Is Strategic Decision-Making Still Human? A Systems Review of Agency, Algorithms, and Enterprise Strategy

Strategic decision-making (SDM) has traditionally been viewed as a human activity based on judgment, experience, and negotiation among senior managers. These decisions are limited by attention constraints, incomplete information, and bounded rationality. Today, many firms embed artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic decision-making systems into strategic processes. In some cases, algorithms do more than support managers. They filter options, rank priorities, and strongly shape final decisions. This article asks when SDM remains meaningfully human and when it becomes effectively algorithmic in algorithmically mediated enterprises. The study uses a theory-building integrative review of 62 contributions from strategy, information systems, behavioural research, and governance. It compares human and algorithmic decision-making across five dimensions: interpretive authority, search structure, time orientation, accountability, and scalability. Based on this analysis, it develops a framework of human–AI decision structures. The framework identifies three main forms: human-dominant, sequential hybrid (AI-to-human or human-to-AI), and aggregated human–AI governance structures. Each form affects not only decision accuracy but also power, learning, agency, and accountability. The key challenge is not to defend purely human strategy. It is to design governance systems where decision rights, oversight, and contestability remain strong when algorithms act as active decision participants.