Human-AI Collaboration and Employee Creativity: A Dual-Pathway Perspective of Challenge and Hindrance Stressors

Yuwei Du; Ce Zhang; Lijun Gong

doi:10.62177/apemr.v3i5.1653

Authors

Yuwei Du Pusan National University
Ce Zhang Gyeongsang National University
Lijun Gong Dongguk University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62177/apemr.v3i5.1653

Keywords:

Human–AI Collaboration, Challenge Stressors, Hindrance Stressors, Perceived Organizational Support, Employee Creativity

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is now widely used in the workplace. As a result, human–AI collaboration plays an increasingly important role in employee creativity. However, the psychological mechanisms underlying this relationship remain insufficiently understood. Drawing on the Challenge–Hindrance Stressor Framework and Organizational Support Theory, this study examines the mediating roles of challenge and hindrance stressors in the relationship between human–AI collaboration and employee creativity. It also investigates the moderating role of perceived organizational support. Survey data were collected from 292 Chinese employees with human–AI collaboration experience and analyzed using SPSS 27.0, AMOS 24.0, and the PROCESS macro. The results show that challenge stressors significantly mediate the positive relationship between human–AI collaboration and employee creativity. Hindrance stressors also exhibit a significant indirect effect; however, the effect is positive, contrary to the hypothesized negative direction. In addition, perceived organizational support strengthens the positive relationship between challenge stressors and employee creativity. Overall, these findings further clarify the psychological mechanisms through which human–AI collaboration influences employee creativity and highlight the important role of organizational support in strengthening the positive effect of challenge stressors on Employee creativity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Wang Y., Heavin C., de Paula D. (2026). Unpacking human–AI collaboration: Conceptualisations and emerging research streams. Journal of Decision Systems, 35(1), Article 2653697. DOI: 10.1080/12460125.2026.2653697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2026.2653697

Jarrahi M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007

Raisch S., Krakowski S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2018.0072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072

Hitsuwari J., Ueda Y., Yun W., et al. (2023). Does human–AI collaboration lead to more creative art? Aesthetic evaluation of human-made and AI-generated haiku poetry. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107502. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107502

Mahmud B., Hong G., Fong B. (2023). A study of human–AI symbiosis for creative work: Recent developments and future directions in deep learning. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 20(2), 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3542698

Hemmer P., Schemmer M., Kühl N., et al. (2025). Complementarity in human-AI collaboration: Concept, sources, and evidence. European Journal of Information Systems, 34(6), 979–1002. DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2025.2475962. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2025.2475962

Podsakoff N. P., LePine J. A., LePine M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor–hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438–454. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438

Rhoades L., Eisenberger R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698

Lai Y., Kankanhalli A., Ong D. (2021). Human-AI collaboration in healthcare: A review and research agenda. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.046

Amabile T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.

Benbya H., Davenport T. H., Pachidi S. (2020). Artificial intelligence in organizations: Current state and future opportunities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(4), ix–xxi. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3741983

Noy S., Zhang W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–192. DOI: 10.1126/science.adh2586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586

Cavanaugh M. A., Boswell W. R., Roehling M. V., et al. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65

LePine J. A. (2022). The challenge-hindrance stressor framework: An integrative conceptual review and path forward. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 223–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221079970

Jia N., Zhang Y., Liu X. (2024). Generative AI and the nature of work: How AI collaboration transforms cognitive resource allocation and employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 67(2), 345–368.

Garcia Martinez M. (2017). Inspiring crowdsourcing communities to create novel solutions: Competition design and the mediating role of trust. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 296–304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.015

LePine J. A., Podsakoff N. P., LePine M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803921

Zhang Y., Xiao X. (2016). Impacts of stress from challenge and hindrance on employee’s creativity. Science Research Management, 37(6), 10–18.

Sacramento C. A., Fay D., West M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 141–157. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.008

Ren F., Zhang J. (2015). Job stressors, organizational innovation climate, and employees’ innovative behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 16–23. DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.992659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.992659

Koivisto M., Grassini S. (2023). Best humans still outperform artificial intelligence in a creative divergent thinking task. Scientific Reports, 13, 13601. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40858-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40858-3

Tarafdar M., Cooper C. L., Stich J.-F. (2019). The technostress trifecta—Techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169

Tarafdar M., Tu Q., Ragu-Nathan B. S., et al. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301–328. DOI: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109

Eisenberger R., Huntington R., Hutchison S., et al. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

Kurtessis J. N., Eisenberger R., Ford M. T., et al. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. DOI: 10.1177/0149206315575554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554

Eisenberger R., Fasolo P., Davis-LaMastro V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51

Kong H., Yin Z., Baruch Y., et al. (2023). The impact of trust in AI on career sustainability: The role of employee–AI collaboration and protean career orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 146, 103928. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103928. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103928

Boswell W. R., Olson-Buchanan J. B., LePine M. A. (2004). Relations between stress and work outcomes: The role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 165–181. DOI: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00049-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00049-6

Eisenberger R., Cummings J., Armeli S., et al. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812–820. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812

Farmer S. M., Tierney P., Kung-McIntyre K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618–630. DOI: 10.5465/30040653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30040653

Shalley C. E., Zhou J., Oldham G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958. DOI: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007

Dou G., Yang J., Yang L., et al. (2022). Where there is pressure, there is motivation? The impact of challenge-hindrance stressors on employees’ innovation performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1020764. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1020764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1020764