In this 60th anniversary of Business & Society essay, we seek to make three main contributions at the intersection of governance and artificial intelligence (AI). First, we aim to illuminate some of the deeper social, legal, organizational, and democratic challenges of rising AI adoption and resulting algorithmic power by reviewing AI research through a governance lens. Second, we propose an AI governance framework that aims to better assess AI challenges as well as how different governance modalities (architecture, laws, norms, and market) can support AI. At the heart of our framework lies the governance forces that apply to institutions, organizations, and individuals, who ultimately provide, regulate, and use AI decision-making. We discuss how businesses may harness AI’s economic power through governance solutions without creating or amplifying societal biases and inequalities. Third, as part of our section on future research, we identify a set of governance trade-offs in AI adoption, suggest future research avenues to conceptually strengthen research on the governance of AI, and lay out key policy recommendations.
*AdnerR.PuranamP.ZhuF. (2019). What is different about digital strategy? From quantitative to qualitative change. Strategy Science, 4, 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2019.0099
2.
AgrawalA.GansJ.GoldfarbA. (2018). Prediction machines: The simple economics of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Press.
3.
AguileraR. V.GrøgaardB. (2019). The dubious role of institutions in international business. A road forward. Journal of International Business Studies, 50, 20–35.
4.
AizenbergE.van den HovenJ. (2020). Designing for human rights in AI. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720949566.
5.
*AlaimoC.KallinikosJ. (2020). Managing by data: Algorithmic categories and organizing. Organization Studies, 42(9), 1385–1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620934062
6.
AllenM. (2018). You snooze, you lose: Insurers make the old adage literally true. Pro Publica.
7.
AmisJ.BarneyJ.MahoneyJ. T.WangH. (2020). From the editors—Why we need a theory of stakeholder governance—And why this is a hard problem. Academy of Management Review, 45, 499–503.
8.
*AndrewJ.BakerM. (2019). The General Data Protection Regulation in the age of surveillance capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(3), 565–578.
*ArthurK. N. A.OwenR. (2019). A micro-ethnographic study of big data-based innovation in the financial services sector: Governance, ethics and organisational practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 363–375.
11.
BacqS.AguileraR. V. (2022). Stakeholder governance for responsible innovation: A theory of value creation, appropriation, and distribution. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 29–60.
12.
*BalasubramanianN.YeY.XuM. (2020). Substituting human decision-making with machine learning: Implications for organizational learning. Academy of Management Review. Advance online publication.
BesharovM. L.KhuranaR. (2015). Leading amidst competing technical and institutional demands: Revisiting Selznick’s conception of leadership. In KraatzM. S. (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies (Research in the sociology of organizations) (Vol. 44, pp. 53–88). Emerald Group.
15.
*BinnsR. (2020). Human judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated decision-making. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12358
16.
*BlohmI.AntretterT.SirénC.GrichnikD.WincentJ. (2020). It’s a peoples game, isn’t it?! A comparison between the investment returns of business angels and machine learning algorithms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258720945206.
*BolinG.Andersson SchwarzJ. (2015). Heuristics of the algorithm: Big Data, user interpretation and institutional translation. Big Data & Society, 2(2), 2053951715608406.
19.
BragaA.LoganR. K. (2017). The emperor of strong AI has no clothes: Limits to artificial intelligence. Information, 8(4), Article 156.
20.
*BrockJ. K. U.Von WangenheimF. (2019). Demystifying AI: What digital transformation leaders can teach you about realistic artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 110–134.
21.
*BrynjolfssonE.HuiX.LiuM. (2019). Does machine translation affect international trade? Evidence from a large digital platform. Management Science, 65(12), 5449–5460.
22.
BrynjolfssonE.McafeeA. (2017). The business of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 7, 3–11.
23.
BughinJ.HazanE. (2019, August). Can artificial intelligence help society as much as it helps business?The McKinsey Quarterly.
24.
*BuhmannA.PaßmannJ.FieselerC. (2020). Managing algorithmic accountability: Balancing reputational concerns, engagement strategies, and the potential of rational discourse. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(2), 265–280.
25.
*BurrellJ. (2016). How the machine “thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 2053951715622512.
26.
*CennamoC.MarchesiC.MeyerT. (2020). Two sides of the same coin? Decentralized versus proprietary blockchains and the performance of digital currencies. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6, 382–405.
27.
*ChalmersD.MacKenzieN. G.CarterS. (2020). Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship: Implications for venture creation in the fourth industrial revolution. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1028–1053.
28.
*ChenH.ChiangR. H. L.StoreyV. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36, 1165–1188.
29.
*ChenY.PereiraI.PatelP. C. (2021). Decentralized governance of digital platforms. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1305–1337.
30.
*ChenouJ. M.RaduR. (2019). The “right to be forgotten”: Negotiating public and private ordering in the European Union. Business & Society, 58, 74–102.
31.
*ChoudhuryP.StarrE.AgarwalR. (2020). Machine learning and human capital complementarities: Experimental evidence on bias mitigation. Strategic Management Journal, 41(8), 1381–1411.
32.
*ChristinA. (2017). Algorithms in practice: Comparing web journalism and criminal justice. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 2053951717718855.
33.
*CloughD. R.WuA. (2020). Artificial intelligence, data-driven learning, and the decentralized structure of platform ecosystems. Academy of Management Review, 47, 184–189.
*CurchodC.PatriottaG.CohenL.NeysenN. (2019). Working for an algorithm: Power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(3), 644–676.
36.
DastinJ. (2018). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters.
37.
*DietvorstB. J.SimmonsJ. P.MasseyC. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 144, 114–126.
38.
DietvorstB. J.SimmonsJ. P.MasseyC. (2018). Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science, 64, 1155–1170.
39.
DonahueJ. D.ZeckhauserR. (2012). Collaborative governance: Private roles for public goals in turbulent times. Princeton University Press.
40.
*DourishP. (2016). Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 2053951716665128.
41.
*EfendićE.Van de CalseydeP. P.EvansA. M. (2020). Slow response times undermine trust in algorithmic (but not human) predictions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 157, 103–114.
42.
Elkin-KorenN. (2020). Contesting algorithms: Restoring the public interest in content filtering by artificial intelligence. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720932296.
43.
*EtzioniA. (2018). Apple: Good business, poor citizen?Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 1–11.
44.
*EyertF.IrgmaierF.UlbrichtL. (2020). Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12371
45.
*FeltenE.RajM.SeamansR. (2021). Occupational, industry, and geographic exposure to artificial intelligence: A novel dataset and its potential uses. Strategic Management Journal, 42(12), 2195–2217.
46.
*FesticN. (2020). Same, same, but different! Qualitative evidence on how algorithmic selection applications govern different life domains. Regulation & Governance, 16, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12333
47.
*FirlejM.TaeihaghA. (2020). Regulating human control over autonomous systems. Regulation & Governance, 15(4), 1071–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12344
48.
*FlemingP. (2019). Robots and organization studies: Why robots might not want to steal your job. Organization Studies, 40, 23–38.
49.
*FlyverbomM.DeibertR.MattenD. (2019). The governance of digital technology, big data, and the internet: New roles and responsibilities for business. Business & Society, 58, 3–19.
50.
*GellertR. (2020). Comparing definitions of data and information in data protection law and machine learning: A useful way forward to meaningfully regulate algorithms?Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12349
GliksonE.WoolleyA. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660.
53.
*GregoryR. W.HenfridssonO.KaganerE.KyriakouH. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence and data network effects for creating user value. Academy of Management Review, 46, 534–551.
54.
*HaenleinM.KaplanA. (2019). A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 5–14.
55.
*HartmannP.HenkelJ. (2020). The rise of corporate science in AI: Data as a strategic resource. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6, 359–381.
56.
HeukampF. (2020). AI and the leadership development of the future. In HeukampC.J. F. (Eds.), The future of management in an AI world: Redefining purpose and strategy in the fourth industrial revolution (pp. 137–148). Palgrave Macmillan.
HosanagarK. (2020). A human’s guide to machine intelligence: How algorithms are shaping our lives and how we can stay in control. Penguin Books.
59.
*HuangM. H.RustR.MaksimovicV. (2019). The feeling economy: Managing in the next generation of artificial intelligence (AI). California Management Review, 61(4), 43–65.
60.
*JagoA. S. (2019). Algorithms and authenticity. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5, 38–56.
61.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.
62.
*JohnsonC. D.BauerB. C.NiedermanF. (2019). The automation of management and business science. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(2), 292–309.
63.
KaneG. C.YoungA. G.MajchrzakA.RansbothamS. (2021). Avoiding an oppressive future of machine learning: A design theory for emancipatory assistants. MIS Quarterly, 45, 371–396.
KaplanA.HaenleinM. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004
66.
*KelloggK. C.ValentineM. A.ChristinA. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14, 366–410.
67.
KhannaT. (2018). When technology gets ahead of society. Harvard Business Review, 96(4), 86–95.
68.
*KooW. W.EesleyC. E. (2021). Platform governance and the rural–urban divide: Sellers’ responses to design change. Strategic Management Journal, 42(5), 941–967.
69.
*KumarV.RajanB.VenkatesanR.LecinskiJ. (2019). Understanding the role of artificial intelligence in personalized engagement marketing. California Management Review, 61(4), 135–155.
70.
*LambrechtA.TuckerC. (2019). Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads. Management Science, 65(7), 2966–2981.
71.
*LeeM. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 2053951718756684.
72.
*Leicht-DeobaldU.BuschT.SchankC.WeibelA.SchafheitleS.WildhaberI.KasperG. (2019). The challenges of algorithm-based HR decision-making for personal integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 377–392.
73.
*LeonardiP. M.TreemJ. W. (2020). Behavioral visibility: A new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1601–1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620970728
74.
LessigL. (1998). The new Chicago school. The Journal of Legal Studies, 27(S2), 661–691.
75.
LessigL. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. New York. Basic Books.
76.
*LévesqueM.ObschonkaM.NambisanS. (2020). Pursuing impactful entrepreneurship research using artificial intelligence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258720927369.
77.
Levi-FaurD. (2012). From “big government” to “big governance.” In Levi-FaurD. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 3–18). Oxford University Press.
78.
*LiX. B.SarkarS. (2014). Digression and value concatenation to enable privacy-preserving regression. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 679–698.
79.
LibecapG. D. (1989). Contracting for property rights. Cambridge University Press.
80.
*LoggJ. M.MinsonJ. A.MooreD. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103.
81.
*LundvallB. Å. (2017). Is there a technological fix for the current global stagnation? A response to Daniele Archibugi, Blade Runner economics: Will innovation lead the economic recovery?Research Policy, 46, 544–549.
82.
*MartinK. (2019). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 835–850.
83.
*MetcalfL.AskayD. A.RosenbergL. B. (2019). Keeping humans in the loop: Pooling knowledge through artificial swarm intelligence to improve business decision making. California Management Review, 61(4), 84–109.
84.
*Miklós-ThalJ.TuckerC. (2019). Collusion by algorithm: Does better demand prediction facilitate coordination between sellers? Management Science, 65(4), 1552–1561.
*MunokoI.Brown-LiburdH. L.VasarhelyiM. (2020). The ethical implications of using artificial intelligence in auditing. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 209–234.
87.
*MurrayA.RhymerJ.SirmonD. G. (2020). Humans and technology: Forms of conjoined agency in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 46, 552–571.
88.
*NewlandsG. (2021). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organization of work through Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 42(5), 719–737.
89.
NewmanA. (2012). The governance of privacy. In Levi-FaurD. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 599–610). Oxford University Press.
90.
*NewmanD. T.FastN. J.HarmonD. J. (2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149–167.
91.
NorthD. C. (1990). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(4), 355–367.
92.
*NunanD.Di DomenicoM. (2017). Big data: A normal accident waiting to happen?Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 481–491.
93.
*OvergoorG.ChicaM.RandW.WeishampelA. (2019). Letting the computers take over: Using AI to solve marketing problems. California Management Review, 61(4), 156–185.
94.
*PachidiS.BerendsH.FarajS.HuysmanM. (2021). Make way for the algorithms: Symbolic actions and change in a regime of knowing. Organization Science, 32(1), 18–41.
95.
*ParsonsC. (2019). The (in) effectiveness of voluntarily produced transparency reports. Business & Society, 58, 103–131.
96.
PhanP.WrightM.LeeS.-H. (2017). Of robots, artificial intelligence, and work. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(4), 253–255. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0199
*RaveendhranR.FastN. J. (2021). Humans judge, algorithms nudge: The psychology of behavior tracking acceptance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 164, 11–26.
105.
*ReddenJ. (2018). Democratic governance in an age of datafication: Lessons from mapping government discourses and practices. Big Data & Society, 5(2), 2053951718809145.
106.
*RietveldJ.PloogJ. N.NieborgD. B. (2020). The coevolution of platform dominance and governance strategies: Effects on complementor performance outcomes. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6, 488–513.
*SchafheitleS.WeibelA.EbertI.KasperG.SchankC.Leicht-DeobaldU. (2020). No stone left unturned? Toward a framework for the impact of datafication technologies on organizational control. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6, 455–487.
109.
SchererA. G.VoegtlinC. (2020). Corporate governance for responsible innovation: Approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34, 182–208.
110.
ScottW. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. SAGE.
111.
SelznickP. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Harper & Row.
*ShresthaY. R.Ben-MenahemS. M.Von KroghG. (2019). Organizational decision-making structures in the age of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 66–83.
SunsteinC. R. (2018). Citizens. In #Republic divided democracy in the age of social media (pp. 163–164). Princeton University Press.
117.
*TambeP.CappelliP.YakubovichV. (2019). Artificial intelligence in human resources management: Challenges and a path forward. California Management Review, 61(4), 15–42.
118.
*TschangF. T.AlmirallE. (2020). Artificial intelligence as augmenting automation: Implications for employment. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35, 642–659. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0062
119.
*VergneJ. P. (2020). Decentralized vs. distributed organization: Blockchain, machine learning and the future of the digital platform. Organization Theory, 1(4), 2631787720977052.
120.
*WestS. M. (2019). Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business & Society, 58, 20–41.
121.
*WhelanG. (2019). Born political: A dispositive analysis of Google and copyright. Business & Society, 58, 42–73.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
