Scheduling software needs an owner too
Systems that allocate or evaluate work need a named owner and a correction route, whether or not they are called AI.
Software that shapes people’s work needs clear ownership, whether or not it’s called AI.
An organization can spend weeks debating a chatbot while a scheduling system already shapes employees’ hours and opportunities. The second has the more direct effect on their working lives.
Bring allocation, monitoring and evaluation tools into people governance. Who understands the rules? Who can explain an outcome? Who can correct it? Those questions matter to employees whatever the technology is called. The OECD defines algorithmic management broadly, as software that automates managerial tasks with or without AI.
Where I’d start: list the systems that allocate or evaluate work. Name an accountable owner and a correction route for each. Ask employees for outcomes they find hard to understand, then review those cases with the system owner.
The test: a manager who can approve a recommendation but can’t challenge it has limited authority. Test the real ability to intervene.
Disagree? Tell me on LinkedIn. That’s where the discussion happens.