A systematic review demonstrates the AI-STAR model enhances faculty commitment in diverse university settings.
Higher education, a core institution of knowledge production, faces post-pandemic crises of escalating faculty burnout and turnover within an increasingly digital society. While transformational leadership is vital, its traditional form is increasingly ineffective within AI-suffused academic ecosystems. This study therefore proposes the AI-STAR Leadership Model (Artificial Intelligence-Integrated Support, Transparency, Action, and Resilience), a novel socio-technical framework that reconceptualizes the “Stimulus-Organism-Response” (S-O-R) paradigm. It examines how the technology of AI, when structurally integrated as a constitutive element of leadership praxis rather than a mere tool, fosters new social dynamics to augment transformational leadership and cultivate sustained faculty organizational commitment. Guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework, a systematic review of thirty-two empirical studies (2018–2025) was conducted. The findings reveal that AI, via non-instrumental integration, restructures the core components of transformational leadership. For instance, open-source algorithm auditing operationalizes idealized influence, activating the dual-path mechanism of “supportive scaffolding” to enhance efficacy and “trust calibration” to reestablish procedural fairness. Resource endowment significantly moderates path dominance and commitment type, with high-resource institutions fostering affective commitment (emotional attachment) and low-resource institutions bolstering continuance commitment (cost-based retention). The AI-STAR model resolves the instrumental paradox of AI, demonstrating its constitutive nature as a fundamental element of leadership. It also provides resource-differentiated implementation strategies for enhancing faculty commitment across diverse university contexts, offering a blueprint for technological integration that strengthens the social fabric of knowledge organizations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: