Paradoxes in Fair Computer-Aided Decision Making

Computer-aided decision making--where a human decision-maker is aided by a computational classifier in making a decision--is becoming increasingly prevalent. For instance, judges in at least nine states make use of algorithmic tools meant to determine "recidivism risk scores" for criminal defendants in sentencing, parole, or bail decisions. A subject of much recent debate is whether such algorithmic tools are "fair" in the sense that they do not discriminate against certain groups (e.g., races) of people. Our main result shows that for "non-trivial" computer-aided decision making, either the classifier must be discriminatory, or a rational decision-maker using the output of the classifier is forced to be discriminatory. We further provide a complete characterization of situations where fair computer-aided decision making is possible

Fairness-Aware Ranking in Search & Recommendation Systems with Application to LinkedIn Talent Search

We present a framework for quantifying and mitigating algorithmic bias in mechanisms designed for ranking individuals, typically used as part of web-scale search and recommendation systems. We first propose complementary measures to quantify bias with respect to protected attributes such as gender and age. We then present algorithms for computing fairness-aware re-ranking of results. For a given search or recommendation task, our algorithms seek to achieve a desired distribution of top ranked results with respect to one or more protected attributes. We show that such a framework can be tailored to achieve fairness criteria such as equality of opportunity and demographic parity depending on the choice of the desired distribution. We evaluate the proposed algorithms via extensive simulations over different parameter choices, and study the effect of fairness-aware ranking on both bias and utility measures. We finally present the online A/B testing results from applying our framework towards representative ranking in LinkedIn Talent Search, and discuss the lessons learned in practice. Our approach resulted in tremendous improvement in the fairness metrics (nearly three fold increase in the number of search queries with representative results) without affecting the business metrics, which paved the way for deployment to 100% of LinkedIn Recruiter users worldwide. Ours is the first large-scale deployed framework for ensuring fairness in the hiring domain, with the potential positive impact for more than 630M LinkedIn members.Comment: This paper has been accepted for publication at ACM KDD 201

Capitals and commitment. The case of a local learning and employment network.

This article draws on research undertaken with a Local Learning and Employment Network (LLEN) in the state of Victoria, Australia. LLEN are networks that were implemented by the state government in 2001 to undertake community capacity building through which the outcomes of young people aged 15-19 in education, training and employment would be enhanced. In 2008, in the context of an enhanced federal commitment to social inclusion through ‘joining-up’, the Victorian experience provides insights on the implications of such policy initiatives. Drawing on Bourdieu’s discussion of the forms of capital and Granovetter’s notion of the strength of weak ties, I argue that stores of economic, cultural and social capital as outlined by Bourdieu were necessary, but insufficient, for LLEN to achieve the objectives with which they were charged given the failure of government to follow through on the implications of its policies. I argue for a commitment on the part of all stakeholders to realise the potential of ‘joining-up’

The effectiveness of coordinated care for people with chronic respiratory disease

The document attached has been archived with permission from the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia (10 January 2008). An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of coordinated care for chronic respiratory disease. Design and setting: Community-based geographical control study, in western (intervention) and northern (comparison) metropolitan Adelaide (SA). Participants: 377 adults (223 intervention; 154 comparison) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma or other chronic respiratory condition, July 1997 to December 1999. Intervention: Coordinated care (includes care coordinator, care guidelines, service coordinator and care mentor). Main outcome measures: Hospital admissions (any, unplanned and respiratory), functionality (activities of daily living) and quality of life (SF-36 and Dartmouth COOP). Results: At entry to the study, intervention and comparison subjects were dissimilar. The intervention group was 10 years older (P < 0.001), less likely to smoke (P = 0.014), had higher rates of hospitalisation in the previous 12 months (P < 0.001) and had worse self-reported quality of life (SF-36 physical component summary score [P < 0.001] and four of nine COOP domains [P = 0.002–0.013]). After adjustment for relevant baseline characteristics, coordinated care was not associated with any difference in hospitalisation, but was associated with some improvements in quality of life (SF-36 mental component summary score [P = 0.023] and three of nine COOP domains [P = 0.008–0.031]) compared with the comparison group. Conclusions: Coordinated care given to patients with chronic respiratory disease did not affect hospitalisation, but it was associated with an improvement in some quality-of-life measures.Brian J Smith, Heather J McElroy, Richard E Ruffin, Peter A Frith, Adrian R Heard, Malcolm W Battersby, Adrian J Esterman, Peter Del Fante and Peter J McDonal

Agency theory and performance appraisal: how bad theory damages learning and contributes to bad management practice

Performance appraisal interviews remain central to how employees are scrutinised, rewarded and sometimes penalised by managers. But they are also often castigated as ineffective, or even harmful, to both individuals and organisations. Exploring this paradox, we highlight the influence of agency theory on the (mal)practice of performance appraisal. The performative nature of human resource management increasingly reflects an economic approach within which its practices are aligned with agency theory. Such theory assumes that actors are motivated mainly or only by economic self-interest. Close surveillance is required to eliminate the risk of shirking and other deviant behaviours. It is a pessimistic mind-set about people that undermines the supportive, co-operative and developmental rhetoric with which appraisal interviews are usually accompanied. Consequently, managers often practice appraisal interviews while holding onto two contradictory mind-sets, a state of Orwellian Doublethink that damages individual learning and organisational performance. We encourage researchers to adopt a more radical critique of appraisal practices that foregrounds issues of power, control and conflicted interests between actors beyond the analyses offered to date

Problematizing Strategic Alliance Research: Challenges, Issues and Paradoxes in the New Era

Strategic alliances have attracted substantial attention from industry and academia over the past three decades. However, due to rapid technological evolution, saturated marketplaces, globalisation of businesses on the one hand and de-globalisation of the market on the other (as marked by Brexit and the trade war between US and China, COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war), the strategic environment of businesses is changing quickly. Fundamental and rapid changes in the wider environment necessitate the review of theoretical and practical insights of earlier and emerging studies – to examine the new challenges, issues and paradoxes of strategic alliances. This special issue attempts to provide a forum to allow researchers to question the assumptions underlying existing theory a little further beyond just “gap-spotting” or “gap-filling”. This special issue includes four very interesting literature review pieces, which venture deeper into the phenomenon, and explore the opportunities, issues and paradoxes of strategic alliances while adopting alternative theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches and interpretations to address issues of managing strategic alliances and maximising returns from them in the new strategic context

Robot Rights? Let's Talk about Human Welfare Instead

The 'robot rights' debate, and its related question of 'robot responsibility', invokes some of the most polarized positions in AI ethics. While some advocate for granting robots rights on a par with human beings, others, in a stark opposition argue that robots are not deserving of rights but are objects that should be our slaves. Grounded in post-Cartesian philosophical foundations, we argue not just to deny robots 'rights', but to deny that robots, as artifacts emerging out of and mediating human being, are the kinds of things that could be granted rights in the first place. Once we see robots as mediators of human being, we can understand how the `robots rights' debate is focused on first world problems, at the expense of urgent ethical concerns, such as machine bias, machine elicited human labour exploitation, and erosion of privacy all impacting society's least privileged individuals. We conclude that, if human being is our starting point and human welfare is the primary concern, the negative impacts emerging from machinic systems, as well as the lack of taking responsibility by people designing, selling and deploying such machines, remains the most pressing ethical discussion in AI.Comment: Accepted to the AIES 2020 conference in New York, February 2020. The final version of this paper will appear in Proceedings of the 2020 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Societ

Autonomy as a Strategic Dial: A Dynamic Framework for Managing Acquired Subsidiaries

Managing acquired subsidiaries can be daunting. Parent and affiliate executives strive to co-create value, but fixed mindsets around subsidiary autonomy can result in diverging interests and outcomes. Through a longitudinal study of Audi's post-acquisition integration of supercar manufacturer Lamborghini, this article provides guidance on how to manage the level of acquired subsidiary autonomy as a strategic dial that can be dynamically adjusted over time for mutual benefit. This dynamic approach to autonomy rests on three specific managerial levers-appraisal respect, organizational identity, and resource orchestration. These can enable the renewal of competitive capabilities and sustain post-acquisition success