arXiv AI
The article introduces the AI Leadership Battery, a new measurement tool comprising 36 behaviorally specific items organized into 11 theory-specified content families. The authors followed rigorous scale‑development procedures—including deductive item generation, content validation, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and multiple validity tests—to establish the Battery’s content, multidimensional structure, reliability, and distinctiveness from related constructs. The measure demonstrates incremental predictive value for organizational outcomes such as growth, decision speed, customer response, team performance, work experience, security, and AI adoption.
arXiv:2609.15624v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Researchers assessing competent generative-AI use at work must choose among self-reports, objective tests, and measures of oversight and reliance. We...
By Daniele Veri'
arXiv:2608. 13428v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Assessing the maturity of artificial intelligence technologies is essential for investment decisions, project management, and policy monitoring, yet the available readiness frameworks are heterogeneous and difficult to apply automatically: the adaptation of Technology Readiness Levels to AI lacks AI-specific gating criteria, the Machine Learning Technology Readiness Levels presuppose access to internal process artifacts, and AI/data readiness dimension models employ scales that resist direct comparison.
By Juan Irving Vasquez, Juan Terven, Laura-Ivoone Garay-Jimenez
arXiv:2512. 12413v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Generative AI tools are increasingly embedded in everyday work and learning, yet their fluency, opacity, and propensity to hallucinate mean that users must critically evaluate AI outputs rather than accept them at face value.
By Gabriel R. Lau, Wei Yan Low, Louis Tay, Ysabel Guevarra, Dragan Ga\v{s}evi\'c, Andree Hartanto
arXiv:2607. 17947v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing AI measurement frameworks quantify cognitive capability, task automation, or catastrophic risk, but none measure autonomous agency: the extent to which a system behaves in a self-directed way.
By Samuel Presgraves
arXiv:2607. 08285v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current AI evaluation frameworks focus primarily on technical performance, including accuracy, robustness, reasoning ability, and policy compliance.
By Marcos Economides, Paul M. Sacher, Samuel Salzer, Alexis Michelle Abellar, Fendi Tsim, Antoine Ferr\`ere
arXiv:2407. 10247v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into corporate strategy has become critical for organizations seeking to maintain competitive advantage in the digital age.
By Marc Schmitt
arXiv:2607. 01421v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Engineering management research has produced mature frameworks for software risk: ownership by feature, escalation by severity, and assurance by test coverage.
By Laxmipriya Ganesh Iyer
arXiv:2606. 16319v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern AI systems exhibit structural failures that capability scaling alone does not reliably fix: they optimize under-specified objectives with no architectural mechanism to question whether the objective should be optimized at all.
By Edward Y. Chang
Engineering management research has produced mature frameworks for software risk: ownership by feature, escalation by severity, and assurance by test coverage. These frameworks implicitly assume deterministic behavior, discrete and auditable change events, and clear component-to-owner mappings.
The paper titled "The Moral Check: Strategic AI Governance for the Pacing Problem" argues that technology cannot self‑steer and that strategy must guide AI development by ensuring purpose and judgment precede compute. It presents a dual contribution: a PRISMA 2020 review of 130 empirical studies and the Strategic AI Governance Ex‑Ante Framework (SAGE‑X), which operationalizes four strategic mindset pillars to mitigate velocity myopia, moral hazard, empirical hazard endpoints, and guardrail decay. The framework includes a calculable Moral Check Index and an Enterprise Lifecycle Audit Instrument to enforce that AI scaling does not outpace deliberative moral judgment, human agency, and societal trust.
By Zaid Amin, Rahma Santhi Zinaida, Nazlena Mohamad Ali
arXiv:2606. 17459v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating the decision-making capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is a growing research priority, yet existing benchmarks focus on isolated cognitive tasks such as reasoning, knowledge retrieval, and economic rationality in stylized settings.
By Yuyang Dai, Xueqing Peng, Lingfei Qian, Zhuohan Xie
Discover how leaders can build AI-ready organizations using clear strategy, training, governance, and accelerated innovation.