Paper Number
ICIS2026-2588
Paper Type
Completed
Abstract
The safe and responsible development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) is among the most consequential challenges facing organizations and society today. Yet how AGI-pursuing organizations construct and articulate digital responsibility remains not well understood. Drawing on hybrid organization theory, we examine, through a case study of OpenAI and Anthropic, how these organizations manage field-level tensions between development speed and model safety. Organizations respond by deploying a portfolio of five practice types, of which four constitute an organizational responsibility architecture, while the subthemes of ‘market positioning’ appear to serve as legitimacy signal or acceleration-supporting mechanism. The responsibility architecture has a seemingly strong impact on AI safety, weak impact on broader sustainability implications, and is largely internally controlled. These findings reveal structural limits of voluntary self-governance, highlight the need for governance frameworks that extend beyond organizational discretion, and illustrate how engineering overlaps between the commercial and welfare logic can steer responsible behavior.
Recommended Citation
Kuhlmann, Lea; Olschewski, Philipp; and Staudt, Philipp, "Managing Tensions Between Speed and Safety: Digital Responsibility in Hybrid AGI Organizations" (2026). ICIS 2026 Proceedings. 11.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2026/society/society/11
Managing Tensions Between Speed and Safety: Digital Responsibility in Hybrid AGI Organizations
The safe and responsible development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) is among the most consequential challenges facing organizations and society today. Yet how AGI-pursuing organizations construct and articulate digital responsibility remains not well understood. Drawing on hybrid organization theory, we examine, through a case study of OpenAI and Anthropic, how these organizations manage field-level tensions between development speed and model safety. Organizations respond by deploying a portfolio of five practice types, of which four constitute an organizational responsibility architecture, while the subthemes of ‘market positioning’ appear to serve as legitimacy signal or acceleration-supporting mechanism. The responsibility architecture has a seemingly strong impact on AI safety, weak impact on broader sustainability implications, and is largely internally controlled. These findings reveal structural limits of voluntary self-governance, highlight the need for governance frameworks that extend beyond organizational discretion, and illustrate how engineering overlaps between the commercial and welfare logic can steer responsible behavior.
Comments
06_Societal_impacts