More to Lose: The Adverse Effect of High Performance Ranking on Employees’ Preimplementation Attitudes Toward the Integration of Powerful AI Aids

References

• Allen RT, Choudhury P (2022) Algorithm-augmented work and domain experience: The countervailing forces of ability and aversion. Organ. Sci. 33(1):149–169.Link, Google Scholar
• Arkes HR, Dawes RM, Christensen C (1986) Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 37(1):93–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asgari E, Hunt RA, Lerner DA, Townsend DM, Hayward ML, Kiefer K (2021) Red giants or black holes? The antecedent conditions and multilevel impacts of star performers. Acad. Management Ann. 15(1):223–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barr SH, Conlon EJ (1994) Effects of distribution of feedback in work groups. Acad. Management J. 37(3):641–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belogolovsky E, Bamberger PA (2014) Signaling in secret: Pay for performance and the incentive and sorting effects of pay secrecy. Acad. Management J. 57(6):1706–1733.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown DJ, Ferris DL, Heller D, Keeping LM (2007) Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(1):59–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E, Li D, Raymond LR (2023) Generative AI at work. NBER Working Paper No. 31161, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Burton JW, Stein MK, Jensen TB (2020) A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. J. Behav. Decision Making 33(2):220–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buunk AP, Gibbons FX (2007) Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(1):3–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Call ML, Nyberg AJ, Thatcher S (2015) Stargazing: An integrative conceptual review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension for star employee research. J. Appl. Psych. 100(3):623–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell EM, Liao H, Chuang A, Zhou J, Dong Y (2017) Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. J. Appl. Psych. 102(5):845–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernyak-Hai L, Davidai S (2022) “Do not teach them how to fish”: The effect of zero-sum beliefs on help giving. J. Experiment. Psych. General 151(10):2466–2480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiu YT, Zhu YQ, Corbett J (2021) In the hearts and minds of employees: A model of pre-adoptive appraisal toward artificial intelligence in organizations. Internat. J. Inform. Management 60:102379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chung T, Mallery P (1999) Social comparison, individualism-collectivism, and self-esteem in China and the United States. Current Psych. 18(4):340–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen GL, Sherman DK (2014) The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Rev. Psych. 65(1):333–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dell’Acqua F, McFowland E, Mollick ER, Lifshitz-Assaf H, Kellogg K, Rajendran S, Krayer L, Candelon F, Lakhani KR (2023) Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality. Working Paper No. 24-013, Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Management Unit, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Dietvorst BJ, Simmons JP, Massey C (2015) Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J. Experiment. Psych. General 144(1):114–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Janssen M, Lal B, Williams MD, Clement M (2017) An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA). Government Inform. Quart. 34(2):211–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ericsson KA, Towne TJ (2010) Expertise. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev. Cognitive Sci. 1(3):404–416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39(2):175–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garcia SM, Song H, Tesser A (2010) Tainted recommendations: The social comparison bias. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 113(2):97–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garcia SM, Tor A, Schiff TM (2013) The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 8(6):634–650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerhart B, Rynes SL, Fulmer IS (2009) Pay and performance: Individuals, groups, and executives. Acad. Management Ann. 3(1):251–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glikson E, Woolley AW (2020) Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Acad. Management Ann. 14(2):627–660.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC (2012) Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. J. Amer. Medical Inform. Assoc. 19(1):121–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman PS, Haisley E (2007) Social comparison processes in an organizational context: New directions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(1):109–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant H, Dweck CS (2003) Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 85(3):541–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenberg J, Ashton-James CE, Ashkanasy NM (2007) Social comparison processes in organizations. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(1):22–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grove WM, Zald DH, Lebow BS, Snitz BE, Nelson C (2000) Clinical vs. mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psych. Assessment 12(1):19–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanemaayer A (2021) Don’t touch my stuff: Historicising resistance to AI and algorithmic computer technologies in medicine. Interdisciplinary Sci. Rev. 46(1–2):126–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed. (Guilford Publications, New York).Google Scholar
• Heilman ME, Block CJ, Stathatos P (1997) The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Acad. Management J. 40(3):603–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hendricks JL, Call ML, Campbell EM (2023) High performer peer effects: A review, synthesis, and agenda for future research. J. Management 49(6):1997–2029.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herold DM, Farmer SM, Mobley MI (1995) Pre-implementation attitudes toward the introduction of robots in a unionized environment. J. Engrg. Tech. Management 12(3):155–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, Schwartz LH, Aerts HJWL (2018) Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nature Rev. Cancer 18(8):500–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang MH, Rust RT (2018) Artificial intelligence in service. J. Service Res. 21(2):155–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huijsmans I, Ma I, Micheli L, Civai C, Stallen M, Sanfey AG (2019) A scarcity mindset alters neural processing underlying consumer decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116(24):11699–11704.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarrahi MH (2018) Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Bus. Horizons 61(4):577–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson C (2012) Behavioral responses to threatening social comparisons: From dastardly deeds to rising above. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 6(7):515–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jussupow E, Spohrer K, Heinzl A (2022) Identity threats as a reason for resistance to artificial intelligence: Survey study with medical students and professionals. JMIR Formative Res. 6(3):e28750.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan A, Haenlein M (2020) Rulers of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Bus. Horizons 63(1):37–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan AD, Kessler TT, Brill JC, Hancock PA (2021) Trust in artificial intelligence: Meta-analytic findings. Human Factors 65(2):337–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kehoe RR, Lepak DP, Bentley FS (2018) Let’s call a star a star: Task performance, external status, and exceptional contributors in organizations. J. Management 44(5):1848–1872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kellogg KC, Valentine MA, Christin A (2020) Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Acad. Management Ann. 14(1):366–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim HW, Kankanhalli A (2009) Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quart. 33(3):567–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuncel NR, Klieger DM, Connelly BS, Ones DS (2013) Mechanical vs. clinical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 98(6):1060–1072.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP, Oyer P (2013) Personnel economics. Gibbons R, Roberts J, eds. The Handbook of Organizational Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 479–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lebovitz S, Lifshitz-Assaf H, Levina N (2022) To engage or not to engage with AI for critical judgments: How professionals deal with opacity when using AI for medical diagnosis. Organ. Sci. 33(1):126–148.Link, Google Scholar
• Leonard-Barton D (1985) Experts as negative opinion leaders in the diffusion of a technological innovation. J. Consumer Res. 11(4):914–926.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis LK, Russ TL (2012) Soliciting and using input during organizational change initiatives: What are practitioners doing. Management Comm. Quart. 26(2):267–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenthaler U (2018) Substitute or synthesis: The interplay between human and artificial intelligence. Res. Tech. Management 61(5):12–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenthaler U (2020) Extremes of acceptance: Employee attitudes toward artificial intelligence. J. Bus. Strategy 41(5):39–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Logg JM, Minson JA, Moore DA (2019) Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 151:90–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahmud H, Islam AKMN, Ahmed SI, Smolander K (2022) What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion. Tech. Forecasting Soc. Change 175:121390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matta FK, Van Dyne L (2020) Understanding the disparate behavioral consequences of LMX differentiation: The role of social comparison emotions. Acad. Management Rev. 45(1):154–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayfield P (2014) Engaging with stakeholders is critical when leading change. Indust. Commercial Training 46(2):68–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Metcalf L, Askay DA, Rosenberg LB (2019) Keeping humans in the loop: Pooling knowledge through artificial swarm intelligence to improve business decision making. Calif. Management Rev. 61(4):84–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Michlitsch JF (2000) High‐performing, loyal employees: The real way to implement strategy. Strategy Leadership 28(6):28–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitchell RL, Bae KK, Case CR, Hays NA (2020) Drivers of desire for social rank. Current Opinion Psych. 33:189–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mittone L, Savadori L (2009) The scarcity bias. Appl. Psych. 58(3):453–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Molleman E, Nauta A, Buunk BP (2007) Social comparison-based thoughts in groups: Their associations with interpersonal trust and learning outcomes. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 37(6):1163–1180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore DA, Klein WM (2008) Use of absolute and comparative performance feedback in absolute and comparative judgments and decisions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 107(1):60–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Rüter K, Epstude K (2004) The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 87(6):832–844.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noy S, Zhang W (2023) Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science 381(6654):187–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, Davidenko N (2009) Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 45(4):867–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prakash AV, Das S (2021) Medical practitioner’s adoption of intelligent clinical diagnostic decision support systems: A mixed-methods study. Inform. Management 58(7):103524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reh S, Tröster C, Van Quaquebeke N (2018) Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. J. Appl. Psych. 103(4):399–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers EM (1982) Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed. (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Prieto JC, Cruz-Benito J, Therón R, García-Peñalvo F (2020) Assessed by machines: Development of a TAM-based tool to measure AI-based assessment acceptance among students. Internat. J. Interactive Multimedia Artificial Intelligence 6(4):80–86.Google Scholar
• Shrestha YR, Krishna V, von Krogh G (2021) Augmenting organizational decision-making with deep learning algorithms: Principles, promises, and challenges. J. Bus. Res. 123:588–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith RH (2000) Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. Suls J, Wheeler L, eds. Handbook of Social Comparison. The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology (Springer, Boston), 173–200.‏Crossref, Google Scholar
• Solberg E, Kaarstad M, Eitrheim MHR, Bisio R, Reegård K, Bloch M (2022) A conceptual model of trust, perceived risk, and reliance on AI decision aids. Group Organ. Management 47(2):187–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Zanna MP, Fong GT (2005) Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 89(6):845–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutton RI (2007) The war for talent is back. Harvard Bus. Rev. (April 23), https://hbr.org/2007/04/the-war-for-talent-is-back.Google Scholar
• Taylor S, Todd P (1995) Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 12(2):137–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson ER (2007) Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). J. Cross Cultural Psych. 38(2):227–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sci. 39(2):273–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Krogh G (2018) Artificial intelligence in organizations: New opportunities for phenomenon-based theorizing. Acad. Management Discoveries 4(4):404–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiesenfeld BM, Aphinyanaphongs Y, Nov O (2022) AI model transferability in healthcare: A sociotechnical perspective. Nature Machine Intelligence 4(10):807–809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yen HR, Chuang SC (2008) The effect of incidental affect on preference for the status quo. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 36(4):522–537.Crossref, Google Scholar