Aug 2026· Journal of Management and Informatics· 0 citations
TL;DR
The study develops a diagnostic framework that identifies three constitutive dimensions of misalignment and suggests that adaptive governance models incorporating structured flexibility such as curated AI tool marketplaces and expedited approval pathways are theoretically more effective than highly rigid governance regimes.
Abstract
The widespread adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led organizations to establish formal governance frameworks aimed at mitigating ethical, legal, and operational risks. Despite these efforts, AI governance frequently fails in practice, as evidenced by the growing prevalence of Shadow AI the unsanctioned use of AI tools by employees. Existing scholarly and practitioner discourses predominantly frame this phenomenon as a compliance failure or security vulnerability, thereby emphasizing stricter controls and enhanced employee training as primary remedies. This conceptual study challenges that prevailing view by arguing that Shadow AI represents a structural manifestation of policy–practice misalignment rather than a problem of individual deviance. The study develops a diagnostic framework that identifies three constitutive dimensions of misalignment: temporal gaps (mismatches between governance processes and operational speed), utility gaps (misalignment between sanctioned tools and task-specific needs), and autonomy–control gaps (tensions between professional discretion and standardization). Drawing on a theory-driven conceptual methodology integrating sociotechnical systems theory with policy–practice analysis, and illustrated through structured synthetic organizational scenarios, the study demonstrates how governance designs that overlook the realities of situated work systematically generate Shadow AI practices. The analysis further suggests that adaptive governance models incorporating structured flexibility such as curated AI tool marketplaces and expedited approval pathways are theoretically more effective than highly rigid governance regimes. The primary contribution lies in advancing a practice-aware AI governance model that reframes Shadow AI as a diagnostic signal of systemic design flaws and provides a foundation for more legitimate and responsive AI governance.
By showing that AI use intensifies rather than replaces human judgment, the study underscores the continued centrality of human responsibility in public decision-making and suggests that effective AI governance requires a shift from restrictive, compliance-focused approaches towards enabling and adaptive strategies.
The paper proposes the Operational AI Governance Maturity Model (OAGMM), a framework organized around four independently assessed operational dimensions - discovery, enforcement, GRC integration, and agentic governance - each scored across five levels of operational capability, and proposes a dimension-specific profile...
The article demonstrates how labour markets and migration governance function as "stress-test" domains in which continuous classification, automated risk assessment, worker scoring, and fragmented data environments can amplify existing structural inequalities.
A. Sinchev, Svetlana Bekmambetova· Work· 0 citations
The study demonstrates how MHC can be translated from an ethical principle into governance practice and shows that meaningful control depends not only on human involvement in decisions, but also on defined purposes and boundaries, operational procedures for review and correction, legal safeguards, and institutional cap...
Tak-Ming Yu, Xia Zheng, Hoi-Kuen Ng· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
Current AI governance strategies and guardrails ensure that AI systems adhere to the ethical principles, legal requirements, and safety standards. However, they create organisational rigidity which could potentially delay new deployments, fail to capture tacit qualitative information, are sometimes unable to enforce th...
M. Nkwo, M. Adamu, Francis Brako et al.· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
This paper advances a layered ethics-stack perspective and argues that AI governance should be evaluated not only by the presence of principles, but also by the distribution of operational controls, positive commitments, and enforceable constraints across institutional layers.
Marianne Najm· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.