Abstract
In this article, we present a simple training exercise designed to test a candidate’s leadership ability to negotiate with other members of the organization, using their influence to achieve (partially or fully) their goals. While in practice, the play scenario would consist of combinations of human and artificial beings, the training scenario presented shall consist solely of artificial FEPs in order to demonstrate how influence can affect a result in a collaborative process.
TopIntroduction
Modern organizations are faced with many challenges with the trend toward distribution of their workforce across the planet. With this situation becoming more common, it is important for organizations to find ways of encouraging effective leadership and strong teamwork. Training and evaluation of the effectiveness of those employed can be an expensive exercise due to geographic separation of the parties involved. To this end, we propose a collaborative play scenario, using humans and artificial beings as fully equal partners (FEPs), to facilitate training and evaluation of a dispersed workforce.
While this scenario is a simple example of collaboration among human and artificial entities, moving this concept forward in other application areas creates questions about how artificial entities influence outcomes in the context of group decision making. The idea of social influence and acceptance of artificial beings as equal decision makers is explored, and how they may integrate into larger societies.
In this article, we present a simple training exercise designed to test a candidate’s leadership ability to negotiate with other members of the organization, using their influence to achieve (partially or fully) their goals. While in practice, the play scenario would consist of combinations of human and artificial beings, the training scenario presented shall consist solely of artificial FEPs in order to demonstrate how influence can affect a result in a collaborative process.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Collaborative Gap: The difference between the outcomes of groups of human and artificial entities in a collaborative decision-making scenario, where both sets of entities have the same beliefs and objectives.
Fully Equal Partner (FEP): An intelligent entity that performs tasks cooperatively with other FEPs (biological or artificial), but is also capable of being replaced one with another. These beings are not necessarily aware of the nature of their fellow partners.
Social Acceptance: Social acceptance of artificial FEPs is the ability of human FEPs to accept Artificial FEPs into the collaborative process and influence, and be influenced, by these entities.
Influence: Among FEPs is the ability of a FEP, during collaborative negotiation, to align another FEPs response with their own.
Intelligent Tools: Intelligent artificial entities that are utilised by humans but do not impact any collaborative decision-making process via social influences.
Collaborative Process: Involves the interaction of FEPs to achieve defined outcomes. The process involves questions, responses, actions and negotiation.
Group Collective Knowledge: Information that is presented to a group of FEPs collaboration.