Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Algorithms, leadership, and morality: why a mere human effect drives the preference for human over algorithmic leadership

  • Original Research
  • Published:
AI and Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Algorithms are increasingly making decisions in organizations that carry moral consequences and such decisions are considered to be ordinarily made by leaders. An important consideration to be made by organizations is therefore whether adopting algorithms in this domain will be accepted by employees and whether this practice will harm their reputation. Considering this emergent phenomenon, we set out to examine employees’ perceptions about (a) algorithmic decision-making systems employed to occupy leadership roles and make moral decisions in organizations, and (b) the reputation of organizations that employ such systems. Furthermore, we examine the extent to which the decision agent needs to be recognized as “merely” a human, or whether more information is needed about the decision agent’s moral values (in this case, whether it is known that the human leader is humble or not) to be preferred over an algorithm. Our results reveal that participants in the algorithmic leader condition—relative to those in the human leader and humble human leader conditions—perceive the decision made to be less fair, trustworthy, and legitimate, and this in turn produces lower acceptance rates of the decision and more negative perceptions of the organization’s reputation. The human leader and humble human leader conditions do not significantly differ across all main and indirect effects. This latter effect strongly suggests that people prefer human (vs. algorithmic) leadership primarily because they are human and not necessarily because they possess certain moral values. Implications for theory, practice, and directions for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. We rely on the leadership literature to conceptualize legitimacy, fairness, and trustworthiness perceptions as a function of leadership style and behavior [5, 24, 112]. This literature focuses on the subjective perceptions of employees regarding whether their leader makes decisions in a way that is legitimate, fair, and trustworthy. These perceptions are important because they have far-reaching consequences for an organization’s reputation and whether people accept decisions made by their leader. For example, if we consider fairness perceptions of an employee inside an organization, whether this employee perceives that he/she is treated fairly by their leader can predict the likelihood that he/she will quit their job [31], engage in unethical behavior [114], and even become a whistleblower and speak out against an organization’s malpractices [98]. Therefore, these perceptions are a useful lens from which to understand leader support/acceptance and organizational reputation.

  2. An a priori power analysis suggests that approximately 176 total observations are required to achieve 90% power at an α of .05 (Cohen’s f = 0.3; [21, 22]. However, due to our instrumental attention check exclusion criteria, we narrowly missed our sample size objective. We used more stringent criteria for both type I and II errors, relative to conventional parameters (e.g., 80% power), as using Prolific to recruit participants allows us to obtain a larger sample size.

References

  1. Acikgoz, Y., Davison, K.H., Compagnone, M., Laske, M.: Justice perceptions of artificial intelligence in selection. Int. J. Select. Assess. Adv. Online Public. 28(4), 399–416 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, C.: Calculated morality: ethical computing in the limit. Cogn. Emot. Ethical Aspects Decis. Making Hum. Action 1, 19–23 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allen, C., Smit, I., Wallach, W.: Artificial morality: top–down, bottom–up, and hybrid approaches. Ethics Inf. Technol. 7(3), 149–155 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allen, C., Varner, G., Zinser, J.: Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 12(3), 251–261 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Ambrose, M.L., Schminke, M.: The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation. J. Appl. Psychol. 94(2), 491 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L.: Guest editors' introduction: machine ethics. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21(4), 10–11 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., Weber, T.J.: Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 421–449 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baer, M.D., Dhensa-Kahlon, R.K., Colquitt, J.A., Rodell, J.B., Outlaw, R., Long, D.M.: Uneasy lies the head that bears the trust: the effects of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion. Acad. Manag. J. 58(6), 1637–1657 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Radke, H.R.: Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38(2), 247–256 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beugre, C. D., & Baron, R. A.: Perceptions of systemic justice: The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31(2), 324-339 (2001)

  11. Bharanitharan, K., Chen, Z.X., Bahmannia, S., Lowe, K.B.: Is leader humility a friend or foe, or both? An attachment theory lens on leader humility and its contradictory outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 160(3), 729–743 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bigman, Y.E., Gray, K.: People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition 181, 21–34 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Burt, A., & Volchenboum, S.: How health care changes when algorithms start making diagnoses. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2018). https://hbr.org/2018/05/how-health-care-changes-when-algorithms-start-making-diagnoses

  14. Burton, J.W., Stein, M.K., Jensen, T.B.: A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 33(2), 220–239 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E., Quinn, R.E.: An introduction to positive organizational scholarship. Positive Org. Scholarship 3(13), 2–21 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Castelo, N., Bos, M.W., Lehmann, D.R.: Task-dependent algorithm aversion. J. Mark. Res. 56(5), 809–825 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Wade, M., & Jordan, J.: As AI makes more decisions, the nature of leadership will change. Harvard Bus. Rev (2018). https://hbr.org/2018/01/as-ai-makes-more-decisions-the-nature-of-leadership-will-change

  18. Chemers, M. M.: Leadership effectiveness: an integrative review. Blackwell Handbook Soc. Psychol. 376–399 (2001)

  19. Choi, Y., Mai-Dalton, R.R.: The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: an empirical test. Leadersh. Quart. 10, 397–421 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chun, J. S. & De Cremer, D.: Algorithmic evaluation and its unfairness: the centrality of respect and the lack thereof. Unpublished manuscript (under review)

  21. Cohen, J.: A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen, J.: Statistical power analysis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1, 98–101 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cohen-Charash, Y., Spector, P.E.: The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86(2), 278–321 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Colquitt, J.A.: On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(3), 386 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Connelly, S., Helton-Fauth, W., Mumford, M.D.: A managerial in-basket study of the impact of trait emotions on ethical choice. J. Bus. Ethics 51(3), 245–267 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cramwinckel, F.M., De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M.: Dirty hands make dirty leaders?! The effects of touching dirty objects on rewarding unethical subordinates as a function of a leader’s self-interest. J. Bus. Ethics 115(1), 93–100 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De Cremer, D.: Leadership by Algorithm: Who Leads and Who Follows in the AI Era? Harriman House Limited (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  28. De Cremer, D., Van Dijke, M., Schminke, M., De Schutter, L., Stouten, J.: The trickle-down effects of perceived trustworthiness on subordinate performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 103(12), 1335 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. De Cremer, D., McGuire, J.: Human-algorithm collaboration works best if humans lead (because it is fair!). Soc. Justice Res. 35(1), 33–55 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. De Cremer, D., Moore, C.: Toward a better understanding of behavioral ethics in the workplace. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 7, 369–393 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Daileyl, R.C., Kirk, D.J.: Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Hum. Relat. 45(3), 305–317 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dawes, R.M., Faust, D., Meehl, P.E.: Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243(4899), 1668–1674 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. De Cremer, D.: Machines are not moral role models. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1–1 (2022)

  34. De Cremer, D., & Kasparov, G.: The ethics of technology innovation: a double-edged sword? AI Ethics 1–5 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00103-x

  35. De Cremer, D., & Kasparov, G.: AI should augment human intelligence, not replace it. Harvard Business Review (2021). https://hbr.org/2021/03/ai-should-augment-human-intelligence-not-replace-it

  36. de Cremer, D., & Kasparov, G.: The ethical AI—paradox: why better technology needs more and not less human responsibility. AI Ethics 2(1), 1–4 (2021)

  37. De Cremer, D., McGuire, J., Hesselbarth, Y., & Mai, M.: Can Algorithms Help Us Decide Who to Trust? Harvard Business Review (2019). https://hbr.org/2019/06/can-algorithms-help-us-decide-who-to-trust

  38. Detert, J.R., Edmondson, A.C.: Implicit voice theories: taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Acad. Manag. J. 54(3), 461–488 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Van Dierendonck, D.: Servant leadership: a review and synthesis. J. Manag. 37(4), 1228–1261 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dietvorst, B.J., Bartels, D.M.: Consumers object to algorithms making morally relevant tradeoffs because of algorithms’ consequentialist decision strategies. J. Consum. Psychol. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., McDonnell, A.: Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: a research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 30(1), 114–132 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Earley, P. C.: Social loafing and collectivism: a comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Adm. Sci. Quart. 34(4), 565–581 (1989)

  43. Esaiasson, P., Persson, M., Gilljam, M., Lindholm, T.: Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance. Br. J. Political Sci. 49(1), 291–314 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ford, R.C., Richardson, W.D.: Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. J. Bus. Ethics 13(3), 205–221 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Frey, B.F.: The impact of moral intensity on decision making in a business context. J. Bus. Ethics 26(3), 181–195 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. George, J.M.: Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence. Human relations 53(8), 1027–1055 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gillespie, T.: The relevance of algorithms. Media Technol. 167(2014), 167 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gillespie, N., Dietz, G.: Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34(1), 127–145 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Glikson, E., Woolley, A.W.: Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14(2), 627–660 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gold, A.: Principled principals? Values-driven leadership: evidence from ten case studies of ‘outstanding’school leaders. Educ. Manag. Adm. 31(2), 127–138 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gray, H.M., Gray, K., Wegner, D.M.: Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812), 619–619 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gray, K., Schein, C., Cameron, C.D.: How to think about emotion and morality: Circles, not arrows. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 17, 41–46 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gray, K., Waytz, A., Young, L.: The moral dyad: a fundamental template unifying moral judgment. Psychol. Inq. 23(2), 206–215 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Gray, K., Young, L., Waytz, A.: Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol. Inq. 23(2), 101–124 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Grove, W.M., Zald, D.H., Lebow, B.S., Snitz, B.E., Nelson, C.: Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Assess. 12(1), 19 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Haesevoets, T., De Cremer, D., Dierckx, K., Van Hiel, A.: Human-machine collaboration in managerial decision making. Comput. Hum. Behav. 119, 106730 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Haidt, J.: The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 108(4), 814 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Haidt, J., Koller, S.H., Dias, M.G.: Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65(4), 613 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Den Hartog, D.N.: Ethical leadership. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2(1), 409–434 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hayes, A.F., Preacher, K.J.: Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 67(3), 451–470 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Hayes, A. F.: PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling (2012). White Paper. http://www.afhayes.com

  62. Hertz, S.G., Krettenauer, T.: Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior?: A meta-analysis. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 20(2), 129–140 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hilbig, B.E., Zettler, I.: Pillars of cooperation: Honesty-Humility, social value orientations, and economic behavior. J. Res. Pers. 43(3), 516–519 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hoffman, M., Kahn, L.B., Li, D.: Discretion in hiring. Q. J. Econ. 133(2), 765–800 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hollander, E.P.: Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership. In: Chemers, M.M., Ayman, R. (eds.) Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, pp. 29–47. Academic Press (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Hollander-Blumoff, R., Tyler, T.R.: Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential. Law Soc. Inq. 33(2), 473–500 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Höddinghaus, M., Sondern, D., Hertel, G.: The automation of leadership functions: Would people trust decision algorithms? Comput. Hum. Behav. 116, 106635 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Update. (2021). https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2021/01/26/2021-world-economic-outlook-update

  69. Jago, A.S.: Algorithms and authenticity. Acad. Manag. Discov. 5(1), 38–56 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Jones, T.M.: Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16(2), 366–395 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kappes, H. B., Balcetis, E., & De Cremer, D.: Motivated reasoning during recruitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 103(3), 270 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Kellogg, K.C., Valentine, M.A., Christin, A.: Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14(1), 366–410 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Kesebir, P.: A quiet ego quiets death anxiety: Humility as an existential anxiety buffer. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 106(4), 610–623 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Key, S., & Popkin, S. J.: Integrating ethics into the strategic management process: doing well by doing good. Manag. Decis. 36(5), 331–338 (1998)

  75. Knights, D., O’Leary, M.: Leadership, ethics and responsibility to the other. J. Bus. Ethics 67(2), 125–137 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., Hogg, M.A.: Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 15(6), 825–856 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Langer, M., & Landers, R. N.: The future of artificial intelligence at work: a review on effects of decision automation and augmentation on workers targeted by algorithms and third-party observers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 123, 106878 (2021)

  78. Lehr, D., Ohm, P.: Playing with the data: what legal scholars should learn about machine learning. UCDL Rev. 51, 653 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lin, S.H.J., Johnson, R.E.: A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. J. Appl. Psychol. 100(5), 1381 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Maak, T., Pless, N.M.: Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society–a relational perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 66(1), 99–115 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. MacCrory, F., Westerman, G., Alhammadi, Y., & Brynjolfsson, E.: Racing with and against the machine: changes in occupational skill composition in an era of rapid technological advance. Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 (2014)

  82. Mael, F., Ashforth, B.E.: Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J. Organ. Behav. 13(2), 103–123 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H.: The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 84(1), 123 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Moore, C.: Moral disengagement. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 199–204 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Nagtegaal, R.: The impact of using algorithms for managerial decisions on public employees’ procedural justice. Gov. Inf. Q. 38(1), 101536 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Newman, D.T., Fast, N.J., Harmon, D.J.: When eliminating bias isn’t fair: algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 160, 149–167 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Oppenheimer, D.M., Meyvis, T., Davidenko, N.: Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45(4), 867–872 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Ötting, S.K., Maier, G.W.: The importance of procedural justice in human-machine-interactions: intelligent systems as new decision agents in organizations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 89, 27–39 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Owens, B.P., Hekman, D.R.: How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Acad. Manag. J. 59(3), 1088–1111 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Owens, B.P., Johnson, M.D., Mitchell, T.R.: Expressed humility in organizations: implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organ. Sci. 24(5), 1517–1538 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Palan, S., Schitter, C.: Prolific. ac—a subject pool for online experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Financ. 17, 22–27 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., Stough, C.: Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 22(1), 5–10 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., Acquisti, A.: Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 70, 153–163 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Raveendhran, R., Fast, N.J.: Humans judge, algorithms nudge: the psychology of behavior tracking acceptance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 164, 11–26 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Robinson, S.L., Wang, W., Kiewitz, C.: Coworkers behaving badly: the impact of coworker deviant behavior upon individual employees. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 1(1), 123–143 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Schein, E.H., Schein, P.A.: Humble Leadership: The Power of Relationships, Openness, and Trust. Berrett-Koehler Publishers (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  97. Schwartz, M.S.: Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. J. Bus. Ethics 139(4), 755–776 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Seifert, D.L., Sweeney, J.T., Joireman, J., Thornton, J.M.: The influence of organizational justice on accountant whistleblowing. Acc. Organ. Soc. 35(7), 707–717 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Shamir, B., House, R.J., Arthur, M.B.: The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organ. Sci. 4(4), 577–594 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S.J., Kraft, K.L.: Moral intensity and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. J. Bus. Res. 36(3), 245–255 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Skitka, L.J.: The psychology of moral conviction. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4(4), 267–281 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Smidts, A., Pruyn, A.T.H., Van Riel, C.B.: The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Acad. Manag. J. 44(5), 1051–1062 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Sunstein, C.R.: Moral heuristics. Behav. Brain Sci. 28(4), 531–541 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Terwel, B.W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., Daamen, D.D.: Voice in political decision-making: the effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 16(2), 173 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Trevino, L. K.: Experimental approaches to studying ethical-unethical behavior in organizations. Bus. Ethics Quart. 2(2), 121–136 (1992)

  106. Treviño, L.K.: Ethical decision making in organizations: a person-situation interactionist model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 11(3), 601–617 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Treviño, L.K., Hartman, L.P., Brown, M.: Moral person and moral manager: how executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. Calif. Manag. Rev. 42(4), 128–142 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Treviño, L.K., Den Nieuwenboer, N.A., Kish-Gephart, J.J.: (Un) ethical behavior in organizations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 635–660 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Treviño, L.K., Weaver, G.R., Reynolds, S.J.: Behavioral ethics in organizations: a review. J. Manag. 32(6), 951–990 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  110. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Tyler, T.R.: Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 375–400 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Tyler, T.R., De Cremer, D.: Process-based leadership: fair procedures and reactions to organizational change. Leadersh. Q. 16(4), 529–545 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Tyler, T. R., & Rasinski, K.: Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular US Supreme Court decisions: a reply to Gibson. Law Soc. Rev. 25(3), 621–630 (1991)

  114. Victor, B., Trevino, L.K., Shapiro, D.L.: Peer reporting of unethical behavior: the influence of justice evaluations and social context factors. J. Bus. Ethics 12(4), 253–263 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., Kaiser, R.B.: Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past. Am. Psychol. 63(3), 182 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. von Krogh, G.: Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: New Opportunities for Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(4), 404–409 (2018)

  117. Wallach, W., Allen, C., Smit, I.: Machine morality: bottom-up and top-down approaches for modelling human moral faculties. AI Soc. 22(4), 565–582 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Wallach, W., Franklin, S., Allen, C.: A conceptual and computational model of moral decision making in human and artificial agents. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2(3), 454–485 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Wilson, H.J., Daugherty, P.R.: Collaborative intelligence: humans and AI are joining forces. Harv. Bus. Rev. 96, 114–123 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  120. Zedeck, S.: A process analysis of the assessment center method. Res. Org Behav. 8, 259–296 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Organisation, NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, 15 Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore, 119245, Singapore

    Jack McGuire & David De Cremer

  2. Department of Management and Organisation, NUS Business School, Cambridge University, 15 Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore, 119245, Singapore

    David De Cremer

Authors
  1. Jack McGuire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David De Cremer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jack McGuire.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no potential competing interests to declare in relation to this research.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

figure a

The image above illustrates the hierarchical representation of the simulated organization that participants were recruited to work for. All participants were allocated the position of “Employee 2” on what appeared to be a random basis.

Appendix B

figure b

The image above illustrates the series of loading bars that appeared on the screen for participants. The loading bar was a gif-image where the dark blue square looped from left to right. After several seconds, the subsequent screen appeared so that participants saw that the counter (e.g., 1/2) went up. This animated progress bar was used to make participants believe that the system is busy connecting them, and that they had to wait until the system was ready.

Appendix C

figure c

This is an illustration that was provided to participants of the algorithmic code that resulted in the decision to choose Bauer Industries as a sponsor in the business moral dilemma. The purpose of the illustration was to bolster the realism of our manipulation and give participants the impression they were interacting with an algorithmic authority.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McGuire, J., De Cremer, D. Algorithms, leadership, and morality: why a mere human effect drives the preference for human over algorithmic leadership. AI Ethics 3, 601–618 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00192-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00192-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy