IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jorgde/v13y2024i1d10.1007_s41469-023-00155-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expanding the organizational design space: the emergence of AI robot bosses

Author

Listed:
  • Richard M. Burton

    (Duke University)

  • Børge Obel

    (ICOA, Aarhus University)

  • Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson

    (ICOA, Aarhus University)

Abstract

AI robot bosses are becoming increasingly prevalent in organizations, and they expand the traditional organizational design space. Organizations can benefit from utilizing both robots and humans as bosses, as they can substitute for each other and work together as complements across different organizational structures. This expanded design space includes different kinds of AI robots and humans as bosses, rather than limiting robots to just being helpers. By considering the different capabilities and relationships of humans and robots, we argue that the organizational design space is expanded to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency. However, the effectiveness of a robot boss depends on the organizational situation. Robots excel at managing organizational rules and processing large data sets for certain environments. AI robots also excel at predicting future patterns based on large sets of data, while humans are better suited for uncertain situations requiring judgement and creativity. We develop four types of AI robot bosses based on: explainability or how easy it is to understand and explain the decisions made, and supervised learning or how the robots learn and are trained over time in usage. These four types are then matched with leadership styles and organization forms. Organizational charts, or hierarchy charts, visually depict an organization’s structure, showcasing reporting relationships and chains of command. Employees’ names, titles, and job positions are typically represented in boxes or circles connected by lines, indicating their affiliations. However, traditional organization charts lack icons or representations of Artificial intelligent or AI robot bosses. This discrepancy prompts the question not of their inclusion, but of why they are omitted.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard M. Burton & Børge Obel & Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson, 2024. "Expanding the organizational design space: the emergence of AI robot bosses," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 13(1), pages 13-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jorgde:v:13:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s41469-023-00155-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s41469-023-00155-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41469-023-00155-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41469-023-00155-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jay R. Galbraith, 1974. "Organization Design: An Information Processing View," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 28-36, May.
    2. Helmy H. Baligh & Richard M. Burton & Børge Obel, 1996. "Organizational Consultant: Creating a Useable Theory for Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1648-1662, December.
    3. Richard M. Burton & Børge Obel, 2018. "The science of organizational design: fit between structure and coordination," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bokrantz, Jon & Skoogh, Anders & Berlin, Cecilia & Wuest, Thorsten & Stahre, Johan, 2020. "Smart Maintenance: an empirically grounded conceptualization," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    2. Král, Pavel & Králová, Věra, 2016. "Approaches to changing organizational structure: The effect of drivers and communication," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5169-5174.
    3. Stephan Leitner, 2023. "Designing organizations for bottom-up task allocation: The role of incentives," Papers 2301.00410, arXiv.org.
    4. Richard M. Burton & Jørgen Lauridsen & Børge Obel, 2002. "Return on Assets Loss from Situational and Contingency Misfits," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(11), pages 1461-1485, November.
    5. Stephan Leitner, 2021. "On the Role of Incentives in Evolutionary Approaches to Organizational Design," Papers 2105.04514, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    6. Ying‐Ying Hsieh & Jean‐Philippe Vergne, 2023. "The future of the web? The coordination and early‐stage growth of decentralized platforms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 829-857, March.
    7. Jiatong Yu & Jiajue Wang & Taesoo Moon, 2022. "Influence of Digital Transformation Capability on Operational Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    8. de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Roman Pais Seles, Bruno Michel & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Barberio Mariano, Enzo & de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes, 2018. "Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 112-129.
    9. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2022. "Human resource policies and firm innovation: The moderating effects of economic and institutional context," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    10. Ahmed Hamdi & Tarik Saikouk & Bouchaib Bahli, 2020. "Facing supply chain disruptions: enhancers of supply chain resiliency," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 2943-2958.
    11. Jesse Shore & Ethan Bernstein & David Lazer, 2014. "Facts and Figuring: An Experimental Investigation of Network Structure and Performance in Information and Solution Spaces," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-075, Harvard Business School, revised Jun 2014.
    12. Starling David Hunter & Henrik Bentzen & Jan Taug, 2020. "On the “missing link” between formal organization and informal social structure," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Phanish Puranam & Harbir Singh & Saikat Chaudhuri, 2009. "Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration Is (Un)necessary," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 313-328, April.
    14. Klein, Daniel & Ludwig, Christopher A. & Nicolay, Katharina, 2020. "Internal digitalization and tax-efficient decision making," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-051, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Paola Rovelli & Vincenzo Butticè, 2020. "On the organizational design of entrepreneurial ventures: the configurations of the entrepreneurial team," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 47(2), pages 243-269, June.
    16. Timothy N. Carroll & Thomas J. Gormley & Vincent J. Bilardo & Richard M. Burton & Keith L. Woodman, 2006. "Designing a New Organization at NASA: An Organization Design Process Using Simulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 202-214, April.
    17. Stephen Bahadar & Muhammad Nadeem & Rashid Zaman, 2023. "Toxic chemical releases and idiosyncratic return volatility: A prospect theory perspective," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2109-2143, June.
    18. Maria Guadalupe & Hongyi Li & Julie Wulf, 2014. "Who Lives in the C-Suite? Organizational Structure and the Division of Labor in Top Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 824-844, April.
    19. A. Georges L. Romme & John Bell & Guus Frericks, 2023. "Designing a deep-tech venture builder to address grand challenges and overcome the valley of death," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 12(4), pages 217-237, December.
    20. Goh, Shao Hung & Eldridge, Stephen, 2019. "Sales and Operations Planning: The effect of coordination mechanisms on supply chain performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 80-94.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jorgde:v:13:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s41469-023-00155-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.