Managerial advice-taking—Sharing responsibility with (non)human advisors trumps decision accuracy

IF 3.4 3区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT European Management Review Pub Date : 2023-05-16 DOI:10.1111/emre.12575
Florian Aschauer, Matthias Sohn, Bernhard Hirsch
{"title":"Managerial advice-taking—Sharing responsibility with (non)human advisors trumps decision accuracy","authors":"Florian Aschauer,&nbsp;Matthias Sohn,&nbsp;Bernhard Hirsch","doi":"10.1111/emre.12575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organizations are increasingly implementing algorithmic decision aids to advise managerial decision-making. We study managers' motives behind using advice (human and nonhuman), particularly sharing responsibility versus increasing decision accuracy motives. We conduct an online experiment with experienced managers in a sales forecasting setting and find that managers focus on increasing decision accuracy (sharing responsibility) when they are unable (able) to share responsibility with advisors. Moreover, managers prefer to share responsibility with blamable human advisors over nonhuman advisors unless they perceive algorithms as socially competent. Consequently, the results show that managers are not solely motivated to minimize forecast errors but also to reduce personal responsibility when taking advice. We contribute to the literature by highlighting the opportunistic motives of managers when taking (non)human advice. Our findings also bear important implications for practice. Specifically, firms should be aware of managers' opportunistic advice-taking motives when implementing algorithmic decision aids.</p>","PeriodicalId":47372,"journal":{"name":"European Management Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"186-203"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/emre.12575","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Management Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emre.12575","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organizations are increasingly implementing algorithmic decision aids to advise managerial decision-making. We study managers' motives behind using advice (human and nonhuman), particularly sharing responsibility versus increasing decision accuracy motives. We conduct an online experiment with experienced managers in a sales forecasting setting and find that managers focus on increasing decision accuracy (sharing responsibility) when they are unable (able) to share responsibility with advisors. Moreover, managers prefer to share responsibility with blamable human advisors over nonhuman advisors unless they perceive algorithms as socially competent. Consequently, the results show that managers are not solely motivated to minimize forecast errors but also to reduce personal responsibility when taking advice. We contribute to the literature by highlighting the opportunistic motives of managers when taking (non)human advice. Our findings also bear important implications for practice. Specifically, firms should be aware of managers' opportunistic advice-taking motives when implementing algorithmic decision aids.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
管理建议采纳——与(非)人力顾问分担责任胜过决策准确性
企业越来越多地采用算法决策辅助工具为管理决策提供建议。我们研究了管理人员使用建议(人工和非人工)的动机,尤其是分担责任与提高决策准确性的动机。我们对销售预测环境中经验丰富的经理人进行了在线实验,发现当经理人无法(能够)与顾问分担责任时,他们会专注于提高决策准确性(分担责任)。此外,除非经理们认为算法具有社会能力,否则他们更愿意与可指责的人类顾问而不是非人类顾问分担责任。因此,研究结果表明,管理者在接受建议时,其动机不仅仅是为了最小化预测误差,也是为了减轻个人责任。我们强调了管理者在接受(非)人工建议时的机会主义动机,从而为相关文献做出了贡献。我们的研究结果对实践也有重要影响。具体来说,企业在采用算法决策辅助工具时,应注意管理者接受建议的机会主义动机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
13.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The European Management Review is an international journal dedicated to advancing the understanding of management in private and public sector organizations through empirical investigation and theoretical analysis. The European Management Review provides an international forum for dialogue between researchers, thereby improving the understanding of the nature of management in different settings and promoting the transfer of research results to management practice. Although one of the European Management Review"s aims is to foster the general advancement of management scholarship among European scholars and/or those academics interested in European management issues.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Acceptable finger pointing: How evaluators judge the ethicality of blame shifting Human resource management in the emerging work ecosystem: Propositions for scholarship and implications for practice The effect of restructuring internationalized companies on performance: Evidence from European firms An artful workplace of the future: The role of art‐based interventions in fostering levers for creativity amongst a diverse workforce
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1