AI · Abstract-supported quantitative empirical study

Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence (AI): a paradigm shift in HRM practices for employee sustainable performance

Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication · 2026

Ying Sin Chin, Abang Azlan Mohamad, May Chiun Lo

Summary

Three of five hypotheses were supported: AI adoption positively related to sustainable employee performance; HRM practices and digital culture also positively related to performance; AI did not moderate the HRM–performance link and AI adoption was not associated with digital culture. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Treat this as evidence for the specific customer behavior and adoption question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.

Reported result

What the study found

Research question

What the authors investigated

How do AI adoption, organizational digital culture and HRM practices relate to sustainable employee performance in Malaysian luxury hotels?

Design

Quantitative questionnaire study; psychometric validation; SPSS 28 and SmartPLS 4 analysis.

Sample and setting

Luxury hotels in Malaysia; the accessible abstract does not report the respondent n.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Cross-sectional Malaysian luxury-hotel focus; authors call for longitudinal, cross-sector and cross-country comparisons.

Research sources

Publisher DOI record and accessible article/abstract directly support the bibliographic record and the summary fields; editorial review remains appropriate for duplicate checking against the unseen 300-study library. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.

Study strength

2.5/5 Exploratory evidence; interpret cautiously

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design · 1/2

The described design supports the question, but it does not establish causal effects beyond the reported setting.

Sample · 0.4/1

The accessible source does not report a usable sample size.

Comparison · 0.5/1

The comparison structure is limited or depends on the paper's model/context.

Can we check it? · 0.5/1

Only publisher abstract/metadata was retrieved; full methods and robustness could not be checked.

Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the captured source; it may not apply to this study design.