When Actors Stop Participating: Delegated Participation and Representative-Centered Organizing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.1410.12522Keywords:
Delegated participation, Bilateral representation, Agentic artificial intelligence, Accountability, Symbolic concentration, Organizational designAbstract
Organizational theories usually treat participation as actor-bound: the actors whose interests are at stake are expected to occupy the interactions through which outcomes are produced. Agentic artificial intelligence and other autonomous representatives weaken that correspondence. This conceptual article develops a theory of delegated participation, defined as the authorized transfer of communicative, evaluative, coordinative, or exchange-related participation from a principal to a representative. The argument moves beyond treating participation delegation as merely another agency relationship. When representatives operate on multiple sides of an exchange, they form an interaction system that can persist without direct principal participation, reshape the alternatives reaching principals, and separate participation from accountability. The model identifies activity conditions, capability–structure alignment, and authorization as antecedents; bilateral representation and interaction displacement as mechanisms; and symbolic concentration and representative-centered organizing as organizational consequences. The framework contributes by challenging the actor-bound conception of participation, identifying bilateral representation as a discontinuity in organizing, and explaining why declining principal participation may coexist with persistent principal accountability and increasingly consequential symbolic appearances. The article concludes with managerial implications and an empirical research agenda focused on recruitment, procurement, customer service, and AI-mediated negotiation.
References
Ågerfalk, P. J. (2020). Artificial intelligence as digital agency. European Journal of Information Systems, 29, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1721947
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2, 217–230. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409044
Anthony, C., Bechky, B. A., & Fayard, A.-L. (2023). “Collaborating” with AI: Taking a system view to explore the future of work. Organization Science, 34, 1672–1694. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1651
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
Bailey, D. E., Faraj, S., Hinds, P. J., von Krogh, G., & Leonardi, P. M. (2022). We are all theorists of technology now: A relational perspective on emerging technology and organizing. Organization Science, 33, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1562
Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021). The next generation of research on IS use: A theoretical framework of delegation to and from agentic IS artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 45, 315–341. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15882
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13, 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306768
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2844110
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57–74. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279003
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037
Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management Science, 52, 1155–1169. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0525
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005
Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14, 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Harvard University Press.
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.2018.01.007
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17, 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0157
Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G., & Yu, H. (2017). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165, 633–705.
Lebovitz, S., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Levina, N. (2022). To engage or not to engage with AI for critical judgments: How professionals deal with opacity when using AI for medical diagnosis. Organization Science, 33, 126–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1549
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35, 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary-spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29, 335–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148620
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26, 87–119. https://doi.org/10.1145/174666.174668
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506
Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. (2021). Humans and technology: Forms of conjoined agency in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 46, 552–571. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0100
Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 463–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520903047533
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Parker, S. K. (2022). Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs. Human Resource Management Review, 32(3), 100838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46, 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 33–44). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63, 134–139.
Santoni de Sio, F., & van den Hoven, J. (2018). Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00015
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Row, Peterson.
Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623–658. https://doi.org/10.1086/228791
Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122159
Siebert, L. C., Lupetti, M. L., Aizenberg, E., Beckers, N., Zgonnikov, A., Veluwenkamp, H., Abbink, D. A., Giaccardi, E., Houben, G.-J., Jonker, C. M., van den Hoven, J., Forster, D., & Lagendijk, R. L. (2023). Meaningful human control: Actionable properties for AI system development. AI and Ethics, 3, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00156-6
Strauss, G. (2006). Worker participation: Some under-considered issues. Industrial Relations, 45, 778–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.2006.00440.x
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033683
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 289–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392493
Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492606291200
Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P. J., Marchington, M., & Lewin, D. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of participation in organizations. Oxford University Press.
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80, 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00313
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548–577. https://doi.org/10.1086/227496
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press.
Wiseman, R. M., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Towards a social theory of agency. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01016.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Michael J. Douglas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
