| Literature DB >> 35356339 |
Na Li1, Yapeng Yan2, Yuting Yang2, Anwei Gu3.
Abstract
The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought many opportunities and challenges to organization. Some studies have shown that AI can improve organizational creativity. However, the existing research lacks an effective transformation path. This paper makes an innovative approach from the perspective of knowledge sharing, establishes an integration model of artificial intelligence capability, knowledge sharing and organizational creativity. Based on 189 questionnaire data, we use multi-level regression analysis and bootstrap method to analyze the influence mechanism. The results show that artificial intelligence has a positive effect on knowledge sharing, knowledge sharing has a positive effect on organizational creativity, knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between artificial intelligence and organizational creativity, and organizational cohesion has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between artificial intelligence and knowledge sharing. The results supplement the existing research on the relationship between artificial intelligence capability and organizational creativity, expand the theoretical boundary and application space from the perspective of knowledge sharing at the organizational level, and provide reference for organizations to improve creativity.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; capability; cohesion; knowledge sharing; organizational creativity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35356339 PMCID: PMC8959851 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.845277
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Artificial intelligence capability model.
Results of descriptive statistics of the sample (N = 189).
| Content | Category | Sample size | Proportion (%) |
| Gender | Male | 108 | 57.14 |
| Female | 81 | 42.86 | |
| Education Level | Senior high school (technical secondary) and below | 79 | 41.80 |
| College or higher vocational college | 50 | 26.46 | |
| Bachelor | 49 | 25.93 | |
| Master and above | 11 | 5.82 | |
| Firm nature | Private or private holding firms | 114 | 60.32 |
| The foreign capital firm | 22 | 11.64 | |
| Wholly state-owned and holding firms | 53 | 28.04 | |
| The firm scale | < 10 | 17 | 8.99 |
| 10–100 | 89 | 47.09 | |
| 100–300 | 53 | 28.04 | |
| > 300 | 30 | 15.87 |
Descriptive statistics results with correlation coefficients.
| Variables | Average | Standard deviation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| 1 AI capability | 3.938 | 0.743 | 1 | |||
| 2 Knowledge sharing | 4.200 | 0.758 | 0.715 | 1 | ||
| 3 Organizational creativity | 3.652 | 1.169 | 0.543 | 0.473 | 1 | |
| 4 Organizational cohesion | 4.041 | 0.952 | 0.465 | 0.430 | 0.811 | 1 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01.
Reliability test results.
| Variables | Items | Cronbach α |
| AI capability | 38 | 0.974 |
| Knowledge sharing | 4 | 0.867 |
| Organizational creativity | 5 | 0.952 |
| Organizational cohesion | 7 | 0.948 |
Scale items and validity tests.
| Factor | Measurement items (significant variables) | Standard load factor |
| AI Capability | 1. Our managers are able to understand business problems and to direct AI initiatives to solve them | 0.494 |
| 2. The AI project is given enough time for completion | 0.505 | |
| 3. We have explored or adopted cloud-based services for processing data and performing AI and machine learning | 0.558 | |
| 4. We have the necessary processing power to support AI applications (e.g., CPUs, GPUs) | 0.585 | |
| 5. We have invested in networking infrastructure (e.g., firm networks) that supports efficiency and scale of applications (scalability, high bandwidth, and low-latency) | 0.607 | |
| 6. We have explored or adopted parallel computing approaches for AI data processing | 0.586 | |
| 7. We have invested in advanced cloud services to allow complex AI abilities on simple API calls (e.g., Microsoft Cognitive Services, Google Cloud Vision) | 0.600 | |
| 8. We have invested in scalable data storage infrastructures | 0.602 | |
| 9. Collaboration | 0.747 | |
| 10. Collective goals | 0.750 | |
| 11. Teamwork | 0.793 | |
| 12. Same vision | 0.795 | |
| 13. Mutual understanding | 0.784 | |
| 14. Shared information | 0.823 | |
| 15. Shared resources | 0.819 | |
| 16. We are able to anticipate and plan for the organizational resistance to change | 0.832 | |
| 17. We consider politics of the business reengineering efforts | 0.839 | |
| 18. We recognize the need for managing change | 0.841 | |
| 19. We are capable of communicating the reasons for change to the members of our organization | 0.856 | |
| 20. We are able to make the necessary changes in human resource policies for process re-engineering | 0.869 | |
| 21. Senior management commits to new values | 0.879 | |
| 22. Our managers have a good sense of where to apply AI | 0.556 | |
| 23. In our organization we have a strong proclivity for high risk projects (with chances of very high returns) | 0.791 | |
| 24. In our organization we take bold and wide-ranging acts to achieve firm objectives | 0.820 | |
| 25. We typically adopt a bold aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities | 0.812 | |
| 26. We have access to very large, unstructured, or fast-moving data for analysis | 0.813 | |
| 27. We integrate data from multiple internal sources into a data warehouse or mart for easy access | 0.821 | |
| 28. We integrate external data with internal to facilitate high-value analysis of our business environment | 0.837 | |
| 29. We have the capacity to share our data across business units and organizational boundaries | 0.643 | |
| 30. We are able to prepare and cleanse AI data efficiently and assess data for errors | 0.569 | |
| 31. We are able to obtain data at the right level of granularity to produce meaningful insights | 0.636 | |
| 32. The executive manager of our AI function has strong leadership skills | 0.508 | |
| 33. Our managers are able to anticipate future business needs of functional managers, suppliers and customers and proactively design AI solutions to support these needs | 0.540 | |
| 34. Our managers are capable of coordinating AI-related activities in ways that support the organization, suppliers and customers | 0.586 | |
| 35. We have strong leadership to support AI initiatives and managers demonstrate ownership of and commitment to AI projects | 0.606 | |
| 36. The AI initiatives are adequately funded | 0.565 | |
| 37. The AI project has enough team members to get the work done | 0.568 | |
| 38. Our managers are able to work with data scientists, other employees and customers to determine opportunities that AI might bring to our organization | 0.546 | |
| Knowledge Sharing (CR = 0.869, AVE = 0.625) | 1. Our employees exchange knowledge with their co-workers | 0.802 |
| 2. In their work, our employees rely on experience, skills, and knowledge | 0.748 | |
| 3. In the relationship, we frequently adjust our shared understanding of end-user needs, preferences, and behaviors | 0.827 | |
| 4. Our companies exchange information related to changes in the technology of the focal products | 0.785 | |
| Organizational Creativity (CR = 0.956, AVE = 0.817) | 1. Our organization has produced many novel and useful ideas (services/products) | 0.919 |
| 2. Our organization fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability to produce novel and useful ideas (services/products) | 0.923 | |
| 3. Our organization spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas (services/products) | 0.912 | |
| 4. Our organization considers producing novel and useful ideas (services/products) as important activities | 0.886 | |
| 5. Our organization actively produces novel and useful ideas (services/products) | 0.851 | |
| Organizational Cohesion (CR = 0.949, AVE = 0.731) | 1. This organization accomplishes things that no single member could achieve | 0.754 |
| 2. All members need to contribute to achieve the organization’s goals | 0.808 | |
| 3. I think of this organization as part of who I am | 0.815 | |
| 4. Members of this organization like one another | 0.832 | |
| 5. I see myself as quite similar to other members of the organization | 0.875 | |
| 6. In this organization, members rely on one another | 0.912 | |
| 7. I enjoy interacting with the members of this organization | 0.929 |
KMO and Bartlett’ s test.
| KMO value | 0.935 | |
| Bartlett Sphericity test | Approximate cardinality | 11385.757 |
| df | 1431 | |
| p-value | 0.000 | |
Multilevel regression test results (Explanatory variable: Knowledge sharing).
| Category | Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 |
| Control variables | Gender | −0.084 (−0.741) | −0.042 (−0.516) |
| Education | −0.075 (−1.225) | −0.030 (−0.692) | |
| Firm nature | −0.071 (−1.090) | 0.060 (1.271) | |
| Firm Scale | −0.021 (−0.312) | −0.022 (−0.458) | |
| Independent variables | AI capability | 0.735 | |
| Model explanatory degree | Sample size | 189 | 189 |
| R2 | 0.028 | 0.509 | |
| AdjustedR2 | 0.007 | 0.496 | |
| F Value | |||
| ΔR2 | 0.028 | 0.481 | |
| ΔF Value |
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01. The t-values are in parentheses.
Multilevel regression test results (Explanatory variable: Organizational creativity).
| Category | Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 |
| Control variables | Gender | −0.114 (−0.644) | −0.052 (−0.334) |
| Education | 0.034 (0.352) | 0.088 (1.044) | |
| Firm nature | −0.075 (−0.736) | −0.023 (−0.252) | |
| Firm Scale | −0.093 (−0.891) | −0.078 (−0.840) | |
| Independent variables | AI capability | 0.734 | |
| Model explanatory degree | Sample size | 189 | 189 |
| R2 | 0.012 | 0.231 | |
| AdjustedR2 | −0.009 | 0.210 | |
| F Value | |||
| ΔR2 | 0.012 | 0.219 | |
| ΔF Value |
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01. The t-values are in parentheses.
Summary of intermediary role test results.
| Items | Total effect | a | b | Intermediary effect (a*b) | 95% BootCI | Direct effect (c’) | Effectiveness ratio | Test conclusion |
| AI capability-Knowledge sharing-Organizational creativity | 0.861 | 0.727 | 0.273 | 0.199 | −0.021 ∼0.270 | 0.663 | 23.067% | Partial mediation |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01.
FIGURE 2Intermediary role test results.
Multilevel regression test results (Explanatory variable: Knowledge sharing).
| Category | Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
| Independent variables | AI capability | 0.727 | 0.666 | 0.659 |
| Mediating variables | Organizational cohesion | 0.101 | 0.084(1.834) | |
| AI capability × Organizational Cohesion | −0.089 | |||
| Model explanatory degree | Sample size | 189 | 189 | 189 |
| R2 | 0.503 | 0.516 | 0.531 | |
| AdjustedR2 | 0.501 | 0.511 | 0.523 | |
| F Value | ||||
| ΔR2 | 0.503 | 0.013 | 0.015 | |
| ΔF Value |
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01. The t-values are in parentheses.