Who has the right to decide?
In dialogue with the distinction between formal and real authority in Aghion & Tirole (1997) [R1].
AI · AUTHORITY · ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
Who decides when humans and AI work together?
We investigate how organizations allocate decision rights, integrate knowledge, and determine who may change the rules.
01 — Three questions
Who shapes the decision in practice?
In dialogue with the distinction between formal and real authority in Aghion & Tirole (1997) [R1].
Who can change those rules?
A question from the lab’s agenda, not a finding attributed to the article.
02 — Authority Explorer
Make decision rights visible.
Explore a fictional commercial order and observe the difference between recommending, deciding, and changing the rule.
— Information→ Recommendation▣ Decision○ Review right
Conceptual demonstration. Not an experimental result.
Referred to a human. Values less than or equal to the limit are eligible for automated decision in this scenario.
- Who recommends
- AI agent — review needed
- Who decides
- Commercial manager
- Who may intervene
- Commercial manager
- Who is accountable for the process
- Commercial director
- Who may change the rule
- Policy owner
03 — Concepts
A vocabulary for investigating authority.
01
Literature concept
Formal authority
Formal authority is the right to decide. It specifies who may determine a decision even when another person or system recommends otherwise. This right does not guarantee effective control over the outcome.
Read concept02Literature concept
Real authority
Real authority is effective control over decisions. The distribution of information may allow an actor to shape the outcome decisively without holding the formal decision right.
Read concept03Literature concept
Epistemic authority
Epistemic authority concerns reasons to trust another person’s judgment about what to believe. It helps distinguish deference to knowledge from obedience to a hierarchical position.
Read concept04Literature concept
Organizational design
Organizational design involves dividing work and integrating effort. Tasks, information, incentives, and authority must work together so individual contributions can support collective action.
Read concept05Lab proposal
Authority over organizational design
Beyond deciding within a rule, someone must be able to change the rule. Our agenda examines who may redistribute decision rights, change approval limits, and redesign collaboration between people and AI.
Read concept06Empirical evidence
Human–AI collaboration
The contribution of a human–AI team depends on the task and how capabilities are combined. Collaboration does not guarantee outperforming the best individual contributor. How disagreement and binding decisions are organized also matters.
Read concept04 — Research
An agenda in development.
01
Mapping the literature
In development
02
Authority and initiative
In development
03
View agendaAuthority transfer
In development
Lab proposal
Our working definition
“Authority design is the deliberate specification of who may propose, decide, execute, veto, and review decisions—and who may change those rules.”
05 — Editorial note
Who decides—and who designs who decides?
Authority Design Lab raises an additional question: who may change that allocation? Approving an exception and redesigning the policy that produces exceptions are different interventions. Our agenda treats this distinction as a research and organizational design problem.
Read the note06 — Founder
Fábio Rodrigues
Business executive, production and systems engineer, and doctoral student in Business Administration at FGV EAESP. His research interests connect organizational design, authority, and human–AI collaboration.
About