Purpose This study aims to investigate the role of employee well-being as a mediator in the relationship between artificial intelligence usage and employee performance in hybrid work environments. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative research design was adopted, and data were collected from 465 employees working in information technology firms working under a hybrid work environment, located in Bengaluru. Data analysis involved exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 4) to test the mediation model. Findings The EFA and CFA confirmed the validity and reliability of the measurement model, revealing clear factor structures. Mediation analysis demonstrated that AI tools usage had a significant positive effect on both employee wellbeing (ß = 0.7882, p 0.001) and employee performance (ß = 0.3682, p 0.001). Employee wellbeing also significantly predicted performance (ß = 0.6018, p 0.001) and partially mediated the artificial intelligence (AI)–performance relationship, with an indirect effect of ß = 0.4743 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3309, 0.6262). Practical implications The outcomes of the research suggest that organisations should integrate AI tools for higher employee performance along with the wellbeing initiatives with AI implementation strategies. Providing AI training, redesigning jobs to improve the autonomy and improving social connections in hybrid environments can improve the performance benefits of AI usage. Originality/value The study examines the mediating role of employee wellbeing in the relationship between AI tool usage and employee performance in the hybrid work environment. The study contributes to the present literature on the AI tool usage, and its impact on the human factors and suggests actionable insights for policymakers, managers and human resource practitioners, suggesting they balance the technological advancement and employee-centred initiatives.
Nanjundeswaraswamy et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: