Being proactive in the age of AI: exploring the effectiveness of leaders' AI symbolization in stimulating employee job crafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to explore whether, how and when leaders' artificial intelligence (AI) symbolization (i.e. the demonstration of leaders' acceptance of and support for AI by engaging in AI-related behaviors and/or displaying objects that reflect their affinity for AI) affects employee job crafting behaviors. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted two studies (i.e. an experiment and a multi-wave field survey) with samples from different contexts (i.e. United States and China) to test our theoretical model. The authors used ordinary least squares (OLS) and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to test the hypotheses. Findings Leaders' AI symbolization is positively related to employee change readiness and, in turn, promotes employee job crafting. Moreover, employee-attributed impression management motives moderate the positive indirect effect of leaders' AI symbolization on employee job crafting via change readiness, such that this indirect effect is stronger when employee-attributed impression management motives are low (vs high). Practical implications Leaders should engage in AI symbolization to promote employee job crafting and avoid behaviors that may lead employees to attribute their AI symbolization to impression management. Originality/value By introducing the concept of leaders' AI symbolization, this study breaks new ground by illustrating how leaders' AI symbolization positively influences employees' change readiness, as well as job crafting in the workplace. Further, integrating AI as a novel and timely context for evaluating job crafting contributes to the literature where empirical research is relatively scant, particularly regarding the factors that prompt employees to engage in job crafting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".