Empathy is a specific moral aspect of human behavior. The global workplace, and thereby a consideration of employee stakeholders, includes unique behavioral and ethical considerations, including a consideration of human empathy. Further, the human aspects of workplaces are within the domain of human resources and managerial oversight in business organizations. As such, human emotions and interactions are complicated by daily work related expectations, employee/employer interactions and work practices, and the outcomes of employees’ work routines. Business ethics, human resources, and risk (...) management practices are endemic aspects within workplaces. Increasingly, the understanding of models of AI-reliant business practices underscores the need for the consideration of the ethical aspects of AI impacts on employees in the workplace. This paper explores a systematic ethical lens of the opportunities and the risks of AI ideation, development, and deployment in business-employee relations practices beyond a compliance mindset, and that introduces a further set of workplace considerations. Empathy is concerned with human intentions. As such, attributive ethical indications of the role of AI in the workplace and its impacts on employees is necessary. Moreover, this paper uses a cognitive lens of empathy and focuses on artificial morality related to the ethical concerns, implications, and practices of AI development, deployment, and workplace practices that may impact employees in a variety of business aspects. (shrink)

It is frequently demanded that AI-based Decision Support Tools (AI-DSTs) ought to be both explainable to, and trusted by, those who use them. The joint pursuit of these two principles is ordinarily believed to be uncontroversial. In fact, a common view is that AI systems should be made explainable so that they can be trusted, and in turn, accepted by decision-makers. However, the moral scope of these two principles extends far beyond this particular instrumental connection. This paper argues that if (...) we were to account for the rich and diverse moral reasons that ground the call for explainable AI, and fully consider what it means to “trust” AI in a descriptively rich sense of the term, we would uncover a deep and persistent tension between the two principles. For explainable AI to usefully serve the pursuit of normatively desirable goals, decision-makers must carefully monitor and critically reflect on the content of an AI-DST’s explanation. This entails a deliberative attitude. Conversely, calls for trust in AI-DSTs imply the disposition to put questions about their reliability out of mind. This entails an unquestioning attitude. As such, the joint pursuit of explainable and trusted AI calls on decision-makers to simultaneously adopt incompatible attitudes towards their AI-DST, which leads to an intractable implementation gap. We analyze this gap and explore its broader implications: suggesting that we may need alternate theoretical conceptualizations of what explainability and trust entail, and/or alternate decision-making arrangements that separate the requirements for trust and deliberation to different parties. (shrink)

Why do organizations conduct job interviews? The traditional view of interviewing holds that interviews are conducted, despite their steep costs, to predict a candidate’s future performance and fit. This view faces a twofold threat: the behavioral and algorithmic threats. Specifically, an overwhelming body of behavioral research suggests that we are bad at predicting performance and fit; furthermore, algorithms are already better than us at making these predictions in various domains. If the traditional view captures the whole story, then interviews seem (...) to be a costly, archaic human resources procedure sustained by managerial overconfidence. However, building on T. M. Scanlon’s work, we offer the value of choice theory of interviewing and argue that interviews can be vindicated once we recognize that they generate commonly overlooked kinds of noninstrumental value. On our view, interviews should thus not be entirely replaced by algorithms, however sophisticated algorithms ultimately become at predicting performance and fit. (shrink)

Despite the rapid adoption of technology in human resource departments, there is little empirical work that examines the potential challenges of algorithmic decision-making in the recruitment process. In this paper, we take the perspective of job applicants and examine how they perceive the use of algorithms in selection and recruitment. Across four studies on Amazon Mechanical Turk, we show that people in the role of a job applicant perceive algorithm-driven recruitment processes as less fair compared to human only or algorithm-assisted (...) human processes. This effect persists regardless of whether the outcome is favorable to the applicant or not. A potential mechanism underlying algorithm resistance is the belief that algorithms will not be able to recognize their uniqueness as a candidate. Although the use of algorithms has several benefits for organizations such as improved efficiency and bias reduction, our results highlight a potential cost of using them to screen potential employees during recruitment. (shrink)

Understanding the moral right and wrong in the context of business practice has long captivated the attention of researchers and business leaders (Brenkert, 2019). Fueled by ethical failures recoun...