Responsible AI Governance in Organizational Decision-Making: A Conceptual Framework of Calibrated Trust, Ethical Acceptability, and Decision Legitimacy.

Mohamed  Hamza Bennani; Driss  Helmi; Hayat  Bennani

doi:10.48161/qaj.v6n4a2667

Authors

Mohamed Hamza Bennani Laboratory of Actionable Management and Organizational Decision-Making (MADO), Department of Economics and Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Mohammed First University, Oujda 60000, Morocco; https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7455-7455
Driss Helmi Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory in Economics, Finance and Organizational Management, Department of Finance and Organizational Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez 30000, Morocco. https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5642-1944
Hayat Bennani Higher Institute of Nursing and Health Technology Professions, Rabat 10000, Morocco.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v6n4a2667

Keywords:

Artificial intelligence, AI-augmented decision-making, AI governance, Calibrated trust, Ethical acceptability, Decision quality, Decision legitimacy, Multilevel governance.

Abstract

By functioning in an advisory capacity, AI systems are playing an increasingly central role in organizational decision-making, yet their value cannot be assessed based solely on predictive performance. This article describes the governance-centered conceptual model of how technological governance capability and organizational governance capability jointly shape decision quality and decision legitimacy, both of which are distinct outcomes of AI-augmented decision-making. Our proposal not only considers calibration of trust in AI but also ethical acceptability (ecological validity) as parallel mechanisms rather than a fixed serial sequence. Calibrated trust is whether a decision-maker can count on AI at the level that it claims to perform, and ethical acceptability whether AI-supported decisions are justifiable in fairness, safety, privacy, human oversight, traceability & accountability. Learning culture is suggested as an organizational boundary condition by which the influence of organizational governance capability (with a positive sign) on calibrated trust and ethical acceptability is enhanced, while regulatory institutional pressure is proposed to strengthen (with a positive sign) the link between ethical acceptability and decision legitimacy. The framework also differentiates formative higher-order governance capabilities from evaluative mechanisms at the individual level and clarifies their levels of analysis. An example conceptual application to AI-enabled credit decisions is provided to demonstrate how the framework can be connected to verifiable governance evidence without claiming empirical validation. The model provides a unified explanation of the ways in which AI-governance capabilities can influence sound and institutionally justifiable organizational decisions across levels.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210.

Shrestha, Y. R., Ben-Menahem, S. M., & von Krogh, G. (2019). Organizational decision-making structures in the age of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 66–83.

Herath Pathirannehelage, S., Shrestha, Y. R., & von Krogh, G. (2025). Design principles for artificial intelligence-augmented decision making: An action design research study. European Journal of Information Systems, 34(2), 207–229.

Ouzif, H., El Boukhari, H., El Achabi, M., Chahbouni, O., Es-Sanoun, M., Mahouat, N., & Bakkali, S. (2025). Analyzing the adoption of artificial intelligence by Moroccan university teachers: Key insights and implications from the UTAUT model. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(4), 2722–2732.

Bennagem Touati, A., Hadj-Ali, A., Ouzif, H., Benlamrabet, O., & Es-Sanoun, M. (2025). From hesitation to integration: A UTAUT model analysis of ChatGPT adoption in Moroccan universities. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(5), 2980–2995.

Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025). Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 34(2), 101885.

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399.

Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 501–507.

Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.

Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660.

Lahusen, C., Maggetti, M., & Slavkovik, M. (2024). Trust, trustworthiness and AI governance. Scientific Reports, 14, 20752.

Afroogh, S., Akbari, A., Malone, E., Kargar, M., & Alambeigi, H. (2024). Trust in AI: Progress, challenges, and future directions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 1568.

Tabassi, E. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Autio, C., Schwartz, R., Dunietz, J., Jain, S., Stanley, M., Tabassi, E., Hall, P., & Roberts, K. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (NIST AI 600-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Makhmudova, D. M., Sharipova, X. R., Hojiyev, N. K., Ergashev, A. E., Satvaldieva, Y. Kh., Mamatkulova, K. U., & Khudoynazarov, E. M. (2025). Ethical and legal challenges of implementing AI in science and math education in Central Asia. Qubahan Academic Journal, 5(3), 294–326.

Abisheva, C., Koldasbaeva, Z., Nossiyeva, N., Irgebaeva, N., Aipova, A., Doldinova, S., Smoilov, S., Aykenova, R., Umirzakova, L., & Idrissova, M. (2024). Formation of ethical competences for AI use in English foreign language teachings. Qubahan Academic Journal, 4(4), 191–205.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.

Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75.

Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Wen, Y., Wang, J., & Chen, X. (2025). Trust and AI weight: Human-AI collaboration in organizational management decision-making. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 3, 1419403.

Babaei, G., & Giudici, P. (2024). How fair is machine learning in credit lending? Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 40(6), 3452–3464.

Chen, Y., Giudici, P., Liu, K., & Raffinetti, E. (2024). Measuring fairness in credit ratings. Expert Systems with Applications, 258, 125184.

Bahlool, R., Hewahi, N., & Elmedany, W. (2026). Performance, fairness, and explainability in AI-based credit scoring: A systematic literature review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 19(2), 104.

Nwafor, C. N., Nwafor, O., & Brahma, S. (2024). Enhancing transparency and fairness in automated credit decisions: An explainable novel hybrid machine learning approach. Scientific Reports, 14, 25174.

Tigges, M., Mestwerdt, S., Tschirner, S., & Mauer, R. (2024). Who gets the money? A qualitative analysis of fintech lending and credit scoring through the adoption of AI and alternative data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 205, 123491.

European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689.