On the factors of resistance to Artificial Intelligence in the workplace and ways to counter them

Jaworek, Magdalena Anna

doi:10.21008/j.0239-9415.2025.091.09

Powiadomienia systemowe

Sesja wygasła!
Sesja wygasła!

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

On the factors of resistance to Artificial Intelligence in the workplace and ways to counter them

Autorzy

Jaworek Magdalena Anna

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.21008/j.0239-9415.2025.091.09

Warianty tytułu

O czynnikach oporu wobec sztucznej inteligencji w miejscu pracy i sposobach przeciwdziałania im

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

The implementation of new technologies in organizations constitutes a change that involves both new opportunities and threats, causing natural resistance among some employees to its introduction. The aim of this work is to present a model for overcoming resistance among employees to new digital technologies based on artificial intelligence. A critical literature analysis was used as the research method. The starting point for the model developed here is the latest work by Golgeci et al. (2025), presenting three resistance factors: affective (fear and aversion to new technologies) and cognitive (sense of ineffectiveness). Based on the research results and the psychological mechanisms behind the presented resistance factors, possible ways of overcoming it at the individual and organizational level were selected. The first group includes a positive change in attitude towards work and an increase in the level of identification with technologies based on artificial intelligence among their users. The second group includes a democratic management style and improving employee competences in terms of using artificial intelligence in the workplace. The model presented here is a preliminary proposal and can be supplemented with additional elements, both in terms of resistance factors and ways of counteracting them; at the same time, it can serve as a conceptualization for future research.

Wdrażanie nowych technologii w organizacjach jest zmianą, z którą wiążą się zarówno nowe możliwości, jak i zagrożenia wywołujące naturalny opór części pracowników przed ich wprowadzaniem. Celem niniejszej pracy jest przedstawienie modelu przełamywania oporu wśród pracowników wobec nowych technologii cyfrowych opartych na sztucznej inteligencji. Zastosowaną metodą badawczą była krytyczna analiza literatury. Punktem wyjścia opracowanego modelu jest najnowsza praca Golgeciego i zespołu (2025) wskazująca trzy czynniki oporu: o charakterze afektywnym (strach i awersja do nowych technologii) oraz poznawczym (poczucie braku skuteczności). Na podstawie wyników badań oraz psychologicznych mechanizmów stojących za przedstawionymi czynnikami oporu dopasowano możliwe sposoby jego przełamywania na poziomie indywidualnym oraz organizacyjnym. Do pierwszej grupy zaliczono pozytywną zmianę postawy wobec pracy oraz zwiększenie poziomu utożsamiania się z technologiami opartymi na sztucznej inteligencji wśród ich użytkowników, do drugiej – demokratyczny styl zarządzania oraz podnoszenie kompetencji pracowników pod kątem wykorzystania sztucznej inteligencji w miejscu pracy. Przedstawiony model jest wstępną propozycją i może być uzupełniony o dodatkowe elementy, zarówno po stronie czynników oporu, jak i sposobów przeciwdziałania im; jednocześnie może służyć jako konceptualizacja przyszłych badań.

Słowa kluczowe

model artificial intelligence resistance factors individual level organizational level

model sztuczna inteligencja czynniki oporu poziom indywidualny poziom organizacyjny

Wydawca

Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej

Czasopismo

Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Poznańskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie

Rocznik

2025

Tom

Nr 91

Strony

173--185

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 39 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Jaworek Magdalena Anna

Jagiellonian University, Institute of Economics and Management

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4827-6722

Bibliografia

1. Alahmad, R., Robert, L.P. (2020). Artificial Intelligence (AI) and IT identity: Antecedents Identifying with AI Applications, Proceedings of the 26th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Aug 13-15, Salt Lake City, UT.
2. Alvarado-Valencia, J.A., Barrero, L.H. (2014). Reliance, trust and heuristics in judgmental forecasting, Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 102-113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.047.
3. APA (2023). 2023 Work in America™ Survey. Artificial intelligence, monitoring technology, and psychological well-being. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/work-in-america/2023-work-america-ai-monitoring (30.03.2025).
4. Ayyash, Y. (2022). The evolution of technostress: the use of artificial intelligence technologies and levels of employees’ technostress in a workplace, MA Thesis. Available from https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-03922879.
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
6. Bovey, W.H., Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730110410099.
7. Briggs, J., Kodnani, D. (2023). The Potentially Large Effects of Artificial Intelligence on Economic Growth. Retrieved from https://www.gspublishing.com/content/research/en/reports/2023/03/27/d64e052b-0f6e-45d7-967b-d7be35fabd16.html (30.03.2023).
8. Brod, C. (1985). Technostress: The Human Cost of the Computer Revolution. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, USA.
9. Bucher, T. (2016). The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30-44, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086.
10. Carter, M., Grover, V. (2015). Me, My Self, and I(T): Conceptualizing Information Technology Identity and its Implications. MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 931-957, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.4.9.
11. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340, https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
12. Dietvorst, B.J., Simmons, J.P., Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 144(1), 114-126, https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033.
13. Eightfold AI’s 2022 Talent Survey (2022). The Future of Work: Intelligent by Design. Retrieved from https://eightfold.ai/wp-content/uploads/2022_Talent_Survey.pdf.
14. Ernst & Young (2023). How organizations can stop skyrocketing AI use from Fueling anxiety. Retrieved from https://www.ey.com/en_us/consulting/businesses-can-stop-rising-ai-use-from-fueling-anxiety (30.03.2025).
15. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., McKee, A. (2002). Naturalne przywództwo. Odkrywanie mocy inteligencji emocjonalnej. Wydawnictwo: Jacek Santorski & Co.
16. Golgeci, I., Ritala, P., Arslan, A., McKenna, B., Ali, I. (2025). Confronting and alleviating AI resistance in the workplace: An integrative review and a process framework. Human Resource Management Review, 35(2), 101075, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101075.
17. Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
18. Holmes, T.H., Rahe, R.H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213-218.
19. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/superagency-in-the-workplace-empowering-people-to-unlock-ais-full-potential-at-work#/
20. Intelligent.com (2023). 4 in 10 business leaders say recent college grads are unprepared to enter workforce. Retrieved from https://www.intelligent.com/4-in-10-business-leaders-say-recent-college-grads-are-unprepared-to-enter-workforce/ (15.02.2025).
21. Jerab, D.A., Mabrouk, T. (2023). The role of leadership in changing organizational culture. SSRN Electronic Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4574324.
22. Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., Heinzl, A. (2020). Why Are We Averse Towards Algorithms? A Comprehensive Literature Review on Algorithm Aversion. Twenty-Eighth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), 1-16.
23. Khasawneh, O.Y. (2018). Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it. Technology in Society, 54, 93-100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.03.008.
24. Lazarus, R.S., Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
25. Lin, L., Parker, K. (2025). U.S. Workers Are More Worried Than Hopeful About Future AI Use in the Workplace. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/02/25/u-s-workers-are-more-worried-than-hopeful-about-future-ai-use-in-the-workplace/ (30.03.2025).
26. Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. McCarthy, W.J., Newcomb, M.D. (1992). Two Dimensions of Perceived Self-Efficacy: Cognitive Control and Behavioral Coping Ability. In: R. Schwarzer (ed.). Self-Efficacy. Thought Control of Action. Taylor and Francis.
28. Mirbabaie, M., Brünker, F., Möllmann Frick, N.R.J. et al. (2022). The rise of artificial intelligence – understanding the AI identity threat at the workplace. Electronic Markets, 32, 73-99, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00496-x.
29. Moczydłowska, J.M. (2023). Between Technophilia and Technophobia – The Problem of Technological Fear. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 187, 477-487, http://dx.doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2023.187.24.
30. Murugesan, U., Subramanian, P., Srivastava, S., Dwivedi, A. (2023). A study of Artificial Intelligence impacts on Human Resource Digitalization in Industry 4.0. Decision Analytics Journal, 7, 00249, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100249.
31. Ngotngamwong, R. (2012) Effect of participative leadership on teacher job satisfaction. AU Journal of Management, 10 (2), 15-30.
32. Osiceanu, M.-E. (2015). Psychological implications of modern technologies: „technophobia” versus „technophilia”. Procedia – Social Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1137-1144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.229.
33. Park, J.G., Kim, J.S., Yoon, S.W.Y., Joo, B.-K. (2017). The effects of empowering leadership on psychological well-being and job engagement: The mediating role of psychological capital. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 350-367.
34. Recardo, R.J. (1995). Overcoming Resistance to change. National Productivity Review, 5-12. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
35. ResumeBuilder.com (2023). 3 in 4 managers find it difficult to work with GenZ. Retrieved from https://www.resumebuilder.com/3-in-4-managers-find-it-difficult-to-work-with-genz/ (15.02.2023).
36. Salander, L., Henfridsson, O. (2012). Cynicism as user resistance in IT implementation. Information Systems Journal, 22(4), 289-312, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00386.x.
37. Sanchez-Rodriguez, S., Gonzalez-Rocha, J., Cruz-Rivera, M., Rodriguez-Morales, M. (2024). Impact of Leadership on organizational culture: Review of literature of Latin American Countries. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Częstochowskiej. Zarządzanie / Research Reviews of Czestochowa University of Technology. Management, 55, 193-204, https://doi.org/10.17512/znpcz.2024.3.14, https://znz.pcz.pl/.
38. Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B.S., Ragu-Nathan, T. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301-328.
39. Woods, P.A. (2020). Democratic Leadership. In: R. Papa (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Educational Administration. New York: Oxford University Press.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-b3f48666-b718-49e5-9ee9-a30410eebdac