I.
Introduction (4 minutes)
1. Background of the report
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming a major part of how organizations work
today. Many companies use AI to improve efficiency, automate tasks, and support
innovation. As this happens, leaders are expected to take an active role in introducing
and promoting AI in the workplace.
In Vietnam, this trend is also becoming more important. Recent evidence also
suggests that AI adoption in Vietnam is growing. A B&Company report stated that AI
adoption increased strongly in 2024, with the total number of AI-adopting firms
reaching nearly 170,000, or around 18% of enterprises nationwide.
In this context, leadership becomes an important factor in shaping how employees
respond to AI-related change at work.
2. Significance of the report
Studying leaders’ AI-oriented behavior is meaningful because AI adoption in
organizations may create both opportunities and challenges for employees. On the one
hand, leaders who actively promote AI-related change may encourage employees to
improve their job performance. On the other hand, this behavior may also increase the
risk of unethical behavior, especially when employees become more focused on
visible results and outperforming others. Therefore, this topic is important for
organizations that want to improve performance while still maintaining ethical
standards.
3. Problem statement
As organizations increasingly adopt AI in the workplace, leaders are expected to
guide employees through AI-related change. However, this process may create mixed
employee outcomes as mentioned earlier. This creates a practical concern for
organizations, especially when they need to promote innovation and performance at
the same time. Although He et al. (2023) examined this relationship in China and the
United States, it is still necessary to examine whether similar patterns appear in
Vietnam. Therefore, this study addresses an important workplace issue in the
Vietnamese context.
4. Research Objectives
This study aims to examine how leaders’ AI-oriented change behavior affects
employee outcomes in the Vietnamese workplace. More specifically, it investigates
whether leaders’ AI-oriented change behavior influences employees’ job performance
and unethical behavior through performance orientation. The study also examines
whether trait competitiveness strengthens the effect of leaders’ AI-oriented change
behavior on employee performance orientation, and in turn shapes employee
outcomes.
5. Research Questions
And here is our research question:
RQ1: How does leaders’ AI-oriented change behavior affect employees’ job
performance and unethical behavior?
RQ2: Does employee performance orientation mediate the relationship between
leaders’ AI-oriented change behavior and employee outcomes, specifically job
performance and unethical behavior?
RQ3: Does employee trait competitiveness moderate the effect of leaders’ AI-oriented
change behavior on employee performance orientation, and thereby influence job
performance and unethical behavior?
II. Literature Review (4 minutes)
Next is the literature review, theoretical foundation, and conceptual model of our study.
1. Key terms definition
First, regarding key concepts, our study focuses on five main variables at the individual level.
The independent variable is leaders’ AI-oriented change behavior, which refers to how
leaders actively promote and support the use of AI in the organization to improve efficiency
and innovation.
We also examine trait competitiveness, which reflects an individual’s tendency to compete
with others and desire to outperform peers.
The mediating variable is performance orientation, meaning the extent to which employees
focus on demonstrating their competence and achieving high performance.
Finally, we consider two outcomes: job performance, which refers to how well employees
complete their tasks, and unethical behavior, which includes actions that violate workplace
norms or ethical standards.
2. Background theory
The theoretical foundation of this study is Social Information Processing Theory.
This theory explains that employees rely on cues from leaders to understand what is expected
of them and how they should behave.
In the context of AI-driven change, when leaders actively promote AI, they send a strong
signal that performance, adaptation, and results are important.
As a result, employees may become more focused on performance.
However, not all employees respond in the same way. Individual traits, especially trait
competitiveness, can influence how strongly employees react to these leadership signals.
3. Hypothesis development & Conceptual model
Based on this reasoning, we develop six hypotheses.
First, H1 proposes that leaders’ AI-oriented change behavior positively influences
performance orientation.
This means that when leaders emphasize AI adoption and improvement, employees are more
likely to focus on achieving high performance and proving their ability.
Second, H2 proposes that leaders’ AI-oriented change behavior has a positive indirect effect
on job performance through performance orientation.
In other words, leadership improves job performance by encouraging employees to become
more performance-oriented.
Third, H3 suggests a similar indirect effect on unethical behavior.
The idea is that when employees are highly focused on performance, they may prioritize
results over ethical standards, which could lead to unethical actions.
Next, we examine the moderating role of trait competitiveness.
H4 proposes that trait competitiveness strengthens the relationship between leaders’
AI-oriented change behavior and performance orientation.
This is because highly competitive individuals are more sensitive to performance-related cues
and are more likely to respond strongly to leadership expectations.
Finally, we propose two moderated mediation hypotheses.
H5 suggests that trait competitiveness strengthens the indirect effect of leaders’ AI-oriented
change behavior on job performance through performance orientation.
This means that for highly competitive employees, the positive impact of leadership on
performance will be even stronger.
Similarly, H6 suggests that trait competitiveness also strengthens the indirect effect on
unethical behavior.
In this case, highly competitive individuals may be more likely to translate performance
pressure into unethical behavior.
As shown in the conceptual model, leaders’ AI-oriented change behavior influences
performance orientation, which then leads to both job performance and unethical behavior.
Trait competitiveness moderates the relationship between leadership and performance
orientation, and also strengthens the indirect effects in H5 and H6.