Calibrated Human–Generative AI Decision Intelligence: A Governance-Aware Framework for Managerial Analytics

Authors

https://doi.org/10.22105/masi.v3i4.112

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is moving from an experimental productivity tool to an embedded component of managerial analytics, yet organizations still lack a decision architecture that explains when managers should delegate, challenge, verify, or override model outputs. This conceptual study develops a calibrated human–GenAI decision intelligence framework that integrates evidence from management, behavioral decision research, human–automation interaction, explainable artificial intelligence, and responsible artificial intelligence governance. The framework treats decision performance as a joint property of task characteristics, human expertise, model capability, calibration mechanisms, and organizational controls rather than as a property of the model alone. It specifies two coupled layers: a calibration layer that makes uncertainty, evidence quality, and model limitations visible, and a collaboration layer that allocates tasks, preserves human contestability, and creates explicit escalation paths. Eight propositions explain how task ambiguity, decision stakes, expertise, verification friction, explanation quality, and accountability shape appropriate reliance. A six-stage operating loop and a five-level governance maturity model translate the framework into implementable managerial analytics practices. The central implication is that organizations should optimize neither automation nor human control in isolation; they should optimize calibrated complementarity, in which GenAI expands the search and synthesis space while humans retain responsibility for framing, contextual judgment, value-sensitive trade-offs, and final accountability. The framework offers a theory-building platform for empirical research and a practical blueprint for deploying GenAI in managerial decision processes without sacrificing decision quality, organizational learning, or responsible governance.   

Keywords:

Generative artificial intelligence, Human–AI collaboration, Managerial analytics, Decision intelligence, Trust calibration, Responsible artificial intelligence

References

  1. [1] Oppioli, M., Sousa, M. J., Sousa, M., & de Nuccio, E. (2025). The role of artificial intelligence for management decision: A structured literature review. Management decision, 63(10), 3262–3280. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2023-1331
  2. [2] 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
  3. [3] 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
  4. [4] 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
  5. [5] Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586
  6. [6] Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025). Generative AI at work. The quarterly journal of economics, 140(2), 889–942. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044
  7. [7] Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland III, E., Mollick, E., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K. C., Rajendran, S., ... & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4573321
  8. [8] 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
  9. [9] Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
  10. [10] Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
  11. [11] Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243(4899), 1668–1674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573
  12. [12] 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
  13. [13] 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
  14. [14] Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., ... & Horvitz, E. (2019). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233
  15. [15] Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and organization, 28(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005
  16. [16] 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
  17. [17] Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of marketing research, 56(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719851788
  18. [18] Bansal, G., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Weld, D. S., Lasecki, W. S., & Horvitz, E. (2019). Updates in human–AI teams: Understanding and addressing the performance/compatibility tradeoff. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 33(01), 2429–2437. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33012429
  19. [19] Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021). To trust or to think: Cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction (pp. 1-13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445492
  20. [20] Alon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2023). Human–AI interactions in public sector decision making: ‘Automation bias’ and ‘selective adherence’ to algorithmic advice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 33(1), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007
  21. [21] Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1702.08608
  22. [22] Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial intelligence, 267, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007
  23. [23] Liao, Q. V., Gruen, D., & Miller, S. (2020, April). Questioning the AI: informing design practices for explainable AI user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-15). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376590
  24. [24] Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature machine intelligence, 1, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
  25. [25] Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258
  26. [26] Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021, March). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610-623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  27. [27] Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM computing surveys, 55(12), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730
  28. [28] Liang, P., Bommasani, R., Lee, T., Tsipras, D., Soylu, D., Yasunaga, M., ... & Koreeda, Y. (2022). Holistic evaluation of language models. https://openreview.net/forum?id=iO4LZibEqW
  29. [29] Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024). Generative AI. Business & information systems engineering, 66, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
  30. [30] Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., et al. (2023). ‘So what if ChatGPT wrote it?’ Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International journal of information management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  31. [31] Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
  32. [32] Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature machine intelligence, 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
  33. [33] Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature machine intelligence, 1, 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
  34. [34] Leszczyński, G., Gaczek, P., & Munzel, A. (2026). Managerial decision-making and AI: A taxonomy of AI collaboration orientations and strategic integration. Technovation, 153, 103519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2026.103519
  35. [35] Luo, Y., Hao, Y., Gong, H., & Li, B. (2026). Applications of human-machine collaborative decision-making: A review of research with recent developments. iScience, 29(6), 116056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2026.116056
  36. [36] Luong, A., Kumar, N., & Lang, K. R. (2026). Human–machine collaboration and algorithmic decision-making: The role of organizational incentives and AI capabilities. Information & management, 63(6), 104384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2026.104384

Published

2026-12-12

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 4 (2026): Management Analytics and Social Insights (MASI)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Management Analytics and Social Insights

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Azimi, M. ., & Azimimi, S. E. . (2026). Calibrated Human–Generative AI Decision Intelligence: A Governance-Aware Framework for Managerial Analytics. Management Analytics and Social Insights, 3(4), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.22105/masi.v3i4.112

Similar Articles

21-30 of 38

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.