Have an Issue with an AI Agent? Call ‘Robot Relations’
The idea of a robot-relations function to helpmanage interactions between humans and AI agents in the workplace is gainingtraction. Will it really happen?
Harold wasn’t fitting in with his new team. They were dismissing his ideas, isolating him from assignments, and criticizing his work. It got to feel very hostile, but he wasn’t sure if he should go to HR with his concerns. After all, his colleagues weren’t human. They were AI agents.
It’s difficult enough to manage human-to-human interactions, but leaders are increasingly being faced with a whole new category of thorny workplace scenarios involving humans and AI agents. The questions start with figuring out who is accountable when AI makes a poor decision, but go far beyond that. As AI agents become colleagues—and, in some cases, managers—questions are being asked more and more: How should responsibilities be shared between humans and agents? How should performance be judged and rewarded? How should conflicts and disputes be handled? What are agents doing with the data they are collecting while working alongside humans? “Organizations are thinking more about what a healthy working relationship between humans and AI actually looks like,” says Roger Philby, global leader of the People Strategy and Performance practice at Korn Ferry.
To be sure, the idea of a new “robot-relations” function, while largely theoretical for now, is gaining traction among some leading thinkers and academics. Firms are already dealing with lawsuits, compliance, and governance issues around AI that involve human resources, and experts anticipate that involvement to deepen and become more complex over time. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where an AI agent has an issue with its human colleague, says Bryan Ackermann, head of AI strategy and transformation at Korn Ferry. “It goes both ways, and leaders have to be able to see who isn’t working well with the other,” he says. There’s already a robust library of case studies in which employees have sabotaged AI pilots with bad information or accused agents of using data to select them for layoffs.
Matt Poole, leader of AI strategy, governance, and engineering at Korn Ferry's AMS business, says robot relations is accurate in concept but implies "a complaint desk for robots." Instead of building a new function, he says what firms need are clear and transparent accountability chains. "The core instinct is right," says Poole, "but thinking of this as a relations issue misses the point."
While the idea of a robot-relations department is provocative, the reality is that the issues are far greater than one function can handle, notes Philby. “The questions firms are grappling with sit at the intersection of HR, technology, risk, legal, and leadership,” he says. At the same time, he cautions that firms should be careful about creating a new organizational function, especially one that is likely to send shivers through the entire workforce. He draws a parallel to firms’ realization that industrializing wasn’t just about new machinery, but also about the responsibility of employers and the experience of employees. “The technology may be digital, but many of the consequences are profoundly human,” he says.
Brian Bloom, senior vice president of global benefits and mobility operations at Korn Ferry agrees. He says he expects to see firms incorporate management of the human-AI relationship into the remit of an existing function rather than creating a new one, with HR taking a leading role. “There is an important distinction between managing AI and managing the human experience of AI,” he says, “and I think that’s where HR gets bigger.”
Learn more about Korn Ferry’s Business Transformation capabilities.
