IA on the job: can explaining a decision replace participation?
A manager can now quickly produce a structured explanation for refusing training or changing an assignment. The managerial question is specific: does this ease of justification lead organisations to neglect consultation with those affected?
What the literature establishes
E. Allan Lind, Ruth Kanfer and P. Christopher Earley (1990, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) experimentally examined opportunities to express a view before or after a decision. In their study, having a voice increased perceived procedural justice, with a stronger effect when the opportunity preceded the decision. Their finding therefore distinguishes two properties of a procedure: hearing someone’s views and announcing a conclusion.
Explanations matter too, but differently
Jerald Greenberg (1990, Journal of Applied Psychology) studied reactions to a temporary pay cut in an industrial setting. A more thorough and considerate explanation accompanied a smaller increase in theft than an inadequate explanation. This field study indicates that the way an unfavourable decision is presented matters, without establishing that it replaces participation beforehand.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that an assistant capable of drafting a detailed justification makes decisions fairer. These studies do not support that inference: perceived justice cannot be reduced to either the length of an explanation or the quality of its writing. Within the “IA on the job” programme, the useful distinction is between helping to explain a decision and arranging a genuine opportunity to contribute before it is made. (our executive and employee training programmes)
The limits of the evidence and current practice
These studies do not concern generative AI, and their settings do not allow direct predictions about reactions within a Geneva organisation. Nor do they demonstrate that every decision requires consultation, particularly when regulatory obligations determine the outcome. They do, however, invite scrutiny of an easily overlooked practice: requesting input after a decision has already been settled, then presenting that step as participation.
A practical check in Genève
For a practical application of the programme with SHR in Geneva, a private bank, an international organisation, a watchmaking company or a commodity trading firm could examine training-access decisions whose explanations are drafted with AI. Over one month, among decisions involving discretion, record the proportion for which the person could submit information before the decision, checking the invitation date, the decision date and documented consideration of the information received. This review uses only the necessary metadata, without transferring personnel files to the assistant. The result does not measure every aspect of procedural justice; it checks whether the organisation offers participation beforehand rather than only an explanation afterwards. To go further: explore the AI on the Job training in Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: AI on the Job in Geneva
- ai on the job
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva