CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 518Information Systems Theories and ImplementationManagement and Organizational StudiesManagement Theory and Practice

Humans and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizations

Open access
Murray, Alex, Rhymer, Jen, Sirmon, David G.·2021·Academy of Management Review
DOI 10.5465/amr.2019.0186
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Organizations are increasingly deploying technologies that have the ability to parse through large amounts of data, acquire skills and knowledge, and operate autonomously. These technologies diverge from prior technologies in their capacity to exercise intentionality over protocol development or action selection in the practice of organizational routines, thereby affecting organizations in new and distinct ways. In this article, we categorize four forms of conjoined agency between humans and technologies: (1) conjoined agency with assisting technologies, (2) conjoined agency with arresting technologies, (3) conjoined agency with augmenting technologies, and (4) conjoined agency with automating technologies. We then theorize on the different ways in which these forms of conjoined agency impact a routine’s change at a particular moment in time as well as a routine’s responsiveness to feedback over time. In doing so, we elaborate on how organizations may evolve in varied and diverse ways based on the form(s) of conjoined agency they deploy in their organizational design choices.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amr.2019.0186

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • AI algorithms differ from previous automated decision-making devices in their high level of autonomy, self-learning capacities, potential for interconnectedness, and ability to handle massive and heterogeneous data.

    “In sum, AI algorithms, largely powered by machine learning, differ from previous automated decision-making devices in their high level of autonomy (requiring little human input), their self-learning capacities, their potential for interconnectedness, and their ability to handle massive and heterogeneous data in order to perform description, prediction, and prescription tasks (Makarius et al., 2020”

    From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Murray et al., 2020

    The ‘Conjoined Agency with Automating Technologies’ section (page unavailable) says these technologies process large amounts of unstructured data, learn continuously, and select actions without human intervention, supporting most of the comparison. The cited paper does not establish interconnectedness as a distinguishing feature or present description, prediction, and prescription as a set of tasks. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 116 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Campbell, M., Hoane Jr, A. J., & Hsu, F. H. 2002. Deep Blue. Artificial Intelligence, 134(1-2): 57-83.
  2. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1): 94-118.
  3. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.
  4. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. 2016, August. Why should I trust you? Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 1135-1144). ACM.
  5. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2021-07
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
552-571
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
DOI
10.5465/amr.2019.0186
OpenAlex
W3010543446
Cited by
518
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 176 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 3
FWCI
46.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
Keywords
human-technology interaction, organizational routines, routine change, organizational evolution, organizational design, artificial intelligence in organizations

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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