From Human-Centered Firms to Hybrid Human-AI Organizations: Rethinking Organizational Design, Decision Rights, and Distributed Agency
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2026.9.52.72Keywords:
Abstract
The emergence of autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents challenges established assumptions about organizational design, managerial authority, and the distribution of decision-making responsibilities. Unlike conventional AI applications that primarily support human decision-making, agentic AI systems can initiate tasks, coordinate workflows, and execute bounded decisions with varying degrees of human supervision. This conceptual article examines how organizations should be designed and governed when autonomous AI agents become active participants in organizational processes. Drawing on organizational design theory, bounded rationality, sociotechnical systems, human-centered AI, and emerging perspectives on agentic management, the study develops the Hybrid Organizational Agency Architecture (HOAA). The proposed framework distinguishes four organizational configurations: human-directed AI assistance, supervised AI delegation, coordinated human–AI workflows, and bounded agent-led operations. It introduces distributed operational agency to describe how task initiation, information processing, coordination, and execution capabilities are allocated between human actors and autonomous AI systems. The article further identifies decision rights, autonomy boundaries, coordination mechanisms, human oversight, and accountability structures as fundamental dimensions of hybrid organizational design. Six theoretical propositions explore the relationships among AI autonomy, organizational coordination, decision quality, adaptability, trust, and accountability. The analysis suggests that effective hybrid organizational arrangements depend not simply on increasing technological autonomy but on aligning AI capabilities with organizational objectives, clearly defined authority structures, and appropriate governance mechanisms. Importantly, operational autonomy is distinguished from human moral agency and legal responsibility, preserving the central role of human and institutional accountability. The article contributes to organizational theory by extending human-centered AI research beyond technological augmentation toward the structural and governance implications of autonomous AI participation. It also offers a conceptual foundation for future empirical investigations and practical guidance for organizational leaders seeking to balance technological innovation, managerial control, and responsible human–AI collaboration.
Downloads
References
1. Ajmal, M., & Islam, A. (2025). From human-centered to agentic management: Rethinking organizational theory in the age of AI. Journal of Social Signs Review, 3(11), 328–342.
2. Atay, S., Müftüoğlu, C. T., Gülmez, N., & Şahin, M. (2025). Society 5.0 and human-centered technology: Redefining talent management in the digital age. Sustainable Futures, 9, Article 100733.
3. Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8
4. Chen, Z. S. (2026). Rethinking managerial rationality in the age of AI: A human–machine collaboration perspective on organizational decision-making. Management Decision, 1–18.
5. Costache, B. (2025a). Sustainability pathways in higher education transformation: Digital innovation and circular economy in Singapore and the global policy context. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 1, 41–58. https://doi.org/10.65222/viral.2025.1.3
6. Costache, B. (2026a). Beyond generative AI: Claude agents and the emergence of human-AI governance in educational leadership. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 10, 136–168. https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2026.7.43.63
7. Costache, B. (2026b). From TikTok attention spans to virtual campuses: How AI, microlearning, and emotional intelligence are reshaping education. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 7, 79–98. https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2026.4.27.47
8. Costache, B. (2026c). Kaizen leadership in the age of artificial intelligence: Continuous improvement as a governance strategy for sustainable organizations. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 4, 32–50. https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2026.1.4.24
9. Costache, B. (2026d). Leadership in remote work (2020–2027): A bibliometrics analysis of keyword networks, thematic evolution, and emerging research frontiers. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 8, 24–45. https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2026.5.31.51
10. Costache, B. (2026e). Overton leadership: Shifting legitimacy boundaries as a strategic capability in complex adaptive systems. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 5, 93–121. https://doi.org/10.65222/viral.2026.2.13.33
11. Costache, B. (2026f). The impact of Claude agents and autonomous AI agents on higher education: Opportunities, challenges, and implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 11, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2026.8.45.65
12. Costache, B., & Petcu, C. (2025). Burnout and resilience in education: Integrating mindfulness, motivation, and contextual moderators for sustainable well-being. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 2, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2025.9.7
13. Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28–36.
14. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
15. Herrmann, T., & Pfeiffer, S. (2023). Keeping the organization in the loop: A socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 38(4), 1523–1542.
16. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
17. Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human–AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
18. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
19. Kimalel, B. (2025). The impact of social media on competency based curriculum skills acquisition among pupils in Chesumei constituency, Nandi County, Kenya. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 3, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2025.11.16
20. Kossowska-Lai, M., Grzegorzek, M., Sołtysik-Piorunkiewicz, A., & Chmielarz, W. (Eds.). (2026). AI and resilient organizations: Human-centered design for Industry 5.0. Taylor & Francis.
21. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
22. Margetis, G., Ntoa, S., Antona, M., & Stephanidis, C. (2021). Human-centered design of artificial intelligence. In Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1085–1106).
23. Ozmen Garibay, O., Winslow, B., Andolina, S., Antona, M., Bodenschatz, A., Coursaris, C., et al. (2023). Six human-centered artificial intelligence grand challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(3), 391–437.
24. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
25. Petcu, C., & Costache, B. (2026). Functional fixedness and organizational inertia: A microfoundational perspective on leadership failure. International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society, 5, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.65222/VIRAL.2026.2.14.34
26. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
27. Rassal, C., & Serra, J. (2027). Human-centered AI governance: A higher-order organizational capability for workforce transformation in AI-enabled Mediterranean resort ecosystems. In Workforce transformation amid AI-driven digital hospitality service innovation (pp. 271–314). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. [Publication status to be confirmed.]
28. Schoenherr, J. R., & Michael, K. (2026). Multi-level sociotechnical systems approach to human-centered AI. In Handbook of human-centered artificial intelligence (pp. 119–192). Springer.
29. Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G.-J., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., Schwabe, G., & Söllner, M. (2020). Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information & Management, 57(2), Article 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103174
30. Shrestha, Y. R., Ben-Menahem, S. M., & von Krogh, G. (2019). Organizational decision-making structures in the age of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619862257
31. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. Macmillan.
Sun, Y., & Xu, C. (2026). Hybrid cognitive authority and algorithmic subjectivity: Rethinking knowledge management in AI-driven communication. Journal of Knowledge Management, 30(8), 2741–2766.
32. Townsend, M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2024). The emerging concept of the human-centered organization: A review and synthesis of the literature. Humanistic Management Journal, 9(1), 53–74.
33. Wang, B. Y., Boell, S. K., Riemer, K., & Peter, S. (2023). Human agency in AI configurations supporting organizational decision-making. [Publication venue and other bibliographic details to be confirmed.]
34. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308371
35. Wilkens, U., Lupp, D., & Langholf, V. (2023). Configurations of human-centered AI at work: Seven actor-structure engagements in organizations. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 1272159. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1272159
36. Winby, S., & Xu, W. (2026). Human-centered AI maturity model (HCAI-MM): An organizational design perspective. In Handbook of human-centered artificial intelligence (pp. 2493–2525). Springer.
37. Xu, W. (2026). Human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI): Foundations and approaches. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.01247
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Education, Leadership, Artificial Intelligence, Computing, Business, Life Sciences, and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.