AI and human capital: an Italian perspective within a European context

(Il Sole 24 Ore Radiocor) - Ethics, respect for the individual and human choice – principles that must be safeguarded amidst the rapid development of artificial intelligence, a point also emphasised in recent days by the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella – are already in the spotlight for European companies and the managers responsible for running them. Artificial intelligence is, in fact, already rapidly finding its way into corporate decision-making processes, and this is an irreversible trend. The question is not whether it will be used, but how to govern its use, particularly when the recommendations produced by AI systems can affect work, career opportunities and people. This topic was among those at the heart of the two-day discussion in Copenhagen, which brought together representatives of European managerial organisations, experts and professionals from various countries as part of the launch of the European AI MANAGE project, promoted by CEC European Managers, the European organisation that brings together and represents national managerial associations and federations. The project is dedicated to the responsible use of artificial intelligence in managerial work and in organisations’ decision-making processes.

Among the participants was Luigi Severini, a manager with extensive experience in organisation and human resources, president of Federmanager Calabria, a board member of 4.Manager – a company focused on corporate culture – and founder and CEO of OpereAI, an Italian start-up that develops artificial intelligence solutions for HR processes. ‘It’s been two intense days, full of discussion and inspiration,’ he says, ‘which have allowed me to compare my managerial and entrepreneurial experience with perspectives from various European countries. This has reinforced my conviction: the real challenge is not to slow down the adoption of AI, but to learn how to manage it without undermining the role and responsibility of decision-makers.”

The premise is that one cannot generalise, and not all uses of AI carry the same level of risk. ‘Using a system to support the approval of a minor expense is not the same as using it to select a person, assess their performance or affect their career prospects,’ explains Severini. Two factors can help distinguish between these scenarios: the impact of the decision on individuals and its reversibility. The more significant the consequences of a decision and the more difficult it is to rectify, the greater the level of human verification, judgement and supervision should be.”

Recruitment is perhaps the most obvious example. Artificial intelligence can analyse large numbers of CVs, identify skills, compare professional experience, support assessment processes and help draw up shortlists. To forego these capabilities would mean foregoing a significant part of the value that technology can offer. ‘The critical point, however, comes in the next step: it is one thing for a system to highlight characteristics, similarities or differences between profiles; it is quite another to let it automatically determine who should be hired and who should be excluded.’ It is here that the ‘human’ role of the manager takes on its true form and substance.

During the debate on Responsible AI at the Copenhagen meeting, terms such as ‘human-in-the-loop’, ‘human oversight’ and ‘human agency’ were mentioned. ‘But the mere formal presence of a person within the decision-making process does not, in itself, guarantee the responsible use of artificial intelligence,’ continues the CEO of OpereAI. ‘The crucial question is another: does the person making the decision really have the opportunity to understand, challenge and override the system’s recommendation?’