LLM Nepotism in Organizational Governance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09620v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 09:35:25 GMT
• Title: LLM Nepotism in Organizational Governance
• Abstract summary: We study an attitude-driven bias channel in which favorable signals toward AI are rewarded even when they are not relevant to role-related merit.<n>We find that resume screeners tend to favor candidates with positive or non-critical attitudes toward AI, discriminating skeptical, human-centered counterparts.
• Score: 17.949596290855293
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used to support organizational decisions from hiring to governance, raising fairness concerns in AI-assisted evaluation. Prior work has focused mainly on demographic bias and broader preference effects, rather than on whether evaluators reward expressed trust in AI itself. We study this phenomenon as LLM Nepotism, an attitude-driven bias channel in which favorable signals toward AI are rewarded even when they are not relevant to role-related merit. We introduce a two-phase simulation pipeline that first isolates AI-trust preference in qualification-matched resume screening and then examines its downstream effects in board-level decision making. Across several popular LLMs, we find that resume screeners tend to favor candidates with positive or non-critical attitudes toward AI, discriminating skeptical, human-centered counterparts. These biases suggest a loophole: LLM-based hiring can produce more homogeneous AI-trusting organizations, whose decision-makers exhibit greater scrutiny failure and delegation to AI agents, approving flawed proposals more readily while favoring AI-delegation initiatives. To mitigate this behavior, we additionally study prompt-based mitigation and propose Merit-Attitude Factorization, which separates non-merit AI attitude from merit-based evaluation and attenuates this bias across experiments.

Related papers

• Position: agentic AI orchestration should be Bayes-consistent [92.04373485710285]
  This paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system.<n>It provides examples and design patterns to illustrate how beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T15:43:43Z)
• No Thoughts Just AI: Biased LLM Hiring Recommendations Alter Human Decision Making and Limit Human Autonomy [8.423021413553464]
  People collaborate with simulated AI models exhibiting race-based preferences (bias) to evaluate candidates for 16 high and low status occupations.<n>Simulated AI bias approximates factual and counterfactual estimates of racial bias in real-world AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T17:16:26Z)
• AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights [0.0611737116137921]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) systematically favor their own generated content over human-written resumes.<n>This bias can be reduced by more than 50% through simple interventions targeting LLMs' self-recognition capabilities.<n>These findings highlight an emerging but previously overlooked risk in AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-30T11:40:11Z)
• Fairness Is Not Enough: Auditing Competence and Intersectional Bias in AI-powered Resume Screening [0.0]
  This study investigates the question of competence through a two-part audit of eight major AI platforms.<n>Experiment 1 confirmed complex, contextual racial and gender biases, with some models penalizing candidates merely for the presence of demographic signals.<n>Experiment 2, which evaluated core competence, provided a critical insight: some models that appeared unbiased were, in fact, incapable of performing a substantive evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T16:57:13Z)
• Addressing Bias in LLMs: Strategies and Application to Fair AI-based Recruitment [49.81946749379338]
  This work seeks to analyze the capacity of Transformers-based systems to learn demographic biases present in the data.<n>We propose a privacy-enhancing framework to reduce gender information from the learning pipeline as a way to mitigate biased behaviors in the final tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:29:43Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Do LLMs trust AI regulation? Emerging behaviour of game-theoretic LLM agents [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators and users, modelling their strategic choices under different regulatory scenarios.<n>Our research identifies emerging behaviours of strategic AI agents, which tend to adopt more "pessimistic" stances than pure game-theoretic agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T15:41:21Z)
• Achieving Socio-Economic Parity through the Lens of EU AI Act [11.550643687258738]
  Unfair treatment and discrimination are critical ethical concerns in AI systems.<n>The recent introduction of the EU AI Act establishes a unified legal framework to ensure legal certainty for AI innovation and investment.<n>We propose a novel fairness notion, Socio-Economic Parity (SEP), which incorporates Socio-Economic Status (SES) and promotes positive actions for underprivileged groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T12:27:27Z)
• Fairness in AI-Driven Recruitment: Challenges, Metrics, Methods, and Future Directions [0.0]
  Recruitment process significantly impacts an organization's performance, productivity, and culture.<n>This paper systematically reviews biases identified in AI-driven recruitment systems, categorizes fairness metrics and bias mitigation techniques, and highlights auditing approaches used in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T05:25:14Z)
• Beyond Recommender: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Different AI Roles in AI-Assisted Decision Making [48.179458030691286]
  We examine three AI roles: Recommender, Analyzer, and Devil's Advocate. Our results show each role's distinct strengths and limitations in task performance, reliance appropriateness, and user experience. These insights offer valuable implications for designing AI assistants with adaptive functional roles according to different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:32:28Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.