Coded authority: is algorithmic leadership supplanting human judgment in organizations? A critical viewpoint

Purpose This viewpoint paper aims to examine the question of whether algorithmic systems in organizations are replacing or supporting human leadership. It calls for three functions, namely, ethical judgment, contextual sense-making and relational accountability, to be left to human authority rather than handed over to algorithms. Design/methodology/approach This paper utilizes a critical interpretive lens that brings together concepts from organization management, information systems and sociotechnical systems. The paper analyzes recent conceptual and theoretical research to identify areas where human judgment remains indispensable. Findings Algorithmic systems can improve operational performance and predictive accuracy, but they routinely lack the context, moral reasoning and interpersonal responsiveness needed to achieve organizational legitimacy and employee well-being. Research limitations/implications This paper is a conceptual viewpoint paper that relies on secondary data and theory rather than primary data. The suggested distinction between human and algorithmic decision-making is intended as a point of departure for discussion and should be examined in various organizational and cultural contexts. Practical implications Organizations need to build a hybrid human–AI leadership model that preserves human leadership in ethical and relational aspects while enhancing leaders’ AI literacy, ethical thinking and relational skills. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature on hybrid leadership by identifying specific leadership tasks that are not suitable for delegation to algorithms and by outlining the learning and development competencies required for human–AI collaboration.