Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38327504›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Artificial intelligence adoption in extended HR ecosystems: enablers and barriers. An abductive case research.

Antarpreet Singh, Jatin Pandey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Antarpreet Singh *Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management Area, Indian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India.
Jatin Pandey *Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management Area, Indian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has disrupted modern workplaces like never before and has induced digital workstyles. These technological advancements are generating significant interest among HR leaders to embrace AI in human resource management (HRM). Researchers and practitioners are keen to investigate the adoption of AI in HRM and the resultant human-machine collaboration. This study investigates HRM specific factors that enable and inhibit the adoption of AI in extended HR ecosystems and adopts a qualitative case research design with an abductive approach. It studies three well-known Indian companies at different stages of AI adoption in HR functions. This research investigates key enablers such as optimistic and collaborative employees, strong digital leadership, reliable HR data, specialized HR partners, and well-rounded AI ethics. The study also examines barriers to adoption: the inability to have a timely pulse check of employees' emotions, ineffective collaboration of HR employees with digital experts as well as external HR partners, and not embracing AI ethics. This study contributes to the theory by providing a model for AI adoption and proposes additions to the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology in the context of AI adoption in HR ecosystems. The study also contributes to the best-in-class industry HR practices and digital policy formulation to reimagine workplaces, promote harmonious human-AI collaboration, and make workplaces future-ready in the wake of massive digital disruptions.

Indexed as

AI ethicsartificial intelligencedigital leadershipHR datahuman-machine collaborationoptimisticpartners

Identifiers

PMID38327504
PMCPMC10847531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.