MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323852173 · doi:10.1108/md-10-2022-1390

Being proactive in the age of AI: exploring the effectiveness of leaders' AI symbolization in stimulating employee job crafting

2023· article· en· W4323852173 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Decision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Social psychologyTest (biology)Value (mathematics)OriginalityMultilevel modelComputer scienceCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it