A human service agent may stay late to solve a customer’s problem, take extra care with a difficult complaint, or try to earn a manager’s praise. Those actions can matter to the employee personally. Effort may bring compensation, recognition, job security, pride, or a customer’s gratitude.
An AI service agent can apologize, search a database, offer a refund, and escalate a case. But performing those actions does not show that it has personal stakes in doing so. The answer depends on what motive means. If it means a personal reason that matters to the agent as a person, current AI service agents have no demonstrated human-like motive. If it means an objective that helps explain or predict a system’s behaviour, an AI agent can be described as having a functional motive.
The distinction matters because organizations may judge human and AI agents by similar service outcomes while relying on very different mechanisms to produce them. People can respond to compensation and recognition. AI systems respond to the objectives, data, tools, and constraints built into their operation. Neither arrangement guarantees good service.
Human motivation: effort, reward, and recognition
Compensation matters to human motivation, but it is not limited to wages or bonuses. Employees may value promotion, job security, a strong performance review, trust from a supervisor, respect from colleagues, or a customer’s thanks. These outcomes can make extra effort personally worthwhile. Such incentives can permeate an organization’s culture, affecting how employees interpret their responsibilities and what they believe the organization values.
Vroom’s expectancy theory offers a framework for understanding this connection. It proposes that motivation depends on whether a person believes effort can lead to effective performance, whether performance can lead to a desired outcome, and whether that outcome is valuable to them. Because this essay relies on Van Eerde and Thierry’s review and meta-analysis rather than Vroom’s book directly, the APA in-text citation is (Vroom, 1964, as cited in Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). Their meta-analysis examined 77 studies of Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria, including performance, effort, intention, preference, and choice.
This framework helps explain why recognition and praise can motivate employees. An agent may believe that careful work will improve the customer’s experience, that a supervisor or colleague will notice, and that being seen as competent matters. Gratitude can also make an employee feel that their contribution had social value. Grant and Gino (2010) found that expressions of gratitude increased subsequent helping in their experimental and field studies.
Service work also involves emotional labour. Hochschild (1983) described how some service jobs require employees to manage their feelings and emotional displays for customers. Later research distinguishes surface acting, in which an employee displays an emotion they do not feel, from deep acting, in which they try to change what they feel. Grandey (2003) found that surface acting was associated with greater stress and lower coworker-rated affective delivery. Deep acting was associated with higher coworker-rated delivery and was not related to stress. A human agent’s apology can therefore be sincere, strategically performed, or somewhere between. Human motivation may sustain effort, but it does not guarantee felt concern.
Other organizational theories describe related human concerns. Self-determination theory emphasizes autonomy, competence, and relatedness as psychological needs that support self-directed motivation at work (Deci et al., 2017). Equity theory helps explain why employees compare their contributions and rewards with those of others (Adams, 1965). In service work, these concerns can become personal: Am I capable? Is my effort recognized? Am I treated fairly? Did I make a difference to someone?
Incentives do not automatically improve every aspect of performance. A meta-analysis found that intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives can both predict performance, with intrinsic motivation contributing more to the prediction of quality and incentives often being more strongly related to quantity (Cerasoli et al., 2014). When an organization makes a single measure, such as call speed, the predominant target, employees may have less reason to invest in service qualities that are harder to measure. The resulting disproportionality between the measured target and the actual service objective can encourage employees to optimize the metric rather than the customer’s experience. Multitask incentive theory describes how rewards tied to measurable outputs can divert effort from less measurable work (Holmström & Milgrom, 1991). Human motivation can improve service, but poorly chosen incentives can distort it.
Where an AI agent’s goals come from
An AI service agent’s practical objectives come from the people and organizations that design and deploy it. Its behaviour is shaped by the task it is given, the data and tools it can access, the rules it must follow, and the criteria used to evaluate it. A company may direct a system to resolve requests quickly, reduce costs, limit refunds, or improve customer satisfaction. These objectives influence what the system does, but they do not establish that it personally values the outcomes.
Goal-setting theory helps explain why objectives can shape human performance. Specific, challenging goals can improve performance when people accept them, receive feedback, and have the ability and resources to pursue them (Locke & Latham, 2002). A human employee can identify with a goal, resist it, or reinterpret it. An AI agent can be designed to pursue an objective, but that functional adherence is not evidence of psychological commitment in the human sense.
This distinction also clarifies why specificity matters. A service objective such as “resolve the customer’s problem” leaves room for interpretation; a more specific target such as “close the interaction within five minutes” is easier to measure but may not represent what the organization actually wants. In AI deployment, the objective’s specification determines what counts as success. A precise specification can still encode the wrong priority.
Agency theory offers a useful, though not exact, comparison. Jensen and Meckling (1976) examine problems that arise when one party delegates work to another whose interests may differ. Applied to service work, an employee might want to end a call quickly while the organization wants the customer’s problem resolved. Kerr (1975) describes the broader organizational problem of rewarding one behaviour while hoping for another.
With an AI agent, the central issue may instead be whether its specified objective captures what the organization actually wants. A system can meet a narrow target while producing an undesirable result, a risk discussed in AI safety research as objective misspecification or reward hacking (Amodei et al., 2016). A human may fail a service goal because personal interests conflict with it; an AI system may fail because its objective or evaluation measure does not represent the intended goal. This is an application of agency theory to AI, not a claim that the original theory studied AI service agents.
The word motive can still be useful if its meaning is clear. Dennett’s intentional stance describes a way to explain or predict a system by attributing beliefs and goals to it when doing so is useful (Dennett, 1971). From this perspective, someone might say an AI agent “wants” to resolve a complaint because it tends to select actions that produce resolution. This can be a functional description. It is not evidence that the system experiences wanting, pride, anxiety, or satisfaction.
Searle’s (1980) Chinese Room argument raises a related, contested question: whether following formal rules for manipulating symbols is sufficient for understanding meaning. His argument concerns understanding, not motivation, and critics have challenged it. This essay does not need to settle that dispute. Its narrower point is that functional performance and personal motive can be separated: an AI agent may give a correct and polite reply without that reply demonstrating that it personally values the customer’s situation.
An AI agent’s operational self-sufficiency does not change this distinction. A system may handle more steps without human assistance, but greater independence in completing a task does not itself establish that the system has personal stakes in the result.
What studies show about AI and human service
The title asks whether an AI agent has a motive to provide better service than a human agent. That comparison requires evidence about service outcomes, not just a theory of motivation. Current evidence does not show that AI agents consistently provide better service than people.
A 2026 meta-analysis examined 943 effect sizes from 327 studies, drawing on 281,954 respondents across 148 articles. It covered robots, chatbots, and algorithms, so its findings are broader than generative AI customer-service agents alone. Customers tended to evaluate automated agents less favourably on some agent-related measures, such as perceptions and appraisals. However, downstream behaviours were equivalent to those for human agents. The results varied by the type of automated agent and the task it performed (Gelbrich et al., 2026).
Customer reactions may also involve social expectations. Nass and Moon (2000) found that people often apply familiar social behaviours, including politeness and reciprocity, to computers. This suggests that customers may respond to an AI agent’s apology as a social act even when they know it is a computer. Gray and Wegner (2012), in experiments on the uncanny valley, linked unease toward humanlike machines to the perception that they might have the capacity for experience, such as feeling or sensing. Their findings do not explain the results of the customer-service meta-analysis, but they raise a useful possibility: people may react differently depending on whether a machine seems socially responsive, emotionally capable, or unmistakably mechanical. A customer may even vehemently object to a response that appears polite but fails to recognize the seriousness of the problem.
Huang and Rust’s (2018) framework offers one way to think about which service tasks may suit AI. It distinguishes mechanical, analytical, intuitive, and empathetic intelligence, and proposes that AI capabilities may develop from the first types toward the latter. This is a theoretical framework, not proof that current AI is always best at routine tasks or that humans permanently retain an advantage in intuitive and empathetic ones. Its value here is to focus the comparison on the task: service interactions requiring consistent, rule-based processing differ from those requiring contextual interpretation or emotional judgement. The framework also directs attention to differential effects: AI may support one type of interaction while providing little benefit, or creating new problems, in another.
A field study of 5,172 customer-support agents found that a generative AI assistant increased issues resolved per hour by 15% on average. Less experienced workers saw the largest gains. For the most experienced agents, gains were smaller, and the researchers observed slight declines in some quality measures (Brynjolfsson et al., 2025). This supports the value of AI assistance in human service work. It does not demonstrate that an autonomous AI agent provides better service than a human agent.
Zhang and Narayandas (2026) conducted a randomized field experiment with a meal-delivery company, varying whether customer-service representatives had access to AI-generated suggestions during online chats. AI-assisted representatives responded faster, engaged customers more deeply, and achieved greater improvements in customer sentiment. Benefits were strongest for less-experienced representatives and varied by conversation type. AI assistance helped with subscription-cancellation requests but was least effective for repeat complaints involving problems beyond the system’s capability.
The study also found a spillover effect. When customers first experienced a chatbot’s failure to understand them, unusually rapid responses from an AI-assisted human representative could make them think they were still speaking to a chatbot. Customer sentiment then declined. The study shows both the potential and the limits of AI assistance, but it does not compare an autonomous AI agent with a human agent working alone.
The premise in the title is therefore only partly true. AI can improve service in some contexts and help human agents work more effectively, but current evidence does not establish that AI agents generally provide better service than human agents. Even when a system achieves better results, that performance alone does not demonstrate that it has a personal motive.
Who is responsible for service outcomes?
Responsibility for an AI service outcome is better understood as a question about the people and organizations involved across the system’s lifecycle. A 2025 study argues that responsibility for LLM-related harm should be traced across interacting agents and organizational levels. The authors warn that when many parties contribute to an outcome, responsibility can become blurred, but it does not have to disappear. Organizations that develop or deploy LLMs can carry broader responsibility because their choices shape how other actors use the systems (Constantinescu & Kaptein, 2025).
Recent Canadian guidance makes this concrete for agentic AI. The Government of Canada’s 2026 guide calls for a clearly designated human owner, bounded permissions, monitoring, action logs, and a way to pause or stop an agent. Its service-triage example describes an agent that unexpectedly closed customer cases during a surge. Monitoring detected the issue, staff reopened affected cases, and the logged actions helped the organization investigate and correct the failure. This guide is written for the federal public service, so it is a current governance example rather than a rule that applies to every business.
For customer service, then, responsibility should be assigned before deployment and maintained after it. The provider, deploying organization, and designated human owner may have different responsibilities, depending on who chose the system, set its permissions, monitored its performance, and responded to failures. An AI agent may act with some autonomy, but that autonomy should not leave customers without a clear path to correction or remedy.
The practical answer
Human agents can have personal reasons to make an extra effort: compensation, career prospects, recognition, fairness, competence, or a customer’s gratitude. These motives vary between people and situations, and organizations can strengthen or weaken them through the way they manage and reward service work.
An AI agent’s reliable performance has a different explanation. Its behaviour is shaped by its design, training, tools, operating rules, and evaluation criteria. Calling those objectives functional motives can help describe what the system is built to do. Treating them as human-like desires would go beyond the available evidence.
This difference places responsibility on the organization. If a company wants its AI agent to understand customers accurately, solve problems, and recognize when it cannot help, it must design and evaluate the system against those outcomes. The machine does not need praise for the organization to demand good service. The organization needs to define what good service means and ensure that the system is assessed accordingly.
Generative AI is changing rapidly, and much of the comparative research is still early. The studies discussed here use particular systems, tasks, and settings. Some examine broad categories of automation, while others study AI suggestions used by human agents rather than fully autonomous service. Conclusions about future AI agents and every kind of customer-service interaction should therefore remain provisional.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.06565
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889–942. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661
Constantinescu, M., & Kaptein, M. (2025). Responsibility gaps, LLMs & organisations: Many agents, many levels, and many interactions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 31(6), Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00560-1
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
Dennett, D. C. (1971). Intentional systems. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(4), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025382
Gelbrich, K., Roschk, H., Miederer, S., & Kerath, A. (2026). Automated versus human agents: A meta-analysis of customer responses to robots, chatbots, and algorithms and their contingencies. Journal of Marketing, 90(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429251344139
Government of Canada. (2026, September 15). Guide on the use of agentic artificial intelligence. https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-government-innovations/responsible-use-ai/generative-ai/guide-use-agentic-artificial-antelligence.html
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040678
Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 946–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017935
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125(1), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.
Holmström, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 7(Special Issue), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24
Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517752459
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.2307/255378
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575
Zhang, S., & Narayandas, D. (2026). Engaging customers with AI in online chats: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Management Science, 72(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.03920
Leave a Reply