A new study from Aalto University reveals that emotional and behavioral factors, rather than technological limitations, are the primary reasons why many companies fail to benefit from AI.
Researchers from Aalto University have uncovered a compelling reason why most companies aren’t reaping the expected benefits from artificial intelligence: it’s not the technology itself, but the emotional and behavioral reactions of employees that pose the real challenges.
Although AI has the potential to revolutionize decision-making processes, ignite innovation and significantly enhance employee productivity, many enterprises are falling short. Indeed, a staggering 80% of companies report failing to capitalize on AI’s potential despite substantial investments in both funding and effort.
“Often employees fail to embrace new AI and benefit from it, but we don’t really know why,” Natalia Vuori, an assistant professor at Aalto University, said in a news release.
According to Vuori, much of the misunderstanding stems from the focus on technological limitations or users’ cognitive judgments regarding AI performance, rather than on emotional and behavioral aspects.
Vuori and her research team delved into this phenomenon by conducting a year-long observational study of a 600-employee consulting company that was attempting to implement a new AI tool.
This tool was designed to collect employees’ digital footprints and map their skills and abilities, with the ultimate aim of streamlining team selection for consulting projects.
Despite the promising functionality, the experiment ended in failure after nearly two years.
The reason? Staff discomfort. Employees were uneasy about the AI tracking their calendar notes, internal communications and day-to-day activities. This discomfort led some employees to stop providing information altogether or to manipulate the system with data they believed would enhance their career prospects.
Consequently, the AI’s accuracy diminished, creating a negative feedback loop that eroded users’ faith in its capabilities.
“Leaders couldn’t understand why the AI usage was declining. They were taking a lot of action to promote the tools and so on, trying to explain how they use the data, but it didn’t help,” Vuoria dded, suggesting that this case study is indicative of a widespread issue concerning AI adoption.
The research identified four primary emotional and trust-based reactions among employees: full trust, full distrust, uncomfortable trust and blind trust.
Full trust represents high trust both cognitively and emotionally, while full distrust indicates low trust in both respects. Uncomfortable trust is characterized by high cognitive trust but low emotional trust, and blind trust by the opposite.
The study revealed that emotional trust, or the lack thereof, significantly impacts how employees engage with AI. Employees with only cognitive trust were more likely to restrict, withdraw or manipulate their digital footprint, undermining the successful implementation of AI tools.
“AI adoption isn’t just a technological challenge — it’s a leadership one. Success hinges on understanding trust and addressing emotions, and making employees feel excited about using and experimenting with AI,” added Vuori. “Without this human-centered approach and strategies that are tailored to address the needs of each group, even the smartest AI will fail to deliver on its potential.”
The findings from this research are pivotal for companies aiming to enhance AI adoption strategies and align with the human emotional landscape to achieve better results. Published in the Journal of Management Studies, the study offers new insights for fostering a successful AI-empowered work environment.