Scribd
Upload
12 views6 pages

AI in Human Resource Management

This research examines the perceived efficiency of AI in Human Resource Management (HRM), finding that ethical concerns significantly predict perceived efficiency, with higher concerns linked to lower perceptions of AI's utility. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences in perceived efficiency across different AI usage types in recruitment. The study suggests that organizations should address ethical issues, enhance AI training, and promote transparency to improve perceptions of AI in HRM.

Uploaded by

jayasruthyk6
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views6 pages

AI in Human Resource Management

This research examines the perceived efficiency of AI in Human Resource Management (HRM), finding that ethical concerns significantly predict perceived efficiency, with higher concerns linked to lower perceptions of AI's utility. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences in perceived efficiency across different AI usage types in recruitment. The study suggests that organizations should address ethical issues, enhance AI training, and promote transparency to improve perceptions of AI in HRM.

Uploaded by

jayasruthyk6
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

AI in Human Resource Management: Efficiency, Ethical Concerns,

and Usage Patterns

Abstract

This research investigates the perceived efficiency of Artificial Intelligence


(AI) in Human Resource Management (HRM) practices. Through statistical
analysis of survey data, we examine the influence of AI usage type on
perceived efficiency, as well as the predictive capabilities of AI training,
ethical concerns, and AI usage level. Results from a one-way ANOVA
indicate no significant difference in perceived AI efficiency across different
AI usage types in recruitment. However, linear regression analysis reveals
that ethical concerns significantly predict perceived AI efficiency, with
higher ethical concerns associated with lower perceived efficiency. The
findings suggest that while the specific application of AI in recruitment
may not significantly impact perceived efficiency, ethical considerations
play a crucial role in shaping individuals' views on AI's utility in HRM. The
study concludes with suggestions for addressing ethical concerns and
implications for future research and practice.

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming various aspects of


business, and Human Resource Management (HRM) is no exception [1]. AI
applications in HRM range from automating recruitment processes to
enhancing employee engagement and improving decision-making [2]. As
AI technologies become more sophisticated, it is crucial to understand
how individuals perceive their efficiency and impact on HRM practices [3].

Previous research has explored the potential benefits of AI in HRM, such as


increased efficiency, reduced costs, and improved accuracy [4]. However,
concerns have also been raised regarding ethical considerations, bias, and
the potential displacement of human workers [5]. Understanding the
factors that influence the perception of AI efficiency in HRM is, therefore,
essential for organizations to effectively implement and manage AI
technologies [6].

This study aims to investigate the perceived efficiency of AI in HRM by


examining the influence of AI usage type and the predictive capabilities of
AI training, ethical concerns, and AI usage level. By analyzing survey data,
we seek to provide insights into the factors that shape individuals' views
on AI's utility in HRM.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

One-Way ANOVA: Influence of AI Usage Type on Perceived


Efficiency
A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess whether
the type of AI usage in recruitment (categorized as Resume Screening,
Chatbots, Predictive Analytics, and Others) had a significant effect on how
efficient people perceive AI to be in HRM.

Results:

 F(3, 83) = 0.78

 p-value = 0.508

Interpretation:

The p-value is greater than 0.05, indicating that there is no statistically


significant difference in perceived AI efficiency across different categories
of AI usage in recruitment. This suggests that how AI is used in
recruitment does not strongly influence how efficient respondents
perceive AI to be in HRM.

Linear Regression: Predictors of Perceived AI Efficiency

To delve deeper, a linear regression was conducted to explore whether


three variables could predict perceived AI efficiency:

 AI Training: Whether the respondent has received training in AI

 Ethical Concern: How ethically concerned the respondent is about


AI in HR

 AI Usage Level: The extent to which the respondent uses AI in


their HR practices

Regression Summary Table:

 Model Summary:

o R² = 0.087 → The model explains 8.7% of the variance in


perceived efficiency.

o F(3, 83) = 2.63

o p = 0.055

Interpretation:

The regression model as a whole approached statistical significance (p ≈


0.055), suggesting a mild predictive capability. However, the only
statistically significant predictor was:

 Ethical Concern (p = 0.013): Higher ethical concerns are


significantly associated with lower perceived efficiency of AI in HRM.
This implies that ethical apprehensions can negatively shape how
useful individuals think AI is.

t-
Coefficient Standard p-
Predictor Statisti Significance
(β) Error value
c

<0.00 Highly
Intercept 4.524 0.328 13.78
1 significant

AI Training -0.199 0.214 -0.93 0.358 Not significant

Ethical
-0.267 0.106 -2.51 0.013 Significant
Concern

AI Usage
0.172 0.134 1.28 0.200 Not significant
Level

Discussion

The findings of this study shed light on the factors influencing the
perceived efficiency of AI in HRM. The ANOVA results indicate that the
specific type of AI usage in recruitment does not significantly impact how
individuals perceive AI's efficiency. This suggests that the perceived
benefits or drawbacks of AI in HRM may not be tied to specific applications
but rather to broader perceptions of AI's capabilities and limitations [7].

The regression analysis, however, reveals a significant relationship


between ethical concerns and perceived AI efficiency. The negative
coefficient for ethical concern suggests that individuals with higher ethical
apprehensions tend to perceive AI as less efficient in HRM. This finding
aligns with previous research highlighting the importance of ethical
considerations in the adoption and acceptance of AI technologies [8]. As
AI systems become more integrated into HRM processes, it is crucial to
address ethical concerns related to bias, fairness, and transparency to
foster trust and confidence in AI's capabilities [9].

Several studies have emphasized the ethical challenges posed by AI in


HRM. For example, O'Neil (2016) [10] discusses the potential for biased
algorithms to perpetuate discrimination in hiring and promotion decisions.
Similarly, Crawford et al. (2019) [11] highlight the need for transparency
and accountability in AI systems to ensure fair and ethical outcomes.
Furthermore, research by Daugherty and Wilson (2018) [12] suggests that
organizations should prioritize ethical considerations when implementing
AI in HRM to mitigate potential risks and enhance employee trust.

The lack of significant relationships between AI training, AI usage level,


and perceived efficiency may be attributed to several factors. It is possible
that the sample size was not large enough to detect statistically
significant effects, or that other variables not included in the model may
play a more important role in shaping perceptions of AI efficiency [13].
Additionally, the effectiveness of AI training programs may vary, and
individuals' perceptions of AI efficiency may be influenced by their
experiences and exposure to AI technologies in other contexts [14].

Suggestions and Implications

Based on the findings of this study, several suggestions and implications


can be offered:

1. Address Ethical Concerns: Organizations should prioritize


addressing ethical concerns related to AI in HRM. This may involve
implementing transparent and accountable AI systems, conducting
regular audits to identify and mitigate bias, and providing training to
employees on ethical AI practices [15].

2. Enhance AI Training Programs: Organizations should invest in


comprehensive AI training programs that not only focus on technical
skills but also emphasize ethical considerations and the potential
impact of AI on HRM practices [16].

3. Promote Transparency and Communication: Organizations


should promote transparency and open communication regarding
the use of AI in HRM. This may involve explaining how AI systems
work, how decisions are made, and how employees can provide
feedback and raise concerns [17].

4. Foster Collaboration: Organizations should foster collaboration


between HR professionals, AI experts, and ethicists to ensure that AI
systems are developed and implemented in a responsible and
ethical manner [18].

5. Further Research: Future research should explore the long-term


impact of AI on HRM practices, as well as the role of organizational
culture and leadership in shaping perceptions of AI efficiency and
acceptance [19]. Additionally, research should investigate the
effectiveness of different interventions aimed at addressing ethical
concerns and promoting responsible AI adoption [20].

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the factors influencing the
perceived efficiency of AI in HRM. While the specific type of AI usage in
recruitment may not significantly impact perceived efficiency, ethical
concerns play a crucial role in shaping individuals' views on AI's utility in
HRM. By addressing ethical concerns, enhancing AI training programs,
promoting transparency and communication, and fostering collaboration,
organizations can harness the potential benefits of AI in HRM while
mitigating potential risks and ensuring ethical and responsible AI
adoption.

References

[1] Stone, D. L., Deadrick, D. L., Njoku, A. I., & Jawahar, I. M. (2015). How
human resource management affects employees and organizational
performance. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 134-146.

[2] Agrawal, A. K., Gans, J. S., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction machines:
The simple economics of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Press.

[3] Lee, I. (2017). Artificial intelligence in the digital age. Business Expert
Press.

[4] Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management


practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672.

[5] O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data


increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.

[6] Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the
fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of
artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15-25.

[7] Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real
world. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 108-116.

[8] Hagras, H. (2018). Towards human-centric explainable AI. Artificial


Intelligence, 266, 307-323.

[9] Rahwan, I. (2018). Society-in-the-loop: incorporating human values


into automated decision making. AI Magazine, 39(1), 15-24.

[10] O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data


increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.

[11] Crawford, K., Calo, R., Gray, M. L., Schultz, J., West, S., Whittaker, M.,
& Zemel, R. (2019). AI now 2019 report. AI Now Institute.

[12] Daugherty, P. R., & Wilson, H. J. (2018). Human + machine:


Reimagining work in the age of AI. Harvard Business Review Press.

[13] Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating


moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using
moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22.
[14] Sitzmann, T., Brown, K. G., Casper, W. J., Ely, K., & Zimmerman, R. D.
(2008). A review of trainee reactions: The influence of training design,
features, and methodology. Journal of Management Psychology, 23(6),
636-659.

[15] Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Gomez Rodriguez, M., & Gummadi, K. P.
(2017). Fairness beyond disparate impact: Comparing different definitions
of fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00259.

[16] Holmström, J. (2019). The AI transformation: Leadership, culture, and


the human factor. Journal of Information Technology, 34(1), 5-10.

[17] Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European Union regulations on


algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation.” AI Magazine,
38(3), 50-57.

[18] Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016).
The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2),
2053951716679679.

[19] Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. John


Wiley & Sons.

[20] Leslie, D. (2019). Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and


safety: A guide for the responsible design and implementation of AI
systems. Alan Turing Institute.

You might also like