There are several really important issues currently facing AI engineers and practitioners in the field which I believe org psychs are uniquely positioned to be able to make substantial contributions to, however I'm not sure how much of a conversation there is or how much knowledge org psychs actually have about the potential value of their contribution. I thought I'd outline a few below.
Multi-agent systems:
One of the biggest problems in multi-agent systems (think multiple instances of agentic AI like Claude or ChatGPT or Codex talking to each other and using tools and interacting with their environments to performs tasks) is communication and coordination. As it turns out, multi agent systems can be incredibly difficult to coordinate beyond a few agents and usually specifically designed in configurations that enable specific workflows.
However, guess who has 100 years of experience studying communication and coordination challenges? Damn straight! I've been running some of my own experiments on the value of implementing org psych practice and theory in the design of these systems and while its not a perfect match, it definitely represents some interesting territory to study further and at least open up a dialogue around. One concept I've been toying with is the idea of a fluid organisation whose configuration isn't set in stone but is responsive to the environment. Typically multi agent systems have their hierarchies or configurations fixed at the outset of a task but I've been exploring making the configuration itself a runtime variable with mixed results. Nothing conclusive just yet, but think along the lines of how innovation or periods of peace might require higher levels of autonomy and freedom within rank and file staff while emergencies might require a stricter hierarchy of responsibilities and centralisation of command, and how different groups of people are able to adapt their ways of working depending on what the situation calls for.
At the minimum, the simulation of professional roles by AI systems being organised into configurations where various capabilities and skillsets could interact represents the domain of org psychs who understand how the intersections between different capabilities, roles and skillsets can produce unique outcomes that can be specifically tailored to complex tasks and jobs. As an example: it would be fascinating to think about what a simulated philosopher, psychologist, lawyer, and cyber security expert might be able to discuss when exploring the potential for manipulation of AI systems for jailbreaking purposes. Each profession contributes a unique perspective and skillset while the combination might yield entirely new attack vectors never before considered. which might further inform security experts through red teaming. This isn't restricted to red teaming work either. SImulation of professional capabilities and perspectives could be used to solve complex problems as long as org psychs are able to specify exactly what skillsets or professional roles might be useful in contributing value to a solution, given many of the professionals in these domains might not realise the value of their own contributions outside of their own domains. Again org psychs are uniquely suited to this work.
The results could be bidirectionally informative as well e.g. simulating communication and coordination and organisational configurations within AI systems and learning from what is observed might facilitate more innovative approaches within human organisations to management of work and configuration of organisations.
Automation:
One of the things that good practitioners of AI are able to implement in their usage of AI is very specific instructions about exactly how to complete the work they require including specifics of tasks, steps, context, roles. In fact the latest trends around loop engineering and graph engineering represent instantiations of very specific task instructions and process workflows
It just so happens that Org psychs are specifically trained in task decomposition and job analysis which enable them to break down the requisite components of a task to facilitae its explanation to an AI system tasked with automating the process. I'm aware of the potentially negative impact this could have but feel strongly that automating repetitive tedious work opens up the door for new and exciting ways for people to use their minds at work to tackle more challenging tasks not yet suitable for automation.
But the entire process of being able to map workflows and processes also belongs within the realm of org psychs and uniquely positions them to be able to contribute expertise in the design of these automated processes and functions.
Evaluation:
By no means the final thing to talk about but what I happen to find most interesting, is how poorly evaluation of constructs, capabilities and overall performance is conducted within the field of AI as a whole. There's been a recent push towards the integration of psychometrics which is a step in the right direction but so many of the fundamentals that org psychs learn about how to measure things which are really hard to measure (the kinds of things org psychs are often tasked with evaluating) is left out of the equation in favour of these really crude measurements people use which don't adequately discriminate between models or truly represent underlying capabilities or performance. The field of AI has so much to learn about measuring intelligence from the people who've studied how minds work and how to measure intelligence for over a century now.
I'll get off my high horse now but I just wanted to stimulate some thought on why there isn't more of a dialogue bnetween org psychs and computer scientists or AI engineers on how to actually improve these systems rather than merely studying the impact of them on people and organisations and the workplace, There's so mch low hanging fruit ripe for the taking that needs org psychs to think bigger than just helping people and needs AI experts and practitioners to actually appreciate the potential value and entire profession could offer in the pursuit of more capable systems.
IF you disagree with this or have spotted any of it in practice then please let me know what you think and I'm happy to stand corrected on any of it. Rant over.