Calibrated Trust in Agentic AI Work Systems: A Social Trust Calibration Framework for Responsible Human-AI Adoption

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming social and organisational life by moving AI from an assistive tool into a semi-autonomous actor that can plan, recommend, communicate, coordinate workflows and trigger decisions. Existing debates on trustworthy AI often emphasise technical reliability, legal compliance or ethical principles, but social adoption depends on a subtler question: how do people learn when to trust, distrust, verify or refuse AI outputs in everyday work? This conceptual research develops the Social Trust Calibration Framework (STCF) for responsible human-AI adoption in organisations and public institutions. Using an integrative conceptual synthesis of trust theory, automation research, organisational sensemaking, algorithmic management, human-centred AI and contemporary AI governance guidance, the study identifies the mechanisms through which AI trust becomes either calibrated, excessive, deficient or displaced. The resulting framework argues that trust in agentic AI must be calibrated across four mutually dependent layers: capability trust, process trust, institutional trust and identity trust. The paper contributes a formal definition of calibrated AI trust, a social calibration loop, a diagnostic matrix of trust states, a maturity model and seven research propositions for future empirical testing. The analysis shows that appropriate reliance cannot be achieved by accuracy alone. It requires visible evidence, role-specific verification routines, accountable decision rights, psychological safety, transparent escalation paths and protection of human agency. The paper concludes that responsible AI adoption should be treated as a social trust calibration problem rather than a simple technology acceptance problem. This reframing offers practical guidance for leaders, educators and policymakers seeking to scale AI while preserving human judgement, legitimacy and social confidence.

agentic AI, social trust calibration, human-AI collaboration, organisational sensemaking, AI governance

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chae, H. S., Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2025). Factors affecting human-generative AI collaboration: The roles of trust and perceived usefulness. Information, 16(10), 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16100856 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organisational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organisational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Metcalf, J., Moss, E., Watkins, E. A., Singh, R., & Elish, M. C. (2021). Algorithmic impact assessments and accountability: The co-construction of impacts. Big Data & Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211022780 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Milanez, A. (2025). Algorithmic management in the workplace. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse and abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe and trustworthy. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1145/223248.223263 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sun, H., Liu, W., Wu, D., Yu, G., & Yao, M. (2025). Revisiting trust in the era of generative AI: Factorial structure and latent profiles. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Tan, K. H. (2025a). Artificial intelligence as stakeholder: A novel framework for ethical recognition in value-creation ecosystems. ResearchGate. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Tan, K. H. (2025b). Dynamic equilibrium theory for ethical AI: Balancing epistemic uncertainty, human autonomy and social equity in high-stakes fluctuational decision systems. ResearchGate. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Tan, K. H. (2025c). The digital productivity paradox: A novel framework for understanding the asymmetric distribution of technological benefits. ResearchGate. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tan, K. H. (2025d). The paradox of technological displacement: A novel framework for understanding AI and automation's impact on human capital development and labor market transformation. ResearchGate. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tan, K. H. (2026a). Beyond automation: Sensemaking, ontological insecurity, and the emergence of the AI-form organisation in the digital era. British Research Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.67177/gywqbn07 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Tan, K. H. (2026b). Agentic AI and the dissolution of managerial authority: A critical qualitative analysis of organisational sensegiving in the era of autonomous decision-making systems. ResearchGate. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study