How ensembling AI and public managers improves decision-making

Florian Keppeler et al.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory2025https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf009article
AJG 4ABDC A
Weight
0.56

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications transform public sector decision-making. However, most research conceptualizes AI as a form of specialized decision-support tool. In contrast, this study presents a different form of human-AI collaboration, the concept of human-AI ensembles, where public managers and AI tackle the same decision tasks, rather than specializing in certain subtasks. This is particularly relevant for many public sector decisions, where neither human nor AI predictions have a clear advantage over the other. We illustrate this within the context of public hiring, focusing on two key areas: (a) the potential of ensembling humans and AI to reduce biases and (b) the willingness of public managers to implement ensembling. Study 1 uses data from the assessment of profiles of real-life job candidates (n = 695) at the intersection of gender and ethnicity by public managers compared to AI. The exploratory linear regression results illustrate how ensembled decision-making may alleviate ethnic biases. The linear regression results of study 2, a preregistered survey experiment, show that public managers (n = 538 with four observations each) put equal weight on AI advice and human advice, and, when reminded of the unlawfulness of hiring discrimination, may even prioritize AI over human advice.

10 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf009

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{florian2025,
  title        = {{How ensembling AI and public managers improves decision-making}},
  author       = {Florian Keppeler et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf009},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

How ensembling AI and public managers improves decision-making

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.56

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.55 × 0.4 = 0.22
M · momentum0.75 × 0.15 = 0.11
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.