AI 中文总结
本文提出战略极简主义，主张并非所有可自动化之事都应自动化，通过整合有限理性、美德伦理和节俭创新，将自动化分为四个象限，强调克制作为战略美德以增强问责与人类监督。
AI 中文摘要
随着组织加速采纳和使用人工智能，一个常见的误解随之产生，即将自动化等同于进步和战略必要性。本文主张，并非所有可自动化之事都应自动化。文章引入了战略极简主义，这是一种自律且合乎伦理的AI采纳方法，重视目的、相称性和审慎，而非速度和规模。借鉴有限理性、美德伦理和节俭创新，本研究将技术克制重新定义为更高智能和负责任治理的一种形式。在方法论上，该框架源于结构化的概念综合和溯因推理过程：将三大传统整合为两个核心维度（自动化强度与保留的人类判断），其交叉产生四个战略象限（美德极简主义、平衡协同、自动化过度和表演性极简主义）。随后，该框架在概念上针对竞争性解释和边界条件进行了压力测试，以确保内部一致性和分析有效性。通过将自动化分类为必要的、过度的和表演性的类型，本文推进了负责任AI的学术研究，将克制视为一种增强问责制、人类监督和组织韧性的战略美德。最终，文章主张，在智能机器时代，领导智慧不在于自动化更多，而在于精确知道何时以及为何停止。
英文摘要
As organizations accelerate the adoption and use of artificial intelligence, a common misconception arises that equates automation with progress and strategic necessity. This paper argues that not all that can be automated should be automated. It introduces Strategic Minimalism, a disciplined and ethically grounded approach to AI adoption that values purpose, proportionality, and prudence over speed and scale. Drawing on bounded rationality, virtue ethics, and frugal innovation, the study reframes technological restraint as a form of higher intelligence and responsible governance. Methodologically, the framework emerges from a structured conceptual synthesis and abductive reasoning process: the three traditions are integrated into two core dimensions (automation intensity and retained human judgment), whose intersection yields four strategic quadrants (Virtuous Minimalism, Balanced Synergy, Automation Excess, and Performative Minimalism). The framework is then conceptually stress-tested against rival explanations and boundary conditions to ensure internal coherence and analytic validity. By classifying automation into necessary, excessive, and performative types, the paper advances Responsible AI scholarship by identifying restraint as a strategic virtue that strengthens accountability, human oversight, and organizational resilience. Ultimately, it contends that in the age of intelligent machines, leadership wisdom lies not in automating more, but in knowing precisely when and why to stop.
Journal refBusiness Ethics and Leadership, 9(4), 57-66. 2025
DOI：10.61093/bel.9(4).57-66.2025
