How AI is simultaneously empowering and stressing workers

Artificial intelligence (AI) is now embedded in the daily routines of employees, influencing how work is performed, evaluated, and experienced. A new study finds that the everyday use of AI at work is producing sharply contrasting outcomes for employees, driving both innovation and anxiety within the same workforce.

The study, titled “Examining the Impact of Daily AI-Supported Work on Employee Outcomes: A Challenge-Hindrance Approach,” published in Group & Organization Management, reveals that AI-supported work functions as a dynamic stressor, capable of generating both positive and negative behavioral and psychological responses depending on how employees interpret their interactions with the technology.

AI at work triggers both innovation and anxiety

The research is based on the challenge–hindrance stressor framework, a well-established theory in organizational psychology that distinguishes between stressors that promote growth and those that obstruct it. Applying this framework to AI, the authors argue that AI-supported work should not be viewed as inherently beneficial or harmful. Instead, its effects depend on how employees appraise it in real time.

The study finds that on days when employees perceive AI support as a challenge, it acts as a catalyst for engagement and innovation. AI systems often automate routine tasks, freeing up time and cognitive resources. Employees then use these newly available resources to reshape their roles through what the study identifies as task crafting. This involves actively modifying the scope and nature of tasks to better align with individual strengths and interests.

This behavioral adaptation has measurable outcomes. Employees who engage in task crafting are more likely to demonstrate innovative work behavior, generating and implementing new ideas that improve performance. The study shows that this pathway is not theoretical but observable in daily work patterns, where increased AI support correlates with higher levels of creativity and proactive job redesign.

The research uncovers a parallel and equally powerful negative pathway. When AI-supported work is perceived as a hindrance, it triggers a very different set of responses. Employees may interpret AI as a threat to their autonomy, skills, and long-term career prospects. This perception can lead to job replacement anxiety, characterized by fears that AI systems may reduce the need for human input or render certain roles obsolete.

This anxiety, in turn, contributes to organizational cynicism. Employees experiencing this form of disengagement develop negative attitudes toward their work and employer, distancing themselves psychologically from their roles. The study identifies this as a key component of burnout, with implications for productivity, morale, and retention.

The dual pathways highlight a critical insight: the same AI system, used in the same organization, can simultaneously enhance innovation and undermine employee well-being. The determining factor is not the technology itself but how it is perceived and integrated into daily work.

Daily experiences with AI shape employee behavior

The study focuses on daily experiences rather than static or long-term perceptions. Using a 10-day diary design involving 173 employees across multiple industries in the United States, the researchers captured fluctuations in how individuals interacted with AI and how those interactions influenced their behavior and attitudes.

This approach reveals that employee responses to AI are not fixed. The same individual may view AI as a helpful tool on one day and a threatening force on another. These shifts are influenced by contextual factors such as workload, task complexity, and emotional state.

AI-supported work is a job demand that requires continuous adaptation. Employees must adjust to evolving workflows, learn new tools, and navigate changing expectations. This ongoing adjustment creates a dynamic environment in which appraisals can change rapidly.

When employees focus on the opportunities created by AI, such as efficiency gains and reduced workload, they are more likely to engage with their work and explore new ways of performing tasks. This leads to resource gains, including increased confidence, improved performance, and greater creative output.

On the other hand, when employees focus on the constraints associated with AI, such as reduced control or perceived devaluation of their skills, they are more likely to disengage. This leads to resource depletion, including emotional exhaustion and reduced motivation.

The findings challenge the assumption that AI adoption leads to uniform outcomes across a workforce. Instead, they demonstrate that the impact of AI is highly individualized and context-dependent, shaped by daily interactions and subjective interpretations.

Attitudes toward AI determine its impact

One of the key findings is the role of AI system evaluation, a general attitude reflecting how employees perceive the usefulness and value of AI systems. This factor acts as a lens through which daily experiences are interpreted, influencing whether AI is seen as a challenge or a hindrance.

Employees with a positive evaluation of AI are less likely to perceive it as a threat, even when its presence increases. For these individuals, AI-supported work does not strongly trigger hindrance appraisals or job replacement anxiety. Instead, they are more likely to focus on its benefits and integrate it into their workflows in a constructive manner.

On the other hand, employees with less favorable attitudes toward AI are more sensitive to its potential downsides. For them, increased AI support is more likely to be associated with feelings of insecurity and disengagement. The study finds that the negative pathway leading to cynicism is significantly stronger among this group.

Interestingly, while AI system evaluation moderates the negative pathway, it does not significantly strengthen the positive pathway. This suggests that while favorable attitudes can buffer against the risks of AI, they do not necessarily amplify its benefits. The primary value of positive evaluation lies in reducing harm rather than enhancing gains.

This difference indicates that fostering positive attitudes toward AI is critical for minimizing negative outcomes but may not be sufficient to fully unlock its potential for innovation.

Implications for organizations navigating AI adoption

To manage this transition effectively, the study recommends the following:

• Human-centric approach to AI integration: Organizations must recognize that employees are not passive recipients of technology but active interpreters whose perceptions shape outcomes. Ensuring that AI systems are perceived as supportive, transparent, and aligned with employee goals is essential for maximizing their benefits.
• Communication and training: Employees who understand how AI works and how it complements their roles are more likely to view it as a challenge rather than a hindrance. Providing opportunities for skill development and involvement in AI implementation can further enhance positive appraisals.
• Eliminating job replacement anxiety: This includes clearly communicating the role of AI in the workplace, emphasizing its function as a tool for augmentation rather than replacement. Failure to address these concerns can lead to disengagement and cynicism, undermining the potential benefits of AI adoption.
• Fexibility in work design: Allowing employees to engage in task crafting enables them to adapt their roles in response to AI, creating opportunities for innovation and personal growth. This approach aligns with broader trends toward more dynamic and individualized work environments.