Humans and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizations

REFERENCES

• Afuah, A. 2017. Crowdsourcing: A primer and research framework. In C. L. TucciA. AfuahG. Viscusi (Eds.), Creating and capturing value through crowdsourcing: 11–38. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. 2012. Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37: 355–375.Link , Google Scholar
• Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. 2018. Prediction machines: The simple economics of artificial intelligence. Cambridge, U.K.: Harvard Business Press. Google Scholar
• Anthony, C. 2018. To question or accept? How status differences influence responses to new epistemic technologies in knowledge work. Academy of Management Review, 43: 661–679.Link , Google Scholar
• Aroles, J., & McLean, C. 2016. Rethinking stability and change in the study of organizational routines: Difference and repetition in a newspaper-printing factory. Organization Science, 27: 535–550. Google Scholar
• Ashforth, B. E., & Fried, Y. 1988. The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations, 41: 305–329. Google Scholar
• Balasubramanian, N., Ye, Y., & Xu, M 2020. Substituting human decision-making with machine learning: Implications for organizational learning. Academy of Management Review. Published online ahead of print. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0470. Google Scholar
• Bayus, B. L. 2013. Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Management Science, 59: 226–244. Google Scholar
• Beane, M. 2019. Shadow learning: Building robotic surgical skill when approved means fail. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 87–123. Google Scholar
• Berk, R. 2019. Machine learning risk assessments in criminal justice settings. New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar
• Berk, R., & Bleich, J. 2014. Forecasts of violence to inform sentencing decisions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30: 79–96. Google Scholar
• Berk, R. A., Sorenson, S. B., & Barnes, G. 2016. Forecasting domestic violence: A machine learning approach to help inform arraignment decisions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13: 94–115. Google Scholar
• Boe-Lillegraven, S. 2019. Transferring routines across multiple boundaries: A flexible approach. In M. FeldmanL. D’AdderioK. DittrichP. Jarzabkowski (Eds.), Routine dynamics in action: Replication and transformation: 31–53. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Publishing. Google Scholar
• Boudreau, M. C., & Robey, D. 2005. Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16: 3–18. Google Scholar
• Brayne, S. 2017. Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82: 977–1008. Google Scholar
• Campbell, M., Hoane, A. J., Jr., & Hsu, F. H. 2002. Deep Blue. Artificial Intelligence, 134: 57–83. Google Scholar
• Cardinal, L. B., Kreutzer, M., & Miller, C. C. 2017. An aspirational view of the organizational control research: Re-invigorating empirical work to better meet the challenges of 21st century organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 11: 559–592.Link , Google Scholar
• Casey, M., & Wong, P. 2017. Global supply chains are about to get better, thanks to blockchain. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/03/global-supply-chains-are-about-to-get-better-thanks-to-blockchain Google Scholar
• Che, Y. K., & Gale, I. 2003. Optimal design of research contests. American Economic Review, 93: 646–671. Google Scholar
• Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5: 554–568. Google Scholar
• Cohendet, P. S., & Simon, L. O. 2016. Always playable: Recombining routines for creative efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s video game studio. Organization Science, 27: 614–632. Google Scholar
• Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Google Scholar
• D’Adderio, L. 2001. Crafting the virtual prototype: How firms integrate knowledge and capabilities across organisational boundaries. Research Policy, 30: 1409–1424. Google Scholar
• D’Adderio, L. 2003. Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: the influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12: 321–350. Google Scholar
• D’Adderio, L. 2010. Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 6: 1–34. Google Scholar
• D’Adderio, L. 2014. The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25: 1325–1350. Google Scholar
• DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5: 121–147. Google Scholar
• Dittrich, K., Guérard, S., & Seidl, D. 2016. Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27: 678–697. Google Scholar
• Dittrich, K., & Seidl, D. 2018. Emerging intentionality in routine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 111–138.Link , Google Scholar
• Dressel, J., & Farid, H. 2018. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4: eaao5580. Google Scholar
• DuPont, Q. 2017. Experiments in algorithmic governance: A history and ethnography of “The DAO,” a failed decentralized autonomous organization. In M. Campbell-Verduyn (Ed.), Bitcoin and beyond: Cryptocurrencies, blockchains, and global governance: 157–177. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 685–716. Google Scholar
• Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962–1023. Google Scholar
• Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. 2018. Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28: 62–70. Google Scholar
• Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. 2000. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46: 1554–1568. Google Scholar
• Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. 2006. Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management Science, 52: 1155–1169. Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11: 611–629. Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118. Google Scholar
• Ferguson, A. G. 2017. The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York, NY: New York University Press. Google Scholar
• Gavetti, G., Greve, H. R., Levinthal, D. A., & Ocasio, W. 2012. The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 1–40.Link , Google Scholar
• Gersick, C., & Hackman, R. 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47: 65–97. Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
• Gilbert, C. G. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 741–763.Link , Google Scholar
• Glaser, V. L. 2017. Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 2126–2154.Link , Google Scholar
• Glaser, V. L., Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. 2021. The biography of an algorithm: Performing algorithmic technologies in organizations. Organization Theory. Published online ahead of print. doi: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211004609. Google Scholar
• Goh, K. T., & Pentland, B. T. 2019. From actions to paths to patterning: Toward a dynamic theory of patterning in routines. Academy of Management Journal, 62. Published online in advance. doi: 10.5465/amj.2018.0042Link , Google Scholar
• Greenfield, R., & Griffin, R. 2018, August 8. Artificial intelligence is coming for hiring, and it might not be that bad. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/artificial-intelligence-is-coming-for-hiring-and-it-might-not-be-that-bad Google Scholar
• Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J., & Siino, R. M. 2015. Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 136–168.Link , Google Scholar
• Hassabis, D. 2017. Artificial intelligence: Chess match of the century. Nature, 544: 413–414. Google Scholar
• Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., Summerfield, C., & Botvinick, M. 2017. Neuroscience-inspired artificial intelligence. Neuron, 95: 245–258. Google Scholar
• Howard-Grenville, J. A. 2005. The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16: 618–636. Google Scholar
• Huq, A. Z. 2019. Racial equity in algorithmic criminal justice. Duke Law Journal, 68: 1004–1134. Google Scholar
• Joh, E. E. 2016. The new surveillance discretion: Automated suspicion, big data, and policing. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 10: 15–42. Google Scholar
• Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. 2015. Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349: 255–260. Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Kaplan, S. 2011. Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22: 320–346. Google Scholar
• Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 2006. Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17: 22–44. Google Scholar
• Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. 2020. Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 366–410.Link , Google Scholar
• Kho, J., Spee, A., & Gillespie, N. 2019. Enacting relational expertise to change professional routines in technology-mediated service settings. In M. FeldmanL. D’AdderioK. DittrichP. Jarzabkowski (Eds.), Routine dynamics in action: Replication and transformation: 191–213. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Publishing. Google Scholar
• Knott, A. M. 2003. The organizational routines factor market paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 929–943. Google Scholar
• Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. 2005. A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 29: 461–491. Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M. 2007. Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change. Organization Science, 18: 813–831. Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M. 2011. When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35: 147–167. Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M. 2013. When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37: 749–775. Google Scholar
• Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95–112. Google Scholar
• Lifshitz-Assaf, H. 2018. Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 746–782. Google Scholar
• Liu, T. X., Yang, J., Adamic, L. A., & Chen, Y. 2014. Crowdsourcing with all-pay auctions: A field experiment on Taskcn. Management Science, 60: 2020–2037. Google Scholar
• March, J. G. 1978. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9: 587–608. Google Scholar
• March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Google Scholar
• Mittal, N., Hans, S., & Kuder, D. 2019, January 16. AI-fueled organizations. Deloitte Insights. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/tech-trends/2019/driving-ai-potential-organizations.html Google Scholar
• Murray, A., Kotha, S., & Fisher, G. 2020. Community-based resource mobilization: How entrepreneurs acquire resources from distributed non-professionals via crowdfunding. Organization Science, 31: 797–1051. Google Scholar
• Murray, A., Kuban, S., Josefy, M., & Anderson, J. 2019. Contracting in the smart era: The implications of blockchain and decentralized autonomous organizations for contracting and corporate governance. Academy of Management Perspectives. Published online in advance. doi: 10.5465/amp.2018.0066Link , Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
• Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. 2009. Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 463–502.Link , Google Scholar
• Orcutt, M. 2018. Blockchain smart contracts are finally good for something in the real world. Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612443/blockchain-smart-contracts-can-finally-have-a-real-world-impact Google Scholar
• Ouchi, W. G. 1977. Relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 95–113. Google Scholar
• Ouchi, W. G., & Maguire, M. A. 1975. Organizational control: Two functions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 559–569. Google Scholar
• Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. A. 2011. Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 413–453.Link , Google Scholar
• Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. 2005. Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14: 793–815. Google Scholar
• Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. 2007. Narrative networks: Patterns of technology and organization. Organization Science, 18: 781–795. Google Scholar
• Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. 2008. Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18: 235–250. Google Scholar
• Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T., & Hillison, D. 2011. The (n)ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organization Science, 22: 1369–1383. Google Scholar
• Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. 1994. Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 484–510. Google Scholar
• Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. 2015. Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 856–880.Link , Google Scholar
• Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. 2019. Idea rejected, tie formed: Organizations’ feedback on crowdsourced ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 62: 503–530.Link , Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. 2021. Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46: 192–210.Link , Google Scholar
• Ranade, G. V., & Varshney, L. R. 2017. The role of information patterns in designing crowdsourcing contests. In C. L. TucciA. AfuahG. Viscusi (Eds.), Creating and capturing value through crowdsourcing: 154–180. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Reynaud, B. 2005. The void at the heart of rules: Routines in the context of rule-following. The case of the Paris Metro Workshop. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14: 847–871. Google Scholar
• Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. 2016. Why should I trust you? Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In B. Krishnapuram (Ed.) Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining: 1135–1144. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google Scholar
• Sanyal, S. 2018, 31 October. How is AI revolutionizing elderly care. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/shourjyasanyal/2018/10/31/how-is-ai-revolutionizing-elderly-care Google Scholar
• Seong, S., Kim, Y., & Szulanski, G. 2015. Leadership, innovation, and strategic change: A conversation with Michael Tushman. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24: 370–381. Google Scholar
• Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., & Lanctot, M. 2016. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529: 484–489. Google Scholar
• Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., Lillicrap, T., Simonyan, K., & Hassabis, D. 2018. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science, 362: 1140–1144. Google Scholar
• Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Simonyan, K., Antonoglou, I., Huang, A., Guez, A., Hubert, T., Baker, L., Lai, M., Bolton, A., Chen, Y., Lillicrap, T., Hui, F., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Graepel, T., & Hassabis, D. 2017. Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature, 550: 354–359. Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1947. Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Free Press. Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69: 99–118. Google Scholar
• Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. 2009. Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 1375–1394. Google Scholar
• Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32: 273–292.Link , Google Scholar
• Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P., & Smets, M. 2016. The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 27: 759–781. Google Scholar
• Tapscott, A., & Tapscott, D. 2017. How blockchain is changing finance. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/03/how-blockchain-is-changing-finance Google Scholar
• Taylor, F. W. 1911. The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper & Bros. Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
• Tucci, C. L., Afuah, A., & Viscusi, G. 2017. Creating and capturing value through crowdsourcing. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Turner, S. F., & Rindova, V. P. 2012. A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23: 24–46. Google Scholar
• Turner, S. F., & Rindova, V. P. 2018. Watching the clock: Action timing, patterning, and routine performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 1253–1280.Link , Google Scholar
• Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. 1994. Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5: 98–118. Google Scholar
• Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. 2007. Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18: 832–848. Google Scholar
• von Krogh, G. 2018. Artificial intelligence in organizations: New opportunities for phenomenon- based theorizing. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4: 404–409.Link , Google Scholar
• Wallin, M. W., von Krogh, G., & Sieg, J. H. 2017. A problem in the making: How firms formulate sharable problems for open innovation contests. In C. L. TucciA. AfuahG. Viscusi (Eds.), Creating and capturing value through crowdsourcing: 127–153. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Werbach, K. 2018. The blockchain and the new architecture of trust. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Ye, H. J., & Kankanhalli, A. 2017. Solvers’ participation in crowdsourcing platforms: Examining the impacts of trust, and benefit and cost factors. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26: 101–117. Google Scholar