Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 89 references

AI in German HR automates routine tasks more than it augments strategy

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 03:32 UTC pith:5BZCFRSN

load-bearing objection Solid empirical study of AI in German HRM; read it for the co-determination angle and informal genAI use, but treat its predictive-analytics prevalence claim as provisional until the survey instrument is shown. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13839 v2 pith:5BZCFRSN submitted 2026-07-15 cs.CY cs.AI

AI-Augmented Human Resource Management? Insights from German companies

Yannick Kalff , Katharina Simbeck This is my paper
classification cs.CY cs.AI
keywords AI-augmented HRMgenerative AIHR analyticsco-determinationrationalisationefficiencyGerman companieschatbots
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that AI adoption in German human resource management is driven mainly by efficiency and rationalization goals, not by the strategic, people-centered augmentation that AI marketing promises. Drawing on interviews, group discussions, and a survey of 410 HR managers, it argues that what actually happens is automation of routine, low-value tasks, freeing HR staff for more interpersonal and value-creating work. Predictive and prescriptive analytics play only a minor role in everyday practice; generative AI tools and chatbots dominate. A distinctive institutional factor—German co-determination, through works councils—shapes which AI tools can be introduced and how. A sympathetic reader would care because this checks a celebrated technology narrative against empirical reality and reframes augmentation as an outcome of efficiency-driven automation rather than a new form of human–AI symbiosis.

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that AI-augmented HRM in Germany is grounded in the automation of undesired tasks, and that the efficiency/rationalization rationale dominates over strategic, people-centered promises. The survey and interview findings show that predictive HR analytics are perceived as limited in use and play no real part in everyday augmented HR work, while accessible generative AI and chatbots are widely adopted—even informally, with 183 of 410 respondents reporting unsanctioned use. Co-determination emerges as a distinct institutional factor that can block, shape, or channel AI deployment. The authors argue that automation and augmentation are interde

What carries the argument

The central analytical device is the distinction between two families of HR AI tools: low-threshold generative models and chatbots, which require minimal specialized data and automate text- and communication-based tasks, versus high-investment predictive-analytics systems trained on proprietary internal data for recruitment, succession, and workforce planning. This distinction carries the argument because it shows that the tools that actually get adopted are the efficiency-oriented ones, and that claims of augmentation rest on freeing time from undesired tasks rather than on novel predictive capabilities. A second piece of machinery is the institutional frame of German co-determination, whic

Load-bearing premise

The survey relies on respondents' own classification of which tools count as AI, and the paper itself finds that many HR managers do not recognize machine-learning-based HR analytics as 'actual AI,' so the reported split between dominant generative tools and minor predictive use may partly be an artifact of under-reporting.

What would settle it

A direct deployment audit—checking vendor licenses, software procurement records, and system logs in a sample of the same German companies—could reveal whether ML-based predictive analytics tools are actually in wide use even though HR managers do not label them as AI. If such tools are widespread, the claim that predictive/prescriptive analytics play no real part in everyday augmented HR work fails. A replication survey using function-based questions (e.g., 'does your software forecast turnover risk?') instead of the word 'AI' would also settle whether the finding is a measurement artifact.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the common 'augmentation' narrative in HRM should be revised: augmentation is achieved indirectly through automation of routine tasks, not through novel predictive or prescriptive capabilities.
  • Adoption in German HR will continue to favor generative tools and chatbots because they are cheap, low-risk, and usable informally, while predictive analytics will remain niche unless data infrastructure and co-determination concerns are resolved.
  • HR roles will shift toward interpersonal and strategic work, but entry-level clerical roles may shrink, making reskilling a central HR task.
  • Regulatory pressure—the EU AI Act's high-risk classification and co-determination rights—will push vendors to design tools that avoid personal data and high-risk HR functions, reinforcing the efficiency-oriented path.
  • In settings with weaker worker representation, the same efficiency logic may produce more aggressive rationalization, since the counterbalancing institutional force is absent.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The findings suggest a testable general hypothesis: in jurisdictions without co-determination, AI adoption in HRM may be even more skewed toward cost reduction and headcount cuts, because the institutional brake is absent.
  • The survey cannot fully distinguish 'we do not use predictive analytics' from 'we do not recognize our ML tools as AI'; future work should measure tool categories by function instead of by the contested label 'AI.'
  • The people-centered augmentation outcome depends on employers choosing to reinvest efficiency gains into HR capacity; an alternative strategy would pocket the gains as headcount reductions, which the paper's own COM1 example shows occurs in at least one case.
  • The efficiency-first adoption path may be self-reinforcing: if predictive analytics are never deployed, HR lacks the data infrastructure to use them later, pushing the 'strategic augmentation' promise further out of reach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods study of AI adoption in German HRM, combining 14 expert interviews, three group discussions with works-council advisors, and a survey of 410 HR managers. It claims that AI tools in German HR departments primarily serve efficiency and rationalization goals; that generative AI and chatbots dominate everyday use while predictive/prescriptive HR analytics play only a minor role; and that 'augmentation' is realized mainly as automation of routine, low-value tasks, freeing HR staff for more interpersonal and strategic activities. The authors also argue that Germany's co-determination framework materially shapes which AI tools are deployed and how they are governed.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a valuable empirical corrective to optimistic 'AI augmentation' narratives in HRM, grounding the discussion in a specific institutional context (German co-determination) and showing that the strategic, people-centred potential of AI is largely unrealized in practice. The mixed-methods design, the purposive interview sample spanning vendors, HR managers, and civil-society stakeholders, and the availability of a linked project dataset are strengths. The qualitative material, especially on co-determination and the gap between AI narratives and implementation, is rich and relevant. The quantitative leg, however, is descriptive only and is not currently sufficient to carry the load placed on it for the paper's central claim that predictive/prescriptive analytics play only a minor role.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Figures 1–2] The paper itself reports in §4.2 that group-discussion participants did not recognize machine-learning systems underpinning traditional HR analytics—such as turnover-risk measurement or workforce-trend identification—as 'actual AI.' This is a direct construct-validity threat to the survey measures used in Figures 1 and 2. The survey items are not shown, and the 15-participant pretest is not reported in terms of comprehension checks. If survey respondents applied a generative-AI-centric folk definition of 'AI,' the conclusion that predictive/prescriptive analytics play only a minor role would be an artifact of under-reporting rather than a fact about deployment. Because this claim is load-bearing for the abstract and Section 6, the authors must provide the survey instrument, state how 'AI' was defined to respondents, and/or show robustness using questions that ask about specific functions
  2. [§3, §5 (RQ2)] The quantitative leg is purely descriptive, yet the paper uses it to answer RQ2 about organizational structures. The manuscript does not report sample composition (firm size, sector, works-council presence, union coverage), the rule for removing 'implausible entries' (427→410), or any confidence intervals or inferential tests. Consequently, statements such as 'Larger, technology-driven, and internationally active firms with centralised HR information systems demonstrate greater readiness for AI' (§5) cannot be evaluated from the survey data; they may rest on the qualitative interviews only. At minimum, the authors should report sample demographics and basic uncertainty measures; if the survey is intended as purely descriptive, this should be stated explicitly and the claims should be scaled accordingly.
  3. [§4.3, Figure 2] The interpretation of the strategic-goal ranking is unclear. The text states that 'corporate strategies for the use of AI to improve value creation are only of very low importance in the eyes of employees,' but Figure 2 is a cumulative ranking of reasons for introducing AI, and the respondents were HR managers, not employees. The manuscript should clarify the exact item wording, whether respondents ranked a fixed list or could add goals, how the 5-to-1 weighting was chosen, and what the raw response distribution was. This is needed to support the central rationalization claim, since Figure 2 is the primary quantitative evidence for efficiency-driven motives.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Figure 1] The text says that 'over 20%' of respondents reported no AI tools, but Figure 1 is not included in the manuscript text and its axes and categories are not described. Please ensure the figure is legible and annotate the 'no AI tools' category so the claim can be verified.
  2. [§4.3] Typo: 'reskilling or igning staff' should likely be 'reskilling or reassigning staff.'
  3. [§5] The phrase 'our hypothesis about AI-augmented HR' suggests a pre-registered hypothesis, but no hypotheses are stated in the research-design section. Consider changing to 'expectation' or 'research question.'
  4. [§3] The 15-participant pretest is mentioned in one sentence. A brief note on what was changed after the pretest would increase confidence in the survey instrument.
  5. [Table 2] Please include interview durations and the number of participants in each group discussion, as well as their organizational affiliations, for completeness of the qualitative sample description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: conclusions rest on original mixed-methods data; self-citations are background/data references.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation or prediction; its claims are empirical interpretations of qualitative interviews, group discussions, and a survey. The central finding that AI use in German HRM mainly serves efficiency and rationalisation, with generative tools prominent and predictive analytics limited, is supported by directly reported survey rankings (Figure 2) and interview statements, not by a parameter fitted to the outcome. Self-citations (Kalff 2019, 2023; Kalff and Simbeck 2025; Simbeck and Kalff 2025) are used for project background, previous framing, and dataset access; none supplies a uniqueness theorem or a load-bearing premise that would make the conclusion true by construction. The paper itself flags the principal weakness: in Section 4.2 it reports that some group-discussion participants 'did not recognize machine-learning systems that underpin traditional HR analytics... as actual AI,' and Section 5 acknowledges 'reliance on self-reported survey data.' This is a construct-validity concern for the AI-use measure, and a legitimate correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the survey results are not logically entailed by the survey items in any way demonstrated in the text, and the qualitative evidence is independent of the contested label. No circular step can be exhibited from the manuscript, so the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fabricated numbers beyond the two analytic choices listed; the two-category typology (low-threshold generative vs high-investment predictive) is an analytic classification of existing technologies, not an invented entity. The main unverified input is the validity of self-reported AI-use data given the contested 'AI' label — the paper documents the ambiguity in its qualitative data but does not test its effect on the survey.

free parameters (2)
  • Figure 2 strategic-goal ranking weights = 5 points for 1st rank down to 1 point for 5th
    Hand-chosen linear weighting scheme; the central claim that efficiency/cost reduction dominates adoption rationales is read off these cumulated scores with no sensitivity analysis. A monotone transformation would likely preserve the ranking, but the paper does not show robustness.
  • Survey exclusion rule for 'implausible entries' = 17 of 427 removed (4.0%); valid N=410
    Criteria for implausibility are not stated. All reported percentages, including the 183/410 informal-use figure, depend on this exclusion.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Self-reported survey responses and interview statements are treated as valid measures of actual AI use and organizational motives.
    Figures 1–2 and all adoption percentages rest on this. The paper's own Section 4.2 finding that participants do not recognize ML-based analytics as 'actual AI' undermines it; limitations in Section 5 note only 'reliance on self-reported survey data', not the construct-validity threat.
  • domain assumption The three works-council-advisor group discussions are sufficient to characterize German co-determination practice in AI-HRM.
    Section 3: three group discussions; the strong claims about co-determination shaping AI adoption (Section 4.2) rest mainly on this small qualitative base plus COD1 quotes.
  • domain assumption Survey respondents are genuinely HR managers in German companies, as certified by the ISO 20252:2019 sampling provider.
    Section 3: no independent verification; sample composition by firm size, sector, region, or presence of works councils is not reported, so representativeness for 'German companies' is assumed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22697 in / 14900 out tokens · 139773 ms · 2026-08-02T03:32:48.956514+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This study examines the integration of AI into Human Resource Management in German companies. We ask if and how AI-based technologies are \enquote{augmenting} human resource management. Organisations employ generative AI or predictive analytics to transform traditional human resource functions, to streamline routine tasks and to reallocate resources toward strategic, people-centred activities. Our findings from interviews and group discussions and a survey (N=410) reveal that while AI tools enhance HR analytics capabilities, their adoption mainly serves efficiency and rationalising goals. The introduction of AI tools is shaped by organisational transformation factors such as digital infrastructure, co-determination frameworks, and ethical implications. The research highlights both the strategic potential for improved talent development and the challenges posed by data governance and algorithmic transparency. Overall, this work contributes to understanding the ambiguous role of technological change in HR, which promises to augment predictive capabilities yet serves the ends of efficiency and rationalisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13839 by Katharina Simbeck, Yannick Kalff.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of different tools that are utilised by German HR managers (source: own data) underscore LLMs’ rapid rise in prominence: their accessibility lowers technical barriers and fosters both formal and informal experimentation. Our research indicates that even in companies where official policy restricts or prohibits generative AI, employees regularly adopt these tools on personal devices – of the 410 va… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of strategic goals behind AI use in German HR departments. We asked HR managers to rank their organisations’ five most important reasons for implementing AI tools. A first-place ranking was assigned 5 points, while a fifth-place ranking received 1 point. Scores are cumulated. (source: own data) often favour customised, local solutions, allowing business processes to be managed at the departmental … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Discursive Framing and Organizational Venues: Mechanisms of Artificial Intelligence Policy Adoption , shorttitle =

    Af Malmborg, Frans and Trondal, Jarle , date =. Discursive Framing and Organizational Venues: Mechanisms of Artificial Intelligence Policy Adoption , shorttitle =. doi:10.1177/00208523211007533 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1177/00208523211007533

  2. [2]

    Black Box

    The “Black Box” at Work , author =. doi:10.1177/2053951720938093 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1177/2053951720938093

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12090 , abstract =

    Angrave, David and Charlwood, Andy and Kirkpatrick, Ian and Lawrence, Mark and Stuart, Mark , date =. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12090 , abstract =

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Arora, Meenal and Prakash, Anshika and Mittal, Amit and Singh, Swati , date =. 2021. doi:10.1109/DASA53625.2021.9682325 , abstract =

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    , date =

    Arora, Simple and Chaudhary, Priya and Singh, Reetesh K. , date =. Adoption of. doi:10.1108/IJOA-03-2024-4392 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/ijoa-03-2024-4392 2024

  6. [6]

    Ayling, Jacqui and Chapman, Adriane , date =. Putting. doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00084-x , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00084-x

  7. [7]

    Algorithmic Decision-Making?

    Bader, Verena and Kaiser, Stephan , date =. Algorithmic Decision-Making?. doi:10.1177/1350508419855714 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1177/1350508419855714

  8. [8]

    Correlation between

    Baldegger, Rico and Caon, Maurizio and Sadiku, Kreshnik , date =. Correlation between

  9. [9]

    and Woo, Sang Eun , date =

    Bankins, Sarah and Ocampo, Anna Carmella and Marrone, Mauricio and Restubog, Simon Lloyd D. and Woo, Sang Eun , date =. A Multilevel Review of Artificial Intelligence in Organizations:. doi:10.1002/job.2735 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/job.2735

  10. [10]

    Envisioning

    Barrett, Michael and Oborn, Eivor , date =. Envisioning. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2013.07.002 , langid =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2013.07.002 2013

  11. [11]

    The Role of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation of Firms for Using Human Resource Analytics to Monitor Employee Performance:

    Bechter, Barbara and Brandl, Bernd and Lehr, Alex , date =. The Role of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation of Firms for Using Human Resource Analytics to Monitor Employee Performance:. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12239 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1111/ntwe.12239

  12. [12]

    Critical Exploration of

    Böhmer, Nicole and Schinnenburg, Heike , date =. Critical Exploration of. doi:10.1108/ER-04-2022-0202 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/er-04-2022-0202 2022

  13. [13]

    Documentary

    Bohnsack, Ralf , editor =. Documentary. Qualitative. doi:10.3224/86649236 , isbn =

    work page doi:10.3224/86649236

  14. [14]

    Bolander, Pernilla and Sandberg, Jörgen , date =. How. doi:10.1177/0170840612464757 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1177/0170840612464757

  15. [16]

    Business

    Bryman, Alan and Bell, Emma , date =. Business

  16. [17]

    Budhwar, Pawan and Malik, Ashish and Silva, M. T. Thedushika and Thevisuthan, Praveena , date =. Artificial. doi:10.1080/09585192.2022.2035161 , abstract =

    arXiv 2022

  17. [18]

    and Beltran, Jose R

    Budhwar, Pawan and Chowdhury, Soumyadeb and Wood, Geoffrey and Aguinis, Herman and Bamber, Greg J. and Beltran, Jose R. and Boselie, Paul and Lee Cooke, Fang and Decker, Stephanie and DeNisi, Angelo and Dey, Prasanta Kumar and Guest, David and Knoblich, Andrew J. and Malik, Ashish and Paauwe, Jaap and Papagiannidis, Savvas and Patel, Charmi and Pereira, V...

    arXiv

  18. [19]

    Butollo, Florian and Jürgens, Ulrich and Krzywdzinski, Martin , editor =. From. Digitalization in

  19. [21]

    Charlwood, Andy and Guenole, Nigel , date =. Can. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12433 , abstract =

    arXiv

  20. [22]

    Unlocking the Value of Artificial Intelligence in Human Resource Management through

    Chowdhury, Soumyadeb and Dey, Prasanta and Joel-Edgar, Sian and Bhattacharya, Sudeshna and Rodriguez-Espindola, Oscar and Abadie, Amelie and Truong, Linh , date =. Unlocking the Value of Artificial Intelligence in Human Resource Management through. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100899 , abstract =

    arXiv 2022

  21. [23]

    Ciesla, Robert , date =. The. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-51004-5 , isbn =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-51004-5

  22. [24]

    Understanding the Adoption and Institutionalization of Workforce Analytics:

    Coolen, Patrick and Van Den Heuvel, Sjoerd and Van De Voorde, Karina and Paauwe, Jaap , date =. Understanding the Adoption and Institutionalization of Workforce Analytics:. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100985 , abstract =

    arXiv 2023

  23. [25]

    doi:10.1108/PR-05-2020-0322 , abstract =

    Quantifying Human Resource Management: A Literature Review , author =. doi:10.1108/PR-05-2020-0322 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/pr-05-2020-0322 2020

  24. [26]

    How to Do

    Coron, Clotilde and Scheibmayr, Isabella and Lescoat, Pierre , date =. How to Do. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12306 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1111/ntwe.12306

  25. [27]

    Das, Tilak Ch and Neog, Aparajita and Amin, Md Ruhul and Ahmed, Fojail , date =. From. doi:10.32479/irmm.23035 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.32479/irmm.23035

  26. [28]

    Deng, Hui and Lu, Ying and Fan, Di and Liu, Wei and Xia, Yuhuan , date =. The. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12328 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1111/ntwe.12328

  27. [29]

    and Bader, Verena and Mayrhofer, Wolfgang , date =

    Diefenhardt, Felix and Rapp, Marco L. and Bader, Verena and Mayrhofer, Wolfgang , date =. ‘. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12583 , abstract =

    arXiv

  28. [30]

    Drage, Eleanor and Mackereth, Kerry , date =. Does. doi:10.1007/s13347-022-00543-1 , abstract =. 36246553 , eprinttype =

    doi:10.1007/s13347-022-00543-1

  29. [31]

    Content Analysis , author =

  30. [32]

    Exploring

    Du, Jiaxing , date =. Exploring. doi:10.53469/jtpms.2024.04(03).06 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.53469/jtpms.2024.04(03).06 2024

  31. [33]

    The Machine/Human Agentic Impact on Practices in Learning and Development: A Study across

    Dutta, Debolina and Kannan Poyil, Anasha , date =. The Machine/Human Agentic Impact on Practices in Learning and Development: A Study across. doi:10.1108/PR-09-2022-0658 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/pr-09-2022-0658 2022

  32. [34]

    and Graus, David and Hacker, Philipp and Saldivar, Jorge and Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik and Biega, Asia J

    Fabris, Alessandro and Baranowska, Nina and Dennis, Matthew J. and Graus, David and Hacker, Philipp and Saldivar, Jorge and Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik and Biega, Asia J. , date =. Fairness and. doi:10.1145/3696457 , volumes =

    doi:10.1145/3696457

  33. [35]

    The Critical Role of

    Fenwick, Ali and Molnar, Gabor and Frangos, Piper , date =. The Critical Role of. doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00125-4 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00125-4

  34. [36]

    Tackling the

    Fernandez, Vicenc and Gallardo-Gallardo, Eva , date =. Tackling the. doi:10.1108/CR-12-2019-0163 , abstract =

    doi:10.1108/cr-12-2019-0163 2019

  35. [37]

    doi:10.1093/ser/mww033 , abstract =

    Seeing like a Market , author =. doi:10.1093/ser/mww033 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1093/ser/mww033

  36. [38]

    Gläser, Jochen and Laudel, Grit , editor =. On. Interviewing Experts:. doi:10.1057/9780230244276_6 , isbn =

    work page doi:10.1057/9780230244276_6

  37. [39]

    and Fernandes, Paula Odete and Teixeira, João Paulo , date =

    Jatobá, Mariana Namen and Ferreira, João J. and Fernandes, Paula Odete and Teixeira, João Paulo , date =. Intelligent Human Resources for the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Literature Review , shorttitle =. doi:10.1108/JOCM-03-2022-0075 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/jocm-03-2022-0075 2022

  38. [40]

    Kalff, Yannick , editor =. Labor. Digitalization in. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28258-5_2 , isbn =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28258-5_2

  39. [41]

    Beschäftigtenvorbehalte Gegen Digitale

    Kalff, Yannick and Kutlu, Yalçın , date =. Beschäftigtenvorbehalte Gegen Digitale. doi:10.1515/arbeit-2022-0022 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1515/arbeit-2022-0022 2022

  40. [42]

    Kalff, Yannick , date =. Die. doi:10.5771/2701-4193-2023-3-284 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.5771/2701-4193-2023-3-284 2023

  41. [43]

    Explained, yet Misunderstood:

    Kalff, Yannick and Simbeck, Katharina , editor =. Explained, yet Misunderstood:. Proceedings of the 5th

  42. [44]

    , date =

    Kelan, Elisabeth K. , date =. Algorithmic Inclusion:. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12511 , keywords =

    arXiv

  43. [45]

    Sixty Years of Research on Technology and Human Resource Management:

    Kim, Sunghoon and Wang, Ying and Boon, Corine , date =. Sixty Years of Research on Technology and Human Resource Management:. doi:10.1002/hrm.22049 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/hrm.22049

  44. [46]

    Köchling, Alina and Riazy, Shirin and Wehner, Marius Claus and Simbeck, Katharina , date =. Highly. doi:10.1007/s12599-020-00673-w , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s12599-020-00673-w

  45. [47]

    Köchling, Alina and Wehner, Marius Claus and Ruhle, Sascha Alexander , date =. This (. doi:10.1007/s11846-024-00789-3 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11846-024-00789-3

  46. [48]

    and Kraus, Sascha and Jones, Paul , date =

    Korherr, Philipp and Kanbach, Dominik K. and Kraus, Sascha and Jones, Paul , date =. The Role of Management in Fostering Analytics: The Shift from Intuition to Analytics-Based Decision-Making , shorttitle =. doi:10.1080/12460125.2022.2062848 , langid =

    arXiv 2022

  47. [49]

    Qualitative

    Kuckartz, Udo and Rädiker, Stefan , date =. Qualitative

  48. [50]

    doi:10.5451/UNIBAS-EP96815 , keywords =

    Lehmann, Johannes , date =. doi:10.5451/UNIBAS-EP96815 , keywords =

    work page doi:10.5451/unibas-ep96815

  49. [51]

    Artificial

    Lippert, Isabell , namea =. Artificial. European

  50. [52]

    Lodra, Raynald Samuel and Padhana, Tyaga and Kristin, Desi Maya , date =. The. 2024. doi:10.1109/ICISS62896.2024.10751529 , eventtitle =

    arXiv 2024

  51. [53]

    Augmenting a

    Loscher, Georg and Bader, Verena , editor =. Augmenting a. Research in the. doi:10.1108/S0733-558X20220000083004 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20220000083004

  52. [54]

    Creating Accountability through

    Loscher, Georg and Bader, Verena , date =. Creating Accountability through. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100974 , abstract =

    arXiv 2023

  53. [55]

    Artificial Intelligence (

    Malik, Ashish and Budhwar, Pawan and Kazmi, Bahar Ali , date =. Artificial Intelligence (. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100940 , abstract =

    arXiv 2022

  54. [56]

    and Boudreau, John W

    Marler, Janet H. and Boudreau, John W. , date =. An Evidence-Based Review of. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1244699 , abstract =

    arXiv 2016

  55. [57]

    Promise versus Reality: A Systematic Review of the Ongoing Debates in People Analytics , shorttitle =

    McCartney, Steven and Fu, Na , date =. Promise versus Reality: A Systematic Review of the Ongoing Debates in People Analytics , shorttitle =. doi:10.1108/JOEPP-01-2021-0013 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/joepp-01-2021-0013 2021

  56. [58]

    Enacting People Analytics:

    McCartney, Steven and Fu, Na , date =. Enacting People Analytics:. doi:10.1002/hrm.22194 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/hrm.22194

  57. [59]

    The Adoption of

    Medaglia, Rony and Tangi, Luca , date =. The Adoption of. Proceedings of the 15th. doi:10.1145/3560107.3560110 , abstract =

    arXiv

  58. [60]

    Digital Transformation, Strategic Resilience, Cyber Security and Risk Management , author =

    Artificial. Digital Transformation, Strategic Resilience, Cyber Security and Risk Management , author =. doi:10.1108/S1569-37592023000111B003 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/s1569-37592023000111b003

  59. [61]

    Disrupted

    Minbaeva, Dana , date =. Disrupted. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100820 , abstract =

    arXiv 2020

  60. [62]

    , date =

    Muridzi, Gibson and Dhliwayo, Shepherd and Isabelle, Diane A. , date =. Artificial. doi:10.1142/S1363919624400061 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1142/s1363919624400061

  61. [63]

    Narayanan, Arvind and Kapoor, Sayash , date =

  62. [64]

    doi:10.1016/j.jjimei.2023.100208 , abstract =

    The Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Human Resources Management Practices , author =. doi:10.1016/j.jjimei.2023.100208 , abstract =

    arXiv 2023

  63. [65]

    Exploring Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Public Organizations: A Comparative Case Study , shorttitle =

    Neumann, Oliver and Guirguis, Katharina and Steiner, Reto , date =. Exploring Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Public Organizations: A Comparative Case Study , shorttitle =. doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2048685 , abstract =

    arXiv 2022

  64. [66]

    Demystifying the

    Ogbeibu, Samuel and Emelifeonwu, Jude and Pereira, Vijay and Oseghale, Raphael and Gaskin, James and Sivarajah, Uthayasankar and Gunasekaran, Angappa , date =. Demystifying the. doi:10.1002/bse.3495 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/bse.3495

  65. [67]

    The Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Employee Recruitment:

    Pan, Yuan and Froese, Fabian and Liu, Ni and Hu, Yunyang and Ye, Maolin , date =. The Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Employee Recruitment:. doi:10.1080/09585192.2021.1879206 , langid =

    arXiv 2021

  66. [68]

    Adoption of Electronic Systems in

    Panayotopoulou, Leda and Galanaki, Eleanna and Papalexandris, Nancy , date =. Adoption of Electronic Systems in. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2010.00252.x , langid =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  67. [69]

    Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (

    Pillai, Rajasshrie and Sivathanu, Brijesh , date =. Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (. doi:10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0186 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/bij-04-2020-0186 2020

  68. [70]

    Understanding

    Poba-Nzaou, Placide and Tchibozo, Anicet Sylvere , date =. Understanding. 2022. doi:10.1109/ICIMTech55957.2022.9915214 , eventtitle =

    arXiv 2022

  69. [71]

    doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122645 , abstract =

    Prikshat, Verma and Islam, Mohammad and Patel, Parth and Malik, Ashish and Budhwar, Pawan and Gupta, Suraksha , date =. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122645 , abstract =

    arXiv 2023

  70. [72]

    doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100860 , abstract =

    Prikshat, Verma and Malik, Ashish and Budhwar, Pawan , date =. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100860 , abstract =

    arXiv 2021

  71. [73]

    Qamar, Yusra and Agrawal, Rakesh Kumar and Samad, Taab Ahmad and Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose , date =. When. doi:10.1108/JEIM-11-2020-0436 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/jeim-11-2020-0436 2020

  72. [74]

    Rädiker, Stefan and Kuckartz, Udo , date =. Focused. doi:10.36192/978-3-948768072 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.36192/978-3-948768072

  73. [75]

    Artificial

    Raisch, Sebastian and Krakowski, Sebastian , date =. Artificial. doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0072 , abstract =

    arXiv 2018

  74. [76]

    Evaluating Human Resources Management Literacy:

    Raman, Raghu and Venugopalan, Murale and Kamal, Anju , date =. Evaluating Human Resources Management Literacy:. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27026 , abstract =. 38486738 , eprinttype =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27026 2024

  75. [77]

    Implementation of

    Revillod, Guillaume , date =. Implementation of. doi:10.46287/YDNH4362 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.46287/ydnh4362

  76. [78]

    Adoption

    Rukadikar, Aaradhana and Pandita, Deepika and Choudhary, Himani , date =. Adoption. 2023 8th. doi:10.1109/ICBIR57571.2023.10147592 , eventtitle =

    arXiv 2023

  77. [79]

    The Algorithm:

    Schellmann, Hilke , date =. The Algorithm:

  78. [80]

    doi:10.1147/JRD.2019.2915067 , abstract =

    Simbeck, Katharina , date =. doi:10.1147/JRD.2019.2915067 , abstract =

    arXiv 2019

  79. [81]

    Standards for Transparent

    Simbeck, Katharina and Kalff, Yannick , date =. Standards for Transparent. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.17708792 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17708792

  80. [82]

    Organizational Adoption of e‐

    Strohmeier, Stefan and Kabst, Rüdiger , editor =. Organizational Adoption of e‐. doi:10.1108/02683940910974099 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1108/02683940910974099

Showing first 80 references.