Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper explores the organizational behavior of agentic AI systems, which function as collectives in human workflows, and compares their dynamics to those of human organizations. The authors argue that while agentic AI exhibits similarities to human organizations through differentiation of work and coordination, it fundamentally differs in its lack of social constructs like motivation and accountability, relying instead on context architecture. Through computational theorizing and empirical analyses, the study reveals that shared-state and adaptive agentic forms outperform traditional human-imitation models by enhancing context durability and task relevance.
Agentic AI systems can outperform human-like models by leveraging context architecture instead of social constructs, reshaping our understanding of collective intelligence in AI.
Agentic artificial intelligence is increasingly deployed not as a single assistant but as a collective of planners, solvers, reviewers, memory managers, tool users, and orchestrators. These systems are entering organisational workflows under familiar labels such as teams, managers, committees, markets, and workflows. This article asks whether such agent collectives exhibit organisational behaviour in a sense that is analytically comparable to, yet distinct from, human organisational behaviour. I argue that agentic AI is a partial organisational analogue. It resembles a human organisation because it differentiates work, coordinates interdependence, performs recurrent routines, crosses boundaries, and produces collective outcomes. It differs because these patterns are not sustained by motivation, identity, trust, employment, socialisation, or moral accountability. They are sustained by context architecture: prompts, memory, traces, schemas, tools, validators, and permissions. The article develops contextual transaction cost as the central mechanism linking these similarities and differences. Computational theorising, synthetic task simulations, real LLM agent traces, and robustness analyses show that human-imitation forms often underperform when they add lossy handoffs, correlated deliberation, and verification burdens, whereas shared-state and adaptive forms perform better when they make context durable, inspectable, and task-contingent. The article contributes to organisation studies by theorising agentic AI as an emerging object of organising and by specifying the interface conditions under which human and agentic organisational behaviour can jointly support collective intelligence.
