of benefits that neither automation nor augmentation can provide alone.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, researchers need to accept that automation and augmentation are interdependent AI applications in management that cannot be neatly separated and designated as either good or evil.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These settings permit the use of methodologies aimed at maximizing algorithmic performance, but disregard the role of humans and the wider organizational and societal implications.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their primary objective is to automate as far as possible, because they often regard humans as”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cummings, 2014: 62 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The central argument of this review essay is that automation and augmentation are not only separable and conflicting but in fact fundamentally interdependent.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis of the automation-augmentation paradox suggests that the jury is out on whether the use of AI in management will turn out to be a blessing or a curse.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Conversely, onesided augmentation is likely to cause another”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, adopting this intuitively appealing model uncritically obscures how automation and augmentation intertwine in managerial practice.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The complex interaction between these varied AI applications over time could have both positive and negative organizational and societal implications.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The technological and the social worlds are merging (Orlikowski, 2007), which means that computer scientists and management scholars no longer study separate phenomena.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Orlikowski, 2007 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The automation-augmentation model's popularity stems largely from its clear boundaries and simplicity.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Paradoxes are embedded in open systems and their implications extend beyond a single organization's boundaries.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Automation takes humans”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > Outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Automation and augmentation are not good or evil per se.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that the prevailing trade-off perspective is overdrawn; viewed as a paradox, augmentation is both the driver and outcome of automation, and the two applications of AI develop and fold into one another across space and time.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This introduction of AI in practice will profoundly change the nature of management.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Managers in key organizational domains, including customer management, human resources, marketing, product innovation, sales, and strategy, have already started working closely with intelligent machines on automated and augmented tasks.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may therefore be difficult, or even impossible, to distinguish between humans and machines or the respective learning and actions of each.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inputs from agents within and outside the organization thereby impact the automation and augmentation process, which, in turn, can have wide-reaching societal implications.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While machines have fundamental limitations, their actions nevertheless enjoy far-reaching autonomy, because humans delegate knowledge tasks to these machine agents and allow agents to act on their behalf (Rai, Constantinides, & Sarker, 2019).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rai, Constantinides, & Sarker, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This will lead to a more comprehensive and, ultimately, more rigorous and relevant discussion of AI's organizational and societal implications.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Such a perspective will enable a discussion of”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mittelstadt et al., 2016 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Consequently, it is difficult to apportion accountability for outcomes to specific actors, which creates an”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mittelstadt et al., 2016 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“More encompassing perspectives, such as paradox theory (Schad et al., 2016) or systems theory (Sterman, 2000), offer a vantage point from which researchers can observe the dynamic interplay between automation and augmentation.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schad et al., 2016 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sterman, 2000
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, they can introduce statistical biases and have other limitations that humans do not have (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2019).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Elsbach & Stigliani, 2019 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the most basic level, management scholars need to acknowledge that humans are no longer the sole agents in management, although most theories to date focus exclusively on human agency.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While management scholars may (and should) become involved in the broader discussion of AI and its societal implications, the use of automation and augmentation in management relates to the core of management scholars' research.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Augmentation therefore implies close collaboration between humans and machines.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Several current projects are aimed at deploying AIbased agents capable of perceiving and responding to emotional cues.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McDuff & Czerwinski, 2018 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The talent acquisition process in our JP Morgan Chase example functions similarly: HR managers now engage in augmentation to initially set the machine's objectives and constraints (objective setting) and to subsequently select from the candidates that the machine suggested (candidate selection)(Riley, 2018).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Riley, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, intelligent machines used for automation do not have these limitations; they have practically unlimited information-processing capacity and exhibit perfectly consistent behavior.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“At the same time, general human skills that complement machines, such as creativity, common sense, and advanced communication (Davenport & Kirby, 2016: 30), as well as integration skills such as AI literacy, will gain further importance in an era of automation and augmentation (Daugherty & Wilson, 2018: 191).”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Davenport & Kirby, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Daugherty & Wilson, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Managers define the objectives, set constraints, generate and choose the training data, and provide machines with feedback.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since automation and augmentation are interdependent, this interaction spreads across organizations.”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accepting and embracing this complexity allows for studying AI and its managerial applications”
§ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT: THE AUTOMATION-AUGMENTATION PARADOX > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
AI is becoming increasingly pervasive in managerial contexts.
“Nonetheless, these scholars' understanding will be required, because AI is becoming increasingly pervasive in managerial contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most managerial tasks are more complex, and their rules and models are not fully known or readily available.
“However, most managerial tasks are more complex, and the rules and models are therefore not fully known or readily available.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Managerial tasks are generally embedded in a managerial process with interdependencies between tasks.
“However, in practice managerial tasks rarely occur in isolation, but are generally embedded in a managerial process.There are interdependencies between the various tasks constituting this process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The three reviewed business books provide a suitable basis for identifying and analyzing the automation-augmentation tension in management.
“Inspired by three recent business books, we have explored the emergent use of AI-based applications in organizations to automate and augment managerial tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Symrise, UBS, and Unilever examples are representative of how organizations manage the automation-augmentation paradox.
“A recent initiative at UBS's investment-banking division illustrates this virtuous cycle.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Managers in key organizational domains, including customer management, human resources, marketing, product innovation, sales, and strategy, have already started working closely with intelligent machines on automated and augmented tasks.
“Managers in key organizational domains, including customer management, human resources, marketing, product innovation, sales, and strategy have already started working closely with intelligent machines on automated and augmented tasks.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Indeed, scholars describe human-AI augmentation as an expansion of expertise or knowledge where humans and machines ' combine their complementary strengths ' to ' multiply their capabilities ' (Raisch and Krakowski 2021, p. 6).”
From To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis (2022) · cites this paper as Raisch and Krakowski 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Its vocabulary follows Raisch and Krakowski, who distinguish automation, in which the machine takes over a task, from augmentation, in which human and machine capabilities are combined by design, and theorize the two as interdependent rather than mutually exclusive [45].”
From Borrowed Competence: When AI-Driven HR Builds Startups’ People Capability and When It Hollows It Out (2026) · cites this paper as [45]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“It suggests that the LLM decision process, at least under the current prompt design and judge model, was able to maintain high decision quality across structures.”
From Semantic Camouflage in Artificial Organizations: A Real-LLM Multi-Agent Simulation of Information Distortion and Audit (2026) · cites this paper as Raisch & Krakowski, 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Our review found that the adoption of AI within HRM processes and wider organisation will impact employees in different ways, such as job substitution, training needs, and uncertainty regarding roles and responsibilities (Frey & Osborne, 2017), limited understanding about how and why AI will be used (Raisch & Krakowski, 2020), trust and confidence (Gunning, 2017), formation of project teams where”
From Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through AI capability framework (2023) · cites this paper as Raisch & Krakowski, 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“After all, these tools are assistants that are designed and trained to augment individual workers, and augmentation involves a mutual learning process through which both humans and AI learn from each other and hence coevolve (Raisch & Krakowski, 2020).”
From Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: A partnership between human and AI (2023) · cites this paper as Raisch & Krakowski, 2020
In the citing paper
“Automation is not necessarily the opposite of human augmentation and can in fact foster augmentation (Raisch & Krakowski, 2020).”
From Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: A partnership between human and AI (2023) · cites this paper as Raisch & Krakowski, 2020
In the citing paper
“In order to gain a competitive advantage over their competitors (Raisch & Krakowski, 2021), businesses have implemented and deployed AI solutions to automate their processes, increase efficiency and reduce costs (Frank et al., 2019; Gregory et al., 2020).”
From Toward AI Governance: Identifying Best Practices and Potential Barriers and Outcomes (2023) · cites this paper as Raisch & Krakowski, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Example transition is described in the wrong direction
MinorThe paper introduces the two examples as transitions from automation to augmentation, but the examples describe augmentation first and automation afterward.
“To provide illustrations of such transitions from automation to augmentation, we briefly discuss two examples from managerial practice.”
“After the initial augmentation stage, JP Morgan Chase decided to automate the candidate assessment task on the basis of the identified criteria.”
Citations
Cites
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 46,726
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
D’Amico, R. (1978) · Telos · doi:10.3817/0678036169 · Cited by 19,439
Artificial intelligence: A modern approach
Nilsson, N. J. (1996) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(96)00007-0 · Cited by 10,730
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
Topol, E. J. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 · Cited by 10,450
Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415 · Cited by 9,955
(2000) · University of Maribor digital library (University of Maribor) · Cited by 9,354
Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge
Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Simonyan, K., Antonoglou, I., Huang, A., Guez, A., Hubert, T., Baker, L., Lai, M., Bolton, A., et al. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature24270 · Cited by 9,084
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250141009 · Cited by 7,646
(2013) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr · Cited by 6,965
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.187763 · Cited by 5,366
The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951716679679 · Cited by 4,567
The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies
(2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.184834 · Cited by 4,409
Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607081138 · Cited by 3,248
Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review
Parisi, G. I., Kemker, R., Part, J. L., Kanan, C., & Wermter, S. (2019) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2019.01.012 · Cited by 3,117
Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy
Doyle, T. (2017) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972243.2017.1354593 · Cited by 3,111
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm
Baumöl, W. J., Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1964) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150326 · Cited by 3,009
Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide
Norris, P. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139164887 · Cited by 2,921
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732
Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation
Finkelstein, S. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256485 · Cited by 2,389
POWER IN TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS: DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND VALIDATION.
Finkelstein, S. D. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256485 · Cited by 2,389
Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0406 · Cited by 2,195
The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power
Shandler, R. (2019) · Journal of Cyber Policy · doi:10.1080/23738871.2019.1637914 · Cited by 2,113
Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies
Bostrom, N. (2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.187536 · Cited by 1,998
Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories
Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308389 · Cited by 1,905
Privacy and human behavior in the age of information
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1465 · Cited by 1,879
Can we open the black box of AI?
Castelvecchi, D. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/538020a · Cited by 1,773
Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 · Cited by 1,710
The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action
Staw, B. M. (1981) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1981.4285694 · Cited by 1,693
Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0223 · Cited by 1,631
Problem-Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence
Nilsson, N. J. (1971) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 1,607
Challenges of Big Data analysis
Fan, J., Han, F., & Liu, H. (2014) · National Science Review · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwt032 · Cited by 1,482
The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation
Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779064555 · Cited by 1,406
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Self-citationRahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.-F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J. W., Christakis, N. A., Couzin, I. D., Jackson, M. O., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y · Cited by 1,364
Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2008.31767217 · Cited by 1,342
Cooperative Multi-Agent Learning: The State of the Art
Panait, L., & Luke, S. (2005) · Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems · doi:10.1007/s10458-005-2631-2 · Cited by 1,237
On the Morality of Artificial Agents
Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1023/b:mind.0000035461.63578.9d · Cited by 1,218
What can machine learning do? Workforce implications
Brynjolfsson, E., & Mitchell, T. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap8062 · Cited by 1,131 · cited 3×
“…one-sided augmentation is likely to cause another “ digital divide ” (Norris, 2001), with social tensions arising between the few who currently have the capabilities and resources for augmentation and those who do not (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014: 134f; see also Brynjolfsson & Mitchell, 2017).”
BackgroundContradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Power to the People: The Role of Humans in Interactive Machine Learning
Amershi, S., Cakmak, M., Knox, W. B., & Kulesza, T. (2014) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513 · Cited by 1,084
Gillespie, T. (2014) · Media Technologies · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9042.003.0013 · Cited by 1,016
On the Computational Complexity of Algorithms
Hartmanis, J., & Stearns, R. E. (1965) · Transactions of the American Mathematical Society · doi:10.1090/s0002-9947-1965-0170805-7 · Cited by 1,008
The social power of algorithms
Beer, D. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1216147 · Cited by 945
Interactive machine learning for health informatics: when do we need the human-in-the-loop?
Holzinger, A. (2016) · Brain Informatics · doi:10.1007/s40708-016-0042-6 · Cited by 906
Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem
Miron‐Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0594 · Cited by 887
Surveillance as social sorting : privacy, risk, and digital discrimination
Lyon, D. (2003) · Cited by 868
Kurzweil, R. (2014) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137349088_26 · Cited by 866
The logic theory machine-A complex information processing system
Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1956) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.1956.1056797 · Cited by 846
Deep Direct Reinforcement Learning for Financial Signal Representation and Trading
Deng, Y., Bao, F., Kong, Y., Ren, Z., & Dai, Q. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2016.2522401 · Cited by 822
'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions
Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Veale, M., Lyngs, U., Zhao, J., & Shadbolt, N. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173951 · Cited by 691
A New Algorithmic Identity: Soft Biopolitics and the Modulation of Control
Cheney-Lippold, J. (2011) · Theory, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0263276411424420 · Cited by 684 · cited 1×
“In a management context, machines may influence human behavior but without setting a static norm of conduct or an unsurpassable rule (Cheney-Lippold, 2011).”
BackgroundFloridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2016) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0360 · Cited by 637
Fails, J. A., & Olsen, D. R. (2003) · Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces · doi:10.1145/604045.604056 · Cited by 633
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm—40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact
Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0280 · Cited by 606
Human + Machine : Reimagining Work in the Age of AI
Daugherty, P. R. (2021) · Cited by 556
The Generative Properties Of Richness
Weick, K. E. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160637 · Cited by 554
How artificial intelligence is changing drug discovery
Fleming, N. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05267-x · Cited by 546
The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Data Network Effects for Creating User Value
Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0178 · Cited by 540
(1959) · IFIP Congress · Cited by 514
Applications of machine learning and rule induction
Langley, P., & Simon, H. A. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/219717.219768 · Cited by 508
Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence
Davis, E., & Marcus, G. (2015) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2701413 · Cited by 434
In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power
Zuboff, S. (1989) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2073307 · Cited by 410
Towards a cognitive approach to human–machine cooperation in dynamic situations
HOC, J.-M. (2001) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0454 · Cited by 387
Tsoukas, H. (2017) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12219 · Cited by 368
Webb, S. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-018-02174-z · Cited by 359
Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence?
Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., Hafen, E., Hagner, M., Hofstetter, Y., van den Hoven, J., Zicari, R. V., & Zwitter, A. (2019) · Towards Digital Enlightenment · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90869-4_7 · Cited by 355
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Huppert, H., & Sparks, R. (2006) · Bristol Research (University of Bristol) · Cited by 341
Larrick, R. P. (2004) · Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch16 · Cited by 328
The Interplay between Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision Making: A Paradox Perspective
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616655483 · Cited by 324 · cited 1×
“The two AI approaches ’ juxtaposition stimulates learning and fosters adaptability, allowing the combination of (machine) rationality and (human) intuition, which enables more comprehensive information processing and better decisions (Calabretta, Gemser, & Wijnberg, 2017).”
BackgroundAccountability and automation bias
SKITKA, L. J., MOSIER, K., & BURDICK, M. D. (2000) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0349 · Cited by 324
Clark, A. (2013) · doi:10.1002/9781118555927 · Cited by 318
Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands
Smith, W. K., & Tracey, P. (2016) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127016638565 · Cited by 298
Lindebaum, D., Vesa, M., & den Hond, F. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0181 · Cited by 290
Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research
Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12398 · Cited by 266
Sociology in the Era of Big Data: The Ascent of Forensic Social Science
McFarland, D. A., Lewis, K., & Goldberg, A. (2015) · The American Sociologist · doi:10.1007/s12108-015-9291-8 · Cited by 238
Information Technology Impacts on Firm Performance: An Extension of Kohli and 1
Sabherwal, R., & Jeyaraj, A. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.4.4 · Cited by 200
Benlian, A., Kettinger, W. J., Sunyaev, A., Winkler, T. J., & EDITORS, G. (2018) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2018.1481634 · Cited by 161
Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E. (2019) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127018805345 · Cited by 150
Man versus Machine or Man + Machine?
Cummings, M. M. (2014) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2014.87 · Cited by 146
Two Heads Are Better than One: The Collaboration between AI and OR
Simon, H. A. (1987) · INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics · doi:10.1287/inte.17.4.8 · Cited by 132
Designing emotionally sentient agents
McDuff, D., & Czerwinski, M. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3186591 · Cited by 132
The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox
Raisch, S., Hargrave, T. J., & van de Ven, A. H. (2018) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12397 · Cited by 131
Self-citationLévy, P. (2013) · doi:10.1002/9781118601471.part1 · Cited by 101
The Emperor of Strong AI Has No Clothes: Limits to Artificial Intelligence
Braga, A., & Logan, R. (2017) · Information · doi:10.3390/info8040156 · Cited by 101
Aristotle’sNicomachean Ethicsas the OriginalLocusfor theSeptem Circumstantiae
Sloan, M. C. (2010) · Classical Philology · doi:10.1086/656196 · Cited by 81
Fails, J. A., & Olsen, D. R. (2003) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/604050.604056 · Cited by 79
New Information Technology and Implicit Bias
Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2019) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0079 · Cited by 74
Fortnow, L. (2013) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400846610 · Cited by 68
Understanding the role of computer-mediated counter-argument in countering confirmation bias
Huang, H.-H., Hsu, J. S.-C., & Ku, C.-Y. (2012) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.03.009 · Cited by 58
Robotics, AI and the Future of Law
van Genderen, R. V. D. H., Compagnucci, M. C., Fenwick, M., & Forgo, N. P. (2018) · Perspectives in law, business and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-2874-9 · Cited by 56
Information ethics: a reappraisal
Floridi, L. (2008) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-008-9176-4 · Cited by 52
The golden ticket: P, NP, and the search for the impossible
Fortnow, L. (2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-0323 · Cited by 46
The Singularity May Never Be Near
Walsh, T. (2017) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2702 · Cited by 45
Jaeger, H. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature19477 · Cited by 36
Desai, V. M. (2020) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2019.1292 · Cited by 28
Future Directions in Machine Learning
Greenwald, H. S., & Oertel, C. (2017) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2016.00079 · Cited by 24
Autor, D. H. (2015) · Performance and Progress · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744283.003.0017 · Cited by 16
Extending a Provocative Tradition: Book Reviews and Beyond at AMR
Bartunek, J. M., & Ragins, B. R. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0029 · Cited by 9
Haiman, Z. (2018) · Nature Astronomy · doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0623-9 · Cited by 4
Computational complexity theory
Dean, W. (2015) · University of Warwick · doi:10.82444/warw.33705040
Privacy and Human Behavior in the Information Age*
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (n.d.) · The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy · doi:10.1017/9781316831960.010
Applications of Machine Learning and Rule Induction,
Langley, P., & Simon, H. A. (1995) · doi:10.21236/ada292607
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Bergstein B., 2019, MIT Technology Review, 122, 82
- Cariani P., 2010, Constructivist Foundations, 5, 86
- Davenport T. H., 2016, Only humans need apply: Winners and losers in the age of smart machines
- Derrida J., 1967, De la grammatologie
- Ford M., 2015, The rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of mass unemployment
- Goodwin, R., Maria, J., Das, P., Horesh, R., Segal, R., Fu, J. & Harris, C. 2017. AI for fragrance design. Proceedings of the Machine Learning for Creativity and Design Workshop at NIPS . San Diego, CA: Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation.
- Greenwald H. S., 2017, Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3, 1
- Marr B., 2018, Forbes
- Mitchell T. M., 1997, Machine learning
- Press G., 2016, Forbes
- Rai A., 2019, MIS Quarterly, 43, iii
- Taylor M. E., 2009, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10, 1633
- Westcott Grant K., 2018, Forbes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mikalef, P., & Gupta, M. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103434 · Cited by 1,700
Chowdhury, S., Dey, P., Joel-Edgar, S., Bhattacharya, S., Rodriguez-Espindola, O., Abadie, A., & Truong, L. (2023) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100899 · Cited by 927
Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland III, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4573321 · Cited by 794
When and How Artificial Intelligence Augments Employee Creativity
Jia, N., Luo, X., Zheng, F., & Liao, C. (2023) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2022.0426 · Cited by 820
Makarius, E. E., Mukherjee, D., Fox, J. D., & Fox, A. K. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.045 · Cited by 780
Metadata
- Authors
- Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Geneva (CH)
- Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 192-210
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W4247155454
- Cited by
- 2,755
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1391 · 2025: 586 · 2024: 318 · 2023: 235 · 2022: 156 · 2021: 65
- FWCI
- 117.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- European Commission (856688)
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (185164, 181364)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in organizations, automation, augmentation, paradox theory, human-machine collaboration, organizational performance, societal impact of AI
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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