Leiderschap en techniek: Een techniekfilosofische benadering over besluitvorming in de toekomst | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 37, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0921-5077
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7235

Abstract

Samenvatting

Innovatieve technologieën brengen een fundamentele verschuiving teweeg in de verantwoordelijkheden van leiders en dus in de leiderschapstheorieën die deze veranderingen duiden. Leiders moeten zich aanpassen aan de groeiende rol van technologische hulpmiddelen in besluitvormingsprocessen en nieuwe vaardigheden ontwikkelen om effectief keuzes te kunnen maken. Daarbij is het belangrijk om inzicht te krijgen in het veranderende morele landschap, waarbij moreel actorschap zich niet langer beperkt tot de leider, maar ook de techniek omvat. Het begrijpen van deze dynamiek is belangrijk voor leiders, technologische ontwikkelaars en de bredere maatschappij om ervoor te zorgen dat de ontwikkeling en het gebruik van technologie op een verantwoorde en ethische manier gebeurt. Dit artikel biedt een filosofische uiteenzetting om deze inzichten te verschaffen en om een andere kijk te bewerkstelligen op de fundamentele relaties tussen actoren en de gevolgen van besluitvormingstechnologieën, vanuit een postfenomenologisch perspectief. In een veld dat traditioneel door andere theoretische inzichten wordt beheerst, zoals leiderschapstheorie, kan techniekfilosofie een aanvulling en nieuwe inzichten verschaffen rondom de uitdagingen van modern leiderschap.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.2.003.SPIJ
2024-06-01
2024-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarts, K., & Wyatt, S. (2018). Big data in wetenschappelijk onderzoek met gegevens over personen. KNAW.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Achterhuis, H., Van Dijk, P., & Tijmes, P. (1992). De maat van de techniek zes filosofen over techniek, Günther Anders, Jacques Ellul, Arnold Gehlen, Martin Heidegger, Hans Jonas en Lewis Mumford. Ambo.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Achterhuis, H. (Ed.). (2001). American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn. Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alasiri, M., & Salameh, A. A. (2020). The impact of business intelligence (BI) and decision support systems (DSS): Exploratory study. International Journal of Management, 11(5), 948-963. https://doi.org/10.34218/IJM.11.5.2020.087
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & De Vreese, C. H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 35, 611-623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barry-Jester, A., Casselman, B., & Goldstein, D. (2015). The new science of sentencing: Should prison sentences be based on crimes that haven’t been committed yet. The Marshall Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Binns, R. (2022). Human judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated decision-making. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12358
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chalfin, A., Danieli, O., Hillis, A., Jelveh, Z., Luca, M., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2016). Productivity and selection of human capital with machine learning. American Economic Review, 106(5), 124-127.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coeckelbergh, M. (2019). Introduction to philosophy of technology. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Mul, J., & Van den Berg, B. (2011). Remote control: Human autonomy in the age of computer-mediated agency. In M.Hildebrandt & A.Rouvroy (Eds.), Law, Human Agency and Autonomic Computing: The Philosophy of Law meets the Philosophy of Technology (pp. 46-64). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellul, J. (2021). The technological society. Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Februari, M. (2020). Hoe de inzet van data-technologie het karakter en de werking van het recht verandert. Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Feenberg, A. (2009). What is philosophy of technology? In A.Jones & M. J.de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 159-166). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087908799_016
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Floridi, L. (2012). Big data and their epistemological challenge. Philosophy & Technology, 25, 435-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-012-0093-4
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Floridi, L. (2019). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Foucault, M. (1980). Questions on geography. In C.Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (pp. 1972-1977). Pantheon.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Borning, A., & Huldtgren, A. (2013). Value sensitive design and information systems. In N.Doorn, D.Schuurbiers, I.van de Poel, & M.Gorman (Eds.), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 16, pp. 348-372). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gertz, N. (2018). Nihilism and technology. Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gieling, R., & Van den Berg, J. (2023). Kunstmatige intelligentie in 60 minuten. Uitgeverij Haystack.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gurevich, Y. (2012, January). What is an algorithm? In International conference on current trends in theory and practice of computer science (pp. 31-42). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hackforth, R. (Ed.). (1972). Plato: Phaedrus. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hadwick, D., & Lan, S. (2021). Lessons to be learned from the dutch childcare allowance scandal: A comparative review of algorithmic governance by tax administrations in the Netherlands, France and Germany. World Tax Journal, 13(4), 609-645.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking University lectures. Suny Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Irmak, N. (2012). Software is an abstract artifact. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 86(1), 55-72.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Khandani, A. E., Kim, A. J., & Lo, A. W. (2010). Consumer credit-risk models via machine-learning algorithms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(11), 2767-2787.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kool, L., Timmer, J., Royakkers, L. M. M., & Van Est, Q. C. (2017). Opwaarderen: Borgen van publieke waarden in de digitale samenleving. Rathenau Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes: The premise, the proposed solutions, and the open challenges. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 611-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-0170279-x
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.00
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Marx, K. (1996). Das Kapital: A critique of political economy. Eagle. (Origineel werk gepubliceerd in 1867).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Miner, R. C. (2013). Informal leaders. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(4), 57-61.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Oswald, M., Grace, J., Urwin, S., & Barnes, G. C. (2018). Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: Lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’ proportionality. Information & Communications Technology Law, 27(2), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2018.1458455
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Parry, K., Cohen, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Rise of the machines: A critical consideration of automated leadership decision making in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 41(5), 571-594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116643442
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pedreschi, D., Giannotti, F., Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., & Turini, F. (2019). Meaningful explanations of black box AI decision systems. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01), 9780-9784. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019780
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Peng, A., Nushi, B., Kiciman, E., Inkpen, K., & Kamar, E. (2022). Investigations of performance and bias in human-AI teamwork in hiring. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(11), 12089-12097. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i11.21468
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P. P. (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. In R.Rosenberger & P. P.Verbeek (Eds.), Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations (pp. 9-41). Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rousseau, J.-J. (1974). A discourse on the moral effects of the arts and sciences. In H.Peterson (Ed.), Essays in philosophy: From David Hume to George Santayana (pp. 34-65). Pocket Books. (Origineel werk gepubliceerd in 1750).
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Scharff, R. C., & Dusek, V. (Eds.). (2013). Philosophy of technology: The technological condition: An anthology. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Currency.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Silva, A. (2016). What is leadership?Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 8(1), 1-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K. L., & Burdick, M. (1999). Does automation bias decision-making?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51(5), 991-1006. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Smith, M. (2016, June22). In Wisconsin, a backlash against using data to foretell defendants’ futures. The New York Times.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Symons, J., & Alvarado, R. (2022). Epistemic injustice and data science technologies. Synthese, 200(2), 1-26.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Thumma, S. A. (2020). On leadership for “the every judge”. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 56, 68-75.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Van den Berg, B. (2010). The situated self: Identity in a world of ambient intelligence. Wolf Legal Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Van den Berg, B., & Keymolen, E. (2013). Techniekfilosofie: Het medium is de maat. Wijsgerig Perspectief, 53(1), 8-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Van den Berg, B., & Leenes, R. E. (2013). Abort, retry, fail: Scoping techno-regulation and other techno-effects. Human law and computer law: Comparative perspectives, 67-87.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Van den Besselaar, P. (2000). De dynamiek van technologische ontwikkeling en innovatie. Reflecties op Economie, Technologie en Arbeid, 144-159
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Van der Kolk, B., & Kaufmann, W. (2018). Performance measurement, cognitive dissonance, and coping strategies: Exploring individual responses to NPM-inspired output control. Journal of Management Control, 29, 93-113.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Van der Loo, H., & Van Reijen, W. (1990). Paradoxen van modernisering. Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Van der Meulen, H. (2020, 26juni). Interview Peter-Paul Verbeek: ‘Technologie is ons noodlot’. Filosofie Magazine.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Verbeek, P. P.(2001a). De daadkracht der dingen. Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Verbeek, P. P. (2001b). Don Ihde: The technological lifeworld. In H. J.Achterhuis (Ed.), American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn (pp. 119-146). Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Verbeek, P. P.(2011a). De grens van de mens: Over techniek, ethiek en de menselijke natuur. Lemniscaat.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Willemsen, H., & De Wind, P. (2015). Woordenboek Filosofie (geheel herziene en aangevulde uitgave). Maklu.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Willson, M. (2019). Algorithms (and the) everyday. In D.Beer (Ed.), The social power of algorithms (pp. 137-150). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics?Daedalus, 121(1), 121-136.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.2.003.SPIJ
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error