Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 117 references

How Managers Perceive AI-Assisted Conversational Training for Workplace Communication

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Managers see AI role-play as a practice tool, not a replacement for human mentors.

desk verdict Carefully scoped exploratory study that earns a serious referee; the main risk is treating one prototype as representative of all AI-assisted training, but the authors are honest about that. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14452 v2 pith:75IIABW7 submitted 2025-05-20 cs.HC cs.AI

Lance T. Wilhelm , Xiaohan Ding , Kirk McInnis Knutsen , Buse Carik , Eugenia H. Rho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords human-AIinteractionconversationalsystemdesigncommunicationtrainingworkplacelargelanguagemodelsrole-playleadershipdevelopmentqualitativestudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Managers already practice difficult workplace conversations through trial and error or self-guided resources, because structured training and mentorship are scarce. This paper argues that AI-assisted role-play can fill that gap, provided the system lets managers customize scenarios, receive iterative context-aware feedback, and keep a human coach in the loop. Based on interviews with 17 managers who used a working GPT-4-based probe called CommCoach, the authors find that managers value low-risk, repeatable simulations for practicing tough conversations, and see AI as augmenting rather than replacing human mentorship. The paper's contribution is a design direction: communication training systems should balance personalization with consistency, realism with fairness, and open-ended dialogue with structured workplace goals.

What carries the argument

CommCoach, a functional probe built for the study, is a web-based role-play sandbox with two GPT-4 agents: an actor that plays the supervisee and a coach that watches the dialogue and intervenes with context-aware feedback. Its load-bearing features are a scenario editor for custom workplace situations, an intervention prompt that decides when feedback appears, clickable feedback items that open a reflective dialogue with the coach, and chat branching that lets users revise a message and compare conversational outcomes. This machinery lets the study observe how managers actually engage with AI-assisted training rather than only asking them to imagine it.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison where managers practice the same difficult conversation either with CommCoach or with a higher-fidelity system that supports spoken interaction, user-chosen personas, and adjustable feedback thresholds; if managers in the higher-fidelity condition systematically prefer different feedback timing, less human-AI teaming, or different customization, then the stated preferences are not generalizable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that managers perceive AI-assisted role-play as a valuable tool for practicing workplace communication when it offers customization, iterative feedback, and contextual adaptation. In the study, participants wanted scenarios built from their own supervisory challenges, feedback on tone and blind spots that arrives in the moment and can be discussed, and control over the conversational partner's personality and difficulty. They saw AI's greatest potential as a supplement to human mentorship, with human coaches designing scenarios, interpreting feedback, and providing judgment in emotionally complex cases. The authors also surface tensions managers recognized: adaptive feedback versus consistent standards, realistic personas versus the risk of encoding social bias, and open-ended AI conversation versus structured workplace discourse.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that CommCoach, a single GPT-4 implementation with fixed prompts, is a representative stand-in for the general class of AI-assisted communication training, so reactions to its particular features reveal durable preferences rather than artifacts of that prototype.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI communication trainers aimed at managers should treat scenario customization, persona control, and structured learning objectives as first-class features rather than optional extras.
  • Feedback designs should support immediate, in-situ coaching alongside optional end-of-session reflection, since managers valued both timings in different contexts.
  • Systems should be framed as human-AI teaming tools, pairing scalable AI practice with human coaches who design scenarios and contextualize feedback, rather than as standalone replacements for mentorship.
  • Designers must add safeguards against bias in AI-generated personas and against use of training data for employee surveillance or performance scoring.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The study's preferences are partly a response to CommCoach's specific constraints, including text-only chat, masked names, and a prompt-set intervention threshold, so a speech-enabled or persona-customizable version could shift which feedback timing and realism features managers prioritize.
  • The team-aggregation idea raised by one participant suggests a testable extension: pooling training sessions could surface collective communication patterns for teams, but that same data moves into surveillance territory and needs explicit consent boundaries.
  • If managers' demand for actionable, context-aware feedback generalizes, the unit of value in AI communication training is the feedback loop, message, intervention, revision, comparison, rather than the chatbot conversation itself.
  • A direct consequence the authors leave implicit is that the strongest test of this design direction is whether managers who practice with such systems communicate more effectively with real supervisees, not merely whether they like the tool.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents an exploratory qualitative study of 17 managers who used CommCoach, a GPT-4-based conversational role-play probe with an AI coach agent that provides in-situ feedback, scenario customization, chat branching, and dialogic reflection. Through semi-structured interviews and a think-aloud protocol, the authors investigate how managers perceive AI-assisted communication training. Their analysis, based on grounded theory coding (346 open, 69 axial, 15 selective codes), yields themes around customizable realistic scenarios, adjustable partner behavior, structured training objectives, feedback content and timing, human-AI teaming, low-risk iterative practice, and tensions such as adaptability versus consistency, realism versus bias, and open-ended dialogue versus structured workplace discourse. The paper closes with design implications and a conceptual framework for AI-assisted managerial communication training.

Significance. The study addresses a genuine gap: how managers, rather than students or clinical trainees, envision AI-based communication training. Its strengths include a transparent description of the functional probe and its prompts, a detailed coding process, rich participant quotes, and an unusually honest limitations section. The findings on human-AI teaming and the ethical concerns about surveillance and bias are worthwhile contributions to the CUI community. As an exploratory qualitative investigation, the paper generates plausible, falsifiable design hypotheses for future work. Its credibility is somewhat limited by the use of a single unvalidated probe and the absence of inter-rater reliability details, but these are not fatal for an exploratory study if the claims are appropriately scoped.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Appendix A.2.1] The intervention threshold for coach feedback is produced by an LLM-generated boolean via a 'simple prompt' with no reported calibration or statistics. Section 6.3.2 reports a majority preference for immediate in-situ feedback, but this preference may be an artifact of the probe's actual intervention rate: if the coach intervened too often or too rarely, participants would naturally request different timing. The authors should report the number of interventions per session or per message and relate the observed intervention rate to the stated timing preferences. Without this, the headline feedback-timing finding is difficult to interpret as a stable perception of AI-assisted training.
  2. [Abstract, §7] The abstract and discussion generalize from a single text-only GPT-4 probe with masked names, a specific prompt framework, and a particular intervention mechanism to 'AI-assisted communication training' as a class. The limitations section (§7.6) acknowledges the exploratory status, but the design implications in §7 and the abstract's 'AI-assisted communication training should balance...' go beyond what one probe can support. The authors should qualify these implications as hypotheses generated from one functional probe and explicitly discuss how the probe's design choices (e.g., no speech, masked names, prompt-based threshold) might have shaped the findings.
  3. [§5.3] The coding process is described numerically (346 open, 69 axial, 15 selective codes), but the primary analysis was conducted by the first author without inter-rater reliability or a shared codebook, and the statement that 'the research team collaboratively reviewed and refined the resulting themes' is vague. For an exploratory grounded theory study, this is not disqualifying, yet the paper would be stronger if it reported how many transcripts were independently coded, how disagreements were resolved, or provided a sample of the coding tree. This would increase confidence that the selective themes are not idiosyncratic to a single coder.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'distiled', 'Particpants', 'miltary', 'mangerial', 'orgnaization', 'impodance', 'Tavior', 'ensunno', 'prenaring', 'navinate', and 'disciolinay'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [§4, Appendix A.2] The paper states that user and interlocutor names are masked to reduce gender bias, yet several participant-generated scenarios (Appendix B.2.2) include clearly gendered names such as 'Sharla', 'Morgan', 'Bob', and 'Tim'. Please clarify whether the masking applies only to the conversational messages or also to the scenario text, and describe how any residual gender cues in the scenario affect the reported bias-mitigation strategy.
  3. [§6.2.2] The finding that participants desired adjustable conversational partner behavior, including demographic traits such as age and educational background, is presented without explicitly linking it to the probe's fixed 'colloquial' actor style and masked names. A sentence connecting this preference to the prototype's limited persona variation would help readers assess whether the theme reflects a general need or a specific reaction to CommCoach's constraints.
  4. [§5.1] The participant table lists 'Report # (employees)' and includes a 20-year-old participant with 13 reports; it would be helpful to state employment levels (e.g., first-line, middle, senior) to contextualize the sample's managerial range, as the authors themselves note that career stage matters (§6.4.2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the study is an empirical interview investigation whose findings are elicited, not derived from its inputs by construction.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation and contains no fitted parameters or equations. The central claim—that managers perceive AI-assisted role-play as useful for customization, iterative feedback, and contextual adaptation—is an interpretive summary of semi-structured interviews, not a quantity computed from the probe. The closest structural loop is that CommCoach was 'informed by themes from the formative study' (Section 4) and the main protocol asks directly about features such as feedback timing and branching (Appendices B.1.4–B.1.5); thus some expressed preferences may be influenced by the instrument. But this is an instrument/elicitation concern, not a reduction by construction: participants also voiced preferences for capabilities the probe lacked (e.g., persona control, speech, delayed feedback) and disagreed with one another (e.g., P1 and P10 found immediate feedback too early; P16 preferred independent attempts). The authors explicitly acknowledge the exploratory status and limited generalizability (Section 7.6). The only self-citation ([29], for prompt chaining) supports a peripheral design choice and is not load-bearing for the findings. No self-definitional, fitted-prediction, uniqueness-import, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming patterns are present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on three qualitative assumptions rather than formal axioms: interview self-reports are authentic, the CommCoach probe represents the general class of AI communication trainers, and the coding process captures stable themes. No free parameters or invented entities are used.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Self-reported perceptions during interviews reflect genuine anticipated use of AI training tools.
    Sections 5.2 and 5.3 rely on semi-structured interviews and think-aloud data; Section 7.6 explicitly acknowledges social-desirability and authenticity concerns.
  • domain assumption CommCoach is a representative functional probe of AI-assisted communication training.
    Section 4 describes a single GPT-4 implementation with fixed prompts; participant reactions could be prototype-specific, as the paper itself notes in Sections 6.2 and 7.6.
  • domain assumption Thematic coding by the first author with team review yields stable themes.
    Section 5.3 describes grounded theory coding but reports no inter-rater reliability, codebook, or independent audit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Managers Perceive AI-Assisted Conversational Training for Workplace Communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75IIABW7

@misc{pith2026250514452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Managers Perceive AI-Assisted Conversational Training for Workplace Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75IIABW7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14452}
}
read the original abstract

Effective workplace communication is essential for managerial success, yet many managers lack access to tailored and sustained training. Although AI-assisted communication systems may offer scalable training solutions, little is known about how managers envision the role of AI in helping them improve their communication skills. To investigate this, we designed a conversational role-play system, CommCoach, as a functional probe to understand how managers anticipate using AI to practice their communication skills. Through semi-structured interviews, participants emphasized the value of adaptive, low-risk simulations for practicing difficult workplace conversations. They also highlighted opportunities, including human-AI teaming, transparent and context-aware feedback, and greater control over AI-generated personas. AI-assisted communication training should balance personalization, structured learning objectives, and adaptability to different user styles and contexts. However, achieving this requires carefully navigating tensions between adaptive and consistent AI feedback, realism and potential bias, and the open-ended nature of AI conversations versus structured workplace discourse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14452 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. User-experience flow for CommCoach, the functional probe used during user study interviews (Note: text has been truncated in some cases to accommodate space, indicated with elipses). (1) Users can either start with the default scenario or design custom scenarios through an interactive process with the coach agent. Once a user is satisfied with a scenario, they can accept it and (2) start a new conversation with the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework for AI-assisted managerial communication training. User Input introduces diverse communication styles, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. UI screenshot of the functional probe, CommCoach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Users can create custom scenarios through the scenario editor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Immediate feedback is provided to users via the side panel. Hovering over specific feedback items will show more [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Users can discuss specific feedback items with the coach via an additional popup window. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Technical Report

    2024.2024 Work Trend Index Annual Report. Technical Report. Microsoft

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    New and aspiring leaders use AI to increase their Impact at work

    2024. New and aspiring leaders use AI to increase their Impact at work. https://workspace.google.com/blog/ai-and-machine-learning/rising- leaders-embrace-ai-new-research-google-workspace-and-harris-poll

    2024

  3. [3]

    Adams, Debra Nestel, and Peter Wolf

    Cindy L. Adams, Debra Nestel, and Peter Wolf. 2006. Reflection: A Critical Proficiency Essential to the Effective Development of a High Competence in Communication.Journal of Veterinary Medical Education33, 1 (March 2006), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.33.1.58 Publisher: University of Toronto Press

    work page doi:10.3138/jvme.33.1.58 2006

  4. [4]

    Olusegun Agboola Sogunro. 2004. Efficacy of role-playing pedagogy in training leaders: some reflections.Journal of Management Development23, 4 (Jan. 2004), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410529802 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    work page doi:10.1108/02621710410529802 2004

  5. [5]

    Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for Human- AI Interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Ma...

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Riku Arakawa and Hiromu Yakura. 2020. INWARD: A Computer-Supported Tool for Video-Reflection Improves Efficiency and Effectiveness in Executive Coaching. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376703

    arXiv 2020

  7. [8]

    Jolanta Aritz, Robyn Walker, Peter Cardon, and Zhang Li. 2017. Discourse of Leadership: The Power of Questions in Organizational Decision Making. International Journal of Business Communication0 (Jan. 2017), 232948841668705. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416687054

    work page doi:10.1177/2329488416687054 2017

  8. [9]

    Agnese Augello, Manuel Gentile, Lucas Weideveld, and Frank Dignum. 2016. A Model of a Social Chatbot. InIntelligent Interactive Multimedia Systems and Services 2016, Giuseppe De Pietro, Luigi Gallo, Robert J. Howlett, and Lakhmi C. Jain (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 637–647. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-39345-2_57

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39345-2_57 2016

Show all 117 references
  1. [10]

    2021.Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace: litera- ture review and policy recommendations

    Kirstie Ball. 2021.Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace: litera- ture review and policy recommendations. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. OCLC: 1289305461

    2021

  2. [11]

    Richard A. Barker. 1997. How Can We Train Leaders if We Do Not Know What Leadership Is?Human Relations50, 4 (April 1997), 343–362. https: //doi.org/10.1177/001872679705000402 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    1997 doi

  3. [12]

    2021.Human-Centered AI

    Hollen Barmer, Rachel Dzombak, Matthew Gaston, Vijaykumar Palat, Frank Redner, Carol Smith, and Tanisha Smith. 2021.Human-Centered AI. report. Carnegie Mellon University. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/16560183.v1

    2021 doi

  4. [13]

    Alexander Borg, Ioannis Parodis, and Gabriel Skantze. 2024. Creating Virtual Patients using Robots and Large Language Models: A Preliminary Study with Medical Students. InCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’24). Association ...

    2024

  5. [14]

    1985.Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning

    David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. 1985.Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning. Kogan Page. Google-Books-ID: xBshIryFdr0C

    1985

  6. [15]

    Boyd and Ann W

    Evelyn M. Boyd and Ann W. Fales. 1983. Reflective Learning: Key to Learning from Experience.Journal of Humanistic Psychology23, 2 (April 1983), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167883232011 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    1983 doi

  7. [16]

    Marie-Stéphanie Bracq, Estelle Michinov, and Pierre Jannin. 2019. Virtual Reality Simulation in Nontechnical Skills Training for Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review.Simulation in Healthcare14, 3 (2019), 188. https://doi. org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000347

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffr...

    2020 doi arXiv

  9. [18]

    Lucy Bryant, Melissa Brunner, and Bronwyn Hemsley. 2020. A review of virtual reality technologies in the field of communication disability: implications for practice and research.Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology15, 4 (May 2020), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2020

  10. [19]

    Phyllis Butow and Ehsan Hoque. 2020. Using artificial intelligence to analyse and teach communication in healthcare.The Breast50 (April 2020), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.01.008 Publisher: Elsevier

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    1840.On Heroes, Hero-worship and the Heroic in History

    Thomas Carlyle. 1840.On Heroes, Hero-worship and the Heroic in History. Chap- man and Hall

  12. [21]

    Chang, Charlotte Schluger, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

    Jonathan P. Chang, Charlotte Schluger, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil

  13. [22]

    Charlier, Greg L

    Steven D. Charlier, Greg L. Stewart, Lindsey M. Greco, and Cody J. Reeves. 2016. Emergent leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel investigation of individual communication and team dispersion antecedents.The Leadership Quarterly27, 5 (Oct. 2016), 745–764. https://doi.org/10....

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    2006.Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis

    Kathy Charmaz. 2006.Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE. Google-Books-ID: v1qP1KbXz1AC

    2006

  15. [24]

    Tianying Chen, Michael Xieyang Liu, Emily Ding, Emma O’Neil, Mansi Agarwal, Robert E Kraut, and Laura Dabbish. 2023. Facilitating Counselor Reflective Learning with a Real-time Annotation tool. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI...

    2023

  16. [25]

    2015.Basics of Qualitative Research

    Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2015.Basics of Qualitative Research. SAGE. Google-Books-ID: Dc45DQAAQBAJ

    2015

  17. [26]

    Jung, Nicola Dell, Deborah Estrin, and James A

    Andrea Cuadra, Maria Wang, Lynn Andrea Stein, Malte F. Jung, Nicola Dell, Deborah Estrin, and James A. Landay. [n. d.]. The Illusion of Empathy? Notes on Displays of Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System...

    2024

  18. [27]

    Thomas Davidson, Debasmita Bhattacharya, and Ingmar Weber. 2019. Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasets. InProceedings of the Third Workshop on Abusive Language Online, Sarah T. Roberts, Joel Tetreault, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Zeerak Waseem (Eds...

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    Galina Deeva, Daria Bogdanova, Estefanía Serral, Monique Snoeck, and Jochen De Weerdt. 2021. A Review of Automated Feedback Systems for Learners: Clas- sification Framework, Challenges and Opportunities.Computers & Education 162 (2021), 104094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comped...

    2021

  20. [30]

    Drath and Charles J

    Wilfred H. Drath and Charles J. Palus. 1994.Making Common Sense: Leadership as Meaning-making in a Community of Practice. Center for Creative Leadership. Google-Books-ID: mLcqAgAAQBAJ

    1994

  21. [31]

    2007.Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology

    Gail Fairhurst. 2007.Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology. SAGE. How Managers Perceive AI-Assisted Conversational Training for Workplace Communication CUI ’25, July 8–10, 2025, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    2007

  22. [32]

    Fairhurst and Mary Uhl-Bien

    Gail T. Fairhurst and Mary Uhl-Bien. 2012. Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process.The Leadership Quarterly 23, 6 (Dec. 2012), 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.005

    2012 doi

  23. [33]

    Rowanne Fleck and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2010. Reflecting on Reflection: Fram- ing a Design Landscape. InProceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer- Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Inter- action(New York, NY, USA, 2010-11-22)(OZC...

    2010

  24. [34]

    Jianfeng Gao, Michel Galley, and Lihong Li. 2018. Neural Approaches to Conversational AI. InThe 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Re- search & Development in Information Retrieval(New York, NY, USA, 2018- 06-27)(SIGIR ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, 1371–13...

    2018

  25. [36]

    M. G. Helander. 1997.Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Elsevier. Google-Books-ID: 6vnSAwAAQBAJ

    1997

  26. [37]

    Sandy Hershcovis, Nick Turner, Julian Barling, Kara A

    M. Sandy Hershcovis, Nick Turner, Julian Barling, Kara A. Arnold, Kathryne E. Dupré, Michelle Inness, Manon Mireille LeBlanc, and Niro Sivanathan. 2007. Pre- dicting Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 1 (2007), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2007 doi

  27. [38]

    Merve Hickok and Nestor Maslej. 2023. A policy primer and roadmap on AI worker surveillance and productivity scoring tools.Ai and Ethics(March 2023), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00275-8

    2023 doi

  28. [39]

    Hoffman, David J

    Brian J. Hoffman, David J. Woehr, Robyn Maldagen-Youngjohn, and Brian D. Lyons. 2011. Great man or great myth? A quantitative re- view of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84, 2 (2011)...

    2011 doi

  29. [40]

    Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’99). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159–166. https: //doi.org/10.1145/302979.303030

    1999

  30. [42]

    Cox, Ara Avakian, and Thomas Knoll

    Ioanna Iacovides, Anna L. Cox, Ara Avakian, and Thomas Knoll. [n. d.]. Player strategies: achieving breakthroughs and progressing in single-player and co- operative games. InProceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computer-human interaction in play(New York, NY...

    2014

  31. [43]

    Juhani Iivari and Magda Huisman. 2007. The Relationship between Organiza- tional Culture and the Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies. MIS Quarterly31, 1 (2007), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148780 Publisher: Management Information Systems Research Center, Unive...

    2007 doi

  32. [44]

    Kori Inkpen, Shreya Chappidi, Keri Mallari, Besmira Nushi, Divya Ramesh, Pietro Michelucci, Vani Mandava, Libuše Hannah Vepřek, and Gabrielle Quinn

  33. [45]

    Hancock, and Mor Naaman

    Maurice Jakesch, Megan French, Xiao Ma, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Mor Naaman

  34. [46]

    Colby Johanson, Brandon Piller, Carl Gutwin, and Regan L. Mandryk. [n. d.]. If at First You Don’t Succeed: Helping Players Make Progress in Games with Breaks and Checkpoints. 7 ([n. d.]), 387:342–387:368. Issue CHI PLAY. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3611033

    doi

  35. [47]

    Vivien Johnston, Michaela Black, Jonathan Wallace, Maurice Mulvenna, and Raymond Bond. 2019. A framework for the development of a dynamic adaptive intelligent user interface to enhance the user experience. InProceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. 32–35

    2019

  36. [48]

    Judge, Joyce E

    Timothy A. Judge, Joyce E. Bono, Remus Ilies, and Megan W. Gerhardt. 2002. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review.Journal of Applied Psychology87, 4 (2002), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87. 4.765

    2002 doi

  37. [49]

    Ronit Kark. 2011. Games Managers Play: Play as a Form of Leadership Develop- ment.Academy of Management Learning & Education10, 3 (Sept. 2011), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0048

    2011

  38. [50]

    Orit Karnieli-Miller. 2020. Reflective practice in the teaching of communication skills.Patient Education and Counseling103, 10 (Oct. 2020), 2166–2172. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.06.021

    2020 doi

  39. [51]

    2010.Communication and Organizational Culture: A Key to Understanding Work Experiences

    Joann Keyton. 2010.Communication and Organizational Culture: A Key to Understanding Work Experiences. SAGE Publications. Google-Books-ID: TV12AwAAQBAJ

    2010

  40. [52]

    Everlyne Kimani, Kael Rowan, Daniel McDuff, Mary Czerwinski, and Gloria Mark. 2019. A Conversational Agent in Support of Productivity and Wellbeing at Work. In2019 8th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2019

  41. [53]

    2006.Investigating Workplace Discourse

    Almut Koester. 2006.Investigating Workplace Discourse. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015742

    2006 doi

  42. [54]

    David A. Kolb. 1984.Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall. Google-Books-ID: zXruAAAAMAAJ

    1984

  43. [55]

    Michal Kolomaznik, Vladimir Petrik, Michal Slama, and Vojtech Jurik. 2024. The role of socio-emotional attributes in enhancing human-AI collaboration.Fron- tiers in Psychology15 (Oct. 2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1369957 Publisher: Frontiers

    2024

  44. [56]

    Nikola Kovacevic, Tobias Boschung, Christian Holz, Markus Gross, and Rafael Wampfler. 2024. Chatbots With Attitude: Enhancing Chatbot Interactions Through Dynamic Personality Infusion. InProceedings of the 6th ACM Con- ference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI ’24). Assoc...

    2024

  45. [57]

    Kurtessis, Robert Eisenberger, Michael T

    James N. Kurtessis, Robert Eisenberger, Michael T. Ford, Louis C. Buffardi, Kath- leen A. Stewart, and Cory S. Adis. 2017. Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Organizational Support Theory.Journal of Man- agement43, 6 (July 2017), 1854–1884. https:/...

    2017 doi

  46. [58]

    Alina Köchling and Marius Claus Wehner. 2020. Discriminated by an algorithm: a systematic review of discrimination and fairness by algorithmic decision- making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development.Business Research 13, 3 (Nov. 2020), 795–848. https://doi.org/10....

    2020 doi

  47. [59]

    Lacerenza, Denise L

    C. Lacerenza, Denise L. Reyes, Shannon L. Marlow, Dana L Joseph, and E. Salas. 2017. Leadership Training Design, Delivery, and Implementation: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology102 (2017), 1686–1718. https: //doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241

    2017 doi

  48. [60]

    Christine Lackner and Tanya Martini. 2017. Helping university students succeed at employment interviews: The role of self-reflection in e-portfolios.Teach- ing and Learning Inquiry5, 2 (Sept. 2017), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.20343/ teachlearninqu.5.2.2 Number: 2

    2017

  49. [61]

    1987.Role Play

    Gillian Porter Ladousse. 1987.Role Play. OUP Oxford. Google-Books-ID: oS4STyscmpYC

    1987

  50. [62]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. https://doi.org...

    2021 doi arXiv

  51. [63]

    J. C. R. Licklider. 1960. Man-Computer Symbiosis. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/ medg/people/psz/Licklider.html

    1960

  52. [64]

    Bing Liu, Gokhan Tur, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, Pararth Shah, and Larry Heck. 2018. Dialogue Learning with Human Teaching and Feedback in End-to-End Trainable Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.06512 arXiv:1804.06512 [cs]

    2018 doi arXiv

  53. [65]

    Robert Loo. 2002. Journaling: A Learning Tool for Project Management Training and Team-building.Project Management Journal33, 4 (Dec. 2002), 61–66. https: //doi.org/10.1177/875697280203300407 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2002 doi

  54. [66]

    Ioannis Magnisalis, Stavros Demetriadis, and Anastasios Karakostas. 2011. Adap- tive and Intelligent Systems for Collaborative Learning Support: A Review of the Field.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies4, 1 (Jan. 2011), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2011.2 Conferenc...

    2011 doi

  55. [67]

    Bahar Mahmud, Guan Hong, and Bernard Fong. 2023. A Study of Human–AI Symbiosis for Creative Work: Recent Developments and Future Directions in Deep Learning.ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.20, 2 (Sept. 2023), 47:1–47:21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3542698

    2023 doi

  56. [68]

    John C. Maxwell. 1993.Developing the Leader Within You. Thomas Nelson Inc. googlebooks:tBdBo0dfX88C

    1993

  57. [69]

    John C. Maxwell. 2007.The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader: Becoming the Person Others Will Want to Follow. HarperCollins Leadership. google- books:HaO2qbfBMGEC

    2007

  58. [70]

    John C. Maxwell. 2007.The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You. HarperCollins Leadership

    2007

  59. [71]

    Morgan W. McCall. 2004. Leadership Development through Experience.The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005)18, 3 (2004), 127–130. https: //www.jstor.org/stable/4166101 Publisher: Academy of Management

    2004

  60. [72]

    R. P. McDermott and David R. Roth. 1978. The Social Organization of Behavior: Interactional Approaches.Annual Review of Anthropology7, 1 (Oct. 1978), CUI ’25, July 8–10, 2025, Waterloo, ON, Canada Lance T. Wilhelm, Xiaohan Ding, Kirk McInnis Knutsen, Buse Carik, and Eugenia H....

    1978

  61. [73]

    Enda McGovern, Gerardo Moreira, and Cuauhtemoc Luna-Nevarez. 2020. An application of virtual reality in education: Can this technology enhance the quality of students’ learning experience?Journal of Education for Business95, 7 (Oct. 2020), 490–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/0883...

    2020

  62. [74]

    Mclaren, Oliver Scheuer, and Jan Mikšátko

    Bruce M. Mclaren, Oliver Scheuer, and Jan Mikšátko. 2010. Supporting Collab- orative Learning and E-Discussions Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education20, 1 (Jan. 2010), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAI-2010-0001...

    2010 doi

  63. [75]

    Mena-Guacas, Jairo Alonso Urueña Rodríguez, David Mauricio San- tana Trujillo, José Gómez-Galán, and Eloy López-Meneses

    Andres F. Mena-Guacas, Jairo Alonso Urueña Rodríguez, David Mauricio San- tana Trujillo, José Gómez-Galán, and Eloy López-Meneses. 2023. Collaborative learning and skill development for educational growth of artificial intelligence: A systematic review.Contemporary Educational...

    2023 doi

  64. [76]

    Dirk Metzger, Christina Niemöller, Benjamin Wingert, Tobias Schultze, Matthias Bues, and Oliver Thomas. 2017. How Machines Are Serviced - Design of a Virtual Reality-based Training System for Technical Customer Services.Wirtschaftsin- formatik 2017 Proceedings(2017). https://a...

    2017

  65. [77]

    Mihnea Moldoveanu and Das Narayandas. 2019. The Future of Leadership Development.Harvard business reviewMarch April 2019 (March 2019), 40

    2019

  66. [78]

    Muller and Sandra Kogan

    Michael J. Muller and Sandra Kogan. 2012. Grounded Theory Method in Human- Computer Interaction and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. InHuman Computer Interaction Handbook(3 ed.). CRC Press. Num Pages: 21

    2012

  67. [79]

    Pedro Neves and Robert Eisenberger. 2012. Management Communi- cation and Employee Performance: The Contribution of Perceived Or- ganizational Support.Human Performance25, 5 (Nov. 2012), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.721834 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https:/...

    2012

  68. [80]

    Han Wei Ng, Aiden Koh, Anthea Foong, and Jeremy Ong. 2023. Real-Time Hybrid Language Model for Virtual Patient Conversations. InArtificial Intelli- gence in Education, Ning Wang, Genaro Rebolledo-Mendez, Noboru Matsuda, Olga C. Santos, and Vania Dimitrova (Eds.). Springer Natu...

    2023 doi

  69. [81]

    Northouse

    Peter G. Northouse. 2021.Leadership: Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications. Google-Books-ID: 6qYLEAAAQBAJ

    2021

  70. [82]

    Fox Harrell

    Pablo Ortiz and D. Fox Harrell. 2018. Enabling Critical Self-Reflection through Roleplay with Chimeria: Grayscale. InProceedings of the 2018 Annual Sympo- sium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 353–364...

    2018

  71. [83]

    Ulrich Hoppe

    Julia Othlinghaus-Wulhorst and H. Ulrich Hoppe. [n. d.]. A Technical and Conceptual Framework for Serious Role-Playing Games in the Area of Social Skill Training. InFrontiers in Computer Science(2020-07-31), Vol. 2. 28. https: //doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00028 ISSN: 2624-9898...

    2020

  72. [84]

    Rock Yuren Pang, Hope Schroeder, Kynnedy Simone Smith, Solon Barocas, Ziang Xiao, Emily Tseng, and Danielle Bragg. 2025. Understanding the LLM-ification of CHI: Unpacking the Impact of LLMs at CHI through a Systematic Literature Review. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.1255...

    2025 doi arXiv

  73. [85]

    Bahman Pangh, Leila Jouybari, Mohamad Ali Vakili, Akram Sanagoo, and Aysheh Torik. 2019. The Effect of Reflection on Nurse-Patient Communication Skills in Emergency Medical Centers.Journal of Caring Sciences8, 2 (June 2019), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2019.011 Num Pag...

    2019 doi

  74. [86]

    Jeongeon Park and DaEun Choi. 2023. AudiLens: Configurable LLM-Generated Audiences for Public Speech Practice. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’23 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    2023

  75. [87]

    Bernstein

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2023. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(San Francis...

    2023

  76. [88]

    Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S

    Joon Sung Park, Lindsay Popowski, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2022. Social Simulacra: Creating Populated Prototypes for Social Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208. 04024 arXiv:2208.04024 [cs]

    2022 doi arXiv

  77. [89]

    Flor Miriam Plaza-del Arco, Amanda Cercas Curry, Alba Curry, Gavin Aber- crombie, and Dirk Hovy. 2024. Angry Men, Sad Women: Large Language Models Reflect Gendered Stereotypes in Emotion Attribution. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2403.03121 arXiv:2403.03121 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  78. [90]

    Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J

    Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer.J. Mach. Learn. Res.21 (2019), 140:1–140:67. https://api.sem...

    2019

  79. [91]

    Sebastian Raisch and Sebastian Krakowski. 2021. Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox.Academy of Manage- ment Review46, 1 (Jan. 2021), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072 Publisher: Academy of Management

    2021

  80. [92]

    Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards Empathetic Open-domain Conversation Models: A New Benchmark and Dataset. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational L...

    2019 doi

  81. [93]

    Jana Retkowsky, Ella Hafermalz, and Marleen Huysman. 2024. Managing a ChatGPT-empowered workforce: Understanding its affordances and side effects. Business Horizons(April 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.04.009

    2024 doi

  82. [94]

    1993.Leadership for the Twenty-First Century

    Joseph Rost. 1993.Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Bloomsbury Aca- demic

    1993

  83. [95]

    Anthony Saliba and Peter Ostojic. 2014. Personality and Participation: Who Volunteers to Participate in Studies.Psychology5, 3 (March 2014), 230–243. https: //doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.53034 Number: 3 Publisher: Scientific Research Publishing

    2014

  84. [96]

    Maarten Sap, Dallas Card, Saadia Gabriel, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. The Risk of Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Anna Korho- nen, David Traum, and Lluís Màrquez (Eds.). A...

    2019 doi

  85. [97]

    Scandura

    Terri A. Scandura. [n. d.]. Mentorship and Career Mobility: An Empirical Inves- tigation. 13, 2 ([n. d.]), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130206

    doi

  86. [98]

    Scandura and Ethlyn A

    Terri A. Scandura and Ethlyn A. Williams. [n. d.]. Mentoring and Transforma- tional Leadership: The Role of Supervisory Career Mentoring. 65, 3 ([n. d.]), 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.003

    2003 doi

  87. [99]

    Donald A. Schön. 1983.The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate. Google-Books-ID: E85qAAAAMAAJ

    1983

  88. [100]

    Iulian Serban, Alessandro Sordoni, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. Building End-To-End Dialogue Systems Using Generative Hierar- chical Neural Network Models.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence30, 1 (March 2016). https://doi.o...

    2016 doi

  89. [101]

    Bernstein

    Omar Shaikh, Valentino Emil Chai, Michele Gelfand, Diyi Yang, and Michael S. Bernstein. [n. d.]. Rehearsal: Simulating Conflict to Teach Conflict Resolution. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2024-05-11)(CHI ’24). Ass...

    2024

  90. [102]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.04087 arXiv:2002.04087 [cs]

    2020 doi arXiv

  91. [103]

    France St-Hilaire and Marie-Hélène Gilbert. 2019. What do leaders need to know about managers’ mental health?Organizational Dynamics48, 3 (July 2019), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.11.002

    2019 doi

  92. [104]

    Guangzhi Sun, Xiao Zhan, and Jose Such. 2024. Building Better AI Agents: A Provocation on the Utilisation of Persona in LLM-based Conversational Agents. InProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2024

  93. [105]

    Filiz Tabak and Mariana Lebron. 2017. Learning by Doing in Leadership Edu- cation: Experiencing Followership and Effective Leadership Communication Through Role-Play.Journal of Leadership Education16, 2 (April 2017), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.12806/V16/I2/A1

    2017 doi

  94. [106]

    Bennett J. Tepper. [n. d.]. Consequences of Abusive Supervision. 43, 2 ([n. d.]), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375

    doi

  95. [107]

    Bonner, Jon Bush, David T

    Chase Thiel, Juliet M. Bonner, Jon Bush, David T. Welsh, and Nitya Garud. 2022. Monitoring employees makes them more likely to break rules.Harvard Business Review(2022). https://hbr.org/2022/06/monitoring-employees-makes-them- more-likely-to-break-rules

    2022

  96. [108]

    Xuena Wang, Xueting Li, Zi Yin, Yue Wu, and Liu Jia. 2023. Emotional Intelli- gence of Large Language Models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.09042 arXiv:2307.09042 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  97. [109]

    Rojas- Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young

    Tsung-Hsien Wen, David Vandyke, Nikola Mrksic, Milica Gasic, Lina M. Rojas- Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young. 2017. A Network-based End-to-End Trainable Task-oriented Dialogue System. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.1604.04562 arXiv:1604.04562 [cs, stat]

    2017 doi arXiv

  98. [110]

    Philipp Wintersberger, Niels Van Berkel, Nadia Fereydooni, Benjamin Tag, Elena L Glassman, Daniel Buschek, Ann Blandford, and Florian Michahelles

  99. [111]

    Ning Wu, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Shining Liang, and Daxin Jiang. [n. d.]. Large Language Models Are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation. arXiv:2303.15078 [cs] http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15078

    arXiv

  100. [112]

    Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie Jun Cai. 2022. AI Chains: Trans- parent and Controllable Human-AI Interaction by Chaining Large Language How Managers Perceive AI-Assisted Conversational Training for Workplace Communication CUI ’25, July 8–10, 2025, Waterloo, ON, Canad...

    2022

  101. [113]

    O’Reilly Media, Inc

    Jon Yablonski. 2020.Laws of UX: Using Psychology to Design Better Products & Services. "O’Reilly Media, Inc. ". Google-Books-ID: BuneDwAAQBAJ

    2020

  102. [114]

    InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts

    Designing for continuous interaction with artificial intelligence systems. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–4

  103. [115]

    Lawrence Jun Zhang and Donglan Zhang. 2019. Think-aloud protocols. InThe Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Routledge. Num Pages: 10

    2019

  104. [116]

    An Ideal Human

    Rui Zhang, Nathan J. McNeese, Guo Freeman, and Geoff Musick. 2021. "An Ideal Human": Expectations of AI Teammates in Human-AI Teaming.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW3 (Jan. 2021), 246:1–246:25. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3432945

    2021

  105. [117]

    properties

    Hangyu Zhou, Yuichiro Fujimoto, Masayuki Kanbara, and Hirokazu Kato. 2021. Virtual Reality as a Reflection Technique for Public Speaking Training.Applied Sciences11, 9 (Jan. 2021), 3988. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093988 Number: 9 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publish...

    2021 doi

  106. [118]

    Don’t Leave Us Behind

    Ruth Enid Zambrana, Rashawn Ray, Michelle M. Espino, Corinne Castro, Beth Douthirt Cohen, and Jennifer Eliason. 2015. “Don’t Leave Us Behind”: The Importance of Mentoring for Underrepresented Minority Faculty.American Educational Research Journal52, 1 (Feb. 2015), 40–72. https...

    2015

  107. [2019]

    InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19)

    AI-Mediated Communication: How the Perception that Profile Text was Written by AI Affects Trustworthiness. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10...

    2019

  108. [2022]

    2022), 1–37

    Thread With Caution: Proactively Helping Users Assess and Deesca- late Tension in Their Online Discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3555603

    2022

  109. [2023]

    Comput.-Hum

    Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.30, 5 (Sept. 2023), 71:1–71:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3534561

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.