ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
The paradox of efficiency: institutional interfaces, residuals, and the erosion of innovation drivers in AI-augmented organizations.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes deeply embedded in organizational cognition and decision-making, a profound paradox emerges: AI significantly enhances operational efficiency while systematically eroding the generation and retention of innovation drivers. This study introduces the institutional interface as a meso-level analytical lens for examining how specific configurations of AI design choices, human-AI interaction protocols, and organizational norms produce systematic biases. Under the design conditions theorized in this article, these configurations tend to erode innovation drivers through unconscious automatic execution and residual production. This study illuminates a key feature of AI-driven institutional execution-unconscious automatic execution-and deconstructs it into three dimensions: opacity of execution, loss of agency, and diminished reflexivity. It introduces the concept of residuals to capture the cognitive, behavioral, and value-laden elements that deviate from statistical mainstreams or resist quantification and are systematically deprioritized or excluded from organizational awareness. Under specific design conditions and viewed through the three nested interface lenses, AI systems tend to filter residuals across the cognitive, action, and value interfaces, systematically excluding potentially valuable innovations and impoverishing organizational cognitive diversity. This study articulates the conditions under which a self-reinforcing tendency toward efficiency lock-in emerges and theorizes the institutional features-non-optimization zones, outlier pathways, and paradox-balancing roles-that may counteract this drift. Critically, it further reveals the persistent and irreducible dilemmas facing such features (isolation, authority, and evaluation), arguing that they are tensions to be continually managed rather than problems to be solved. Advancing testable theoretical propositions, this article offers new analytical tools and design directions for innovation governance in AI-augmented organizations. It contributes directly to discussions on AI's role in business understanding and managerial decision support, while laying the conceptual foundation for a broader research program on the learning and governance of AI-augmented organizations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.