AI Transparency and Employee Innovation: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety and the Moderating Effect of AI Self-Efficacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65455/dxhkxd06Keywords:
AI Transparency, Psychological Safety, Employee Innovation, AI Self-EfficacyAbstract
As AI technologies become more integrated into everyday organizational workflows, it is essential to understand how employees interpret and interact with these systems to support innovative outcomes.This study investigates how transparency in AI systems influences employee innovation, considering the role of psychological safety and individual confidence in using AI. Data were gathered from 447 knowledge workers in small and medium-sized enterprises in China who regularly interact with AI tools. Analysis using structural equation modeling shows that clearer AI processes enhance employees’ sense of psychological safety, which in turn supports innovative actions. Moreover, employees with greater confidence in using AI benefit more from transparency, amplifying its positive impact on innovation. The results underscore that promoting innovation requires not only transparent system design but also initiatives that strengthen employees’ AI skills and create psychologically supportive environments. This research contributes to understanding the human side of AI adoption by linking system transparency to practical organizational outcomes and offering guidance for effective AI–human integration in workplaces.
References
[1]KELLOGG K C, VALENTINE M A, CHRISTIN A. Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 2020, 14(1): 366-410.
[2]SOULAMI H, EL BAROUDI S, VAN DEN HEUVEL M. AI at work and employee wellbeing: A systematic review and future research agenda. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2024, 7: 1473872. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1473872
[3]MCKINSEY & COMPANY. The state of AI in 2023: Generative AI’s breakout year. 2023.
[4]YU L, LI Y. Artificial intelligence decision-making transparency and employees’ trust: The parallel multiple mediating effect of effectiveness and discomfort. Behavioral Sciences, 2022, 12(5): 127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050127
[5]ZERILLI J, KNOTT A, MACLAURIN J, et al. Transparency in algorithmic and human decision-making: Is there a double standard? Philosophy & Technology, 2019, 32(4): 661-683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0330-6
[6]SHIN D. The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2021, 146: 102551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551
[7]LIU Z. Explainable machine learning for telecom customer churn prediction and actionable retention strategies. Applied Artificial Intelligence Research, 2026, 2(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.65455/1z4v1627
[8]YUAN F. Innovative application of artificial intelligence algorithms in credit scoring: Taking specific products in the field of consumer finance as the research object. Applied Artificial Intelligence Research, 2025, 1(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.65455/aair5612
[9]ZHOU J. Personalized recommendation algorithms in digital media: A review of engagement effects, information cocoons, and marketing implications. Applied Artificial Intelligence Research, 2026, 2(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.65455/qnpjvg49
[10]ARRIETA A B, DÍAZ-RODRÍGUEZ N, DEL SER J, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 2020, 58: 82-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
[11]YANG M M, LU Y, COOKE F L. Demystifying AI for the workforce: The role of explainable AI in worker acceptance and management relations. Journal of Management Studies, 2026, 63(2): 438-472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70039
[12]DAVIS F D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 1989, 13(3): 319-340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
[13]GUNNING D, AHA D W. DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program. AI Magazine, 2019, 40(2): 44-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v40i2.2850
[14]MILLER T. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 2019, 267: 1-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007
[15]JANSSEN O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2000, 73(3): 287-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038
[16]CARMELI A, REITER-PALMON R, ZIV E. Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 2010, 22(3): 250-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654
[17]BAER M, FRESE M. Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003, 24(1): 45-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179
[18]DOSHI-VELEZ F, KIM B. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv, 2017.
[19]SAMEK W, MONTAVON G, VEDALDI A, et al. (Eds.). Explainable AI: Interpreting, explaining and visualizing deep learning. Berlin: Springer, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6
[20]RIBEIRO M T, SINGH S, GUESTRIN C. “Why should I trust you?”: Explaining the predictions of any classifier//Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: ACM, 2016: 1135-1144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778
[21]KELLOGG K C, VALENTINE M A, CHRISTIN A. Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 2020, 14(1): 366-410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
[22]MÖHLMANN M, ZALMANSON L, HENFRIDSSON O, et al. Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control. MIS Quarterly, 2021, 45(4): 1999-2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15333
[23]NEWMAN A, DONOHUE R, EVA N. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 2018, 28(3): 521-535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
[24]LIANG B, WANG Y, HUO W, et al. Algorithmic control as a double-edged sword: Its relationship with service performance and work well-being. Journal of Business Research, 2025, 189: 115199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115199
[25]BANDURA A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997.
[26]COMPEAU D R, HIGGINS C A. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 1995, 19(2): 189-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
[27]JIMMIESON N L, TERRY D J, CALLAN V J. A longitudinal study of employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2004, 9(1): 11-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.11
[28]TIERNEY P, FARMER S M. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 45(6): 1137-1148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429
[29]EDMONDSON A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44(2): 350-383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
[30]SCOTT S G, BRUCE R A. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37(3): 580-607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
[31]PODSAKOFF P M, MACKENZIE S B, LEE J Y, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(5): 879-903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
[32]KOCK N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2015, 11(4): 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
[33]SHMUELI G, SARSTEDT M, HAIR J F, et al. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 2019, 53(11): 2322-2347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
[34]HAIR J F, HULT G T M, RINGLE C M, et al. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3926/oss.37
[35]HENSELER J, RINGLE C M, SARSTEDT M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2015, 43(1): 115-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
[36]PREACHER K J, RUCKER D D, HAYES A F. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2007, 42(1): 185-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
[37]HAYES A F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press, 2018.
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Applied Artificial Intelligence Research published by CSTDP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
