Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely discussed as a productivity tool, yet empirical research rarely theorizes AI as a boundary condition that alters whether, and how strongly, digital-era management practices translate into employee and organizational outcomes. Drawing on socio-technical systems theory and emerging views of algorithmic agency, we argue that AI maturity - distinct from digital integration because it reflects the extent to which predictive and generative AI are embedded in workflows, coordination routines, decision support, and planning - amplifies the effectiveness of digital-nomad-oriented management practices. We test this AI accelerator effect using a cross-regional survey dataset (N = 372) of employees and managers recruited through digital-nomad communities and collaborating organizations across China, the United States, and Europe. Hierarchical regression models with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors show that AI maturity strengthens the positive association between DRISA practices and employee engagement. AI maturity also conditions the performance consequences of spatial flexibility: simple slopes indicate that spatial flexibility is performance-reducing when AI maturity is low but performance-enhancing when AI maturity is high. These results reposition AI maturity as a coordination capability that changes the marginal returns to autonomy- and flexibility-oriented work designs, while clarifying its conceptual distinctiveness from broader digital integration and underscoring that sustainable digitally flexible work depends on adequate coordination capacity.

1.         Allen TD, Golden TD, Shockley KM. How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2015; 16(2): 40–68. doi: 10.1177/1529100615593273

2.         Gajendran RS, Harrison DA. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92(6): 1524–1541. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524

3.         Choudhury P, Foroughi C, Larson B. Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal. 2021; 42(4): 655–683. doi: 10.1002/smj.3251

4.         Bick A, Blandin A, Mertens K. Work from home before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. 2023; 15(4): 1–39. doi: 10.1257/mac.20210061

5.         Bloom N, Han R, Liang J. Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature. 2024; 630(8018): 920–925. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2

6.         Yang L, Holtz D, Jaffe S, et al. The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature Human Behaviour. 2022; 6(1): 43–54. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4

7.         Barrero JM, Bloom N, Davis SJ. The evolution of work from home. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2023; 37(4): 23–50. doi: 10.1257/jep.37.4.23

8.         Wang B, Liu Y, Qian J, Parker SK. Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology. 2021; 70(1): 16–59. doi: 10.1111/apps.12290

9.         Ipsen C, van Veldhoven M, Kirchner K, Hansen JP. Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4): 1826. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041826

10.      Chevtaeva E, Denizci-Guillet B. Digital nomads’ lifestyles and coworkation. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. 2021; 21: 100633. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100633

11.      Nash C, Jarrahi MH, Sutherland W. Nomadic work and location independence: The role of space in shaping the work of digital nomads. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2021; 3(2): 271–282. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.234

12.      Woldoff RA, Litchfield RC. Digital Nomads: In Search of Meaningful Work in the New Economy. Oxford University Press; 2021. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190931780.001.0001

13.      Cook D. What is a digital nomad? Definition and taxonomy in the era of mainstream remote work. World Leisure Journal. 2023; 65(2): 256–275. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2023.2190608

14.      Rainoldi M, Ladkin A, Buhalis D. Blending work and leisure: A future digital worker hybrid lifestyle perspective. Annals of Leisure Research. 2022; 27(2): 215–235. doi: 10.1080/11745398.2022.2070513

15.      Marx J, Stieglitz S, Brunker F, Mirbabaie M. Home (Office) is where your Heart is: Exploring the identity of the corporate nomad knowledge worker archetype. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 2023; 65(3): 293–308. doi: 10.1007/s12599-023-00807-w

16.      Bozzi A. Digital nomadism from the perspective of places and mobilities: A literature review. European Transport Research Review. 2024; 16(1): 50. doi: 10.1186/s12544-024-00663-z

17.      Cramton CD. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science. 2001; 12(3): 346–371. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098

18.      Hinds PJ, Bailey DE. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science. 2003; 14(6): 615–632. doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872

19.      Golden TD, Veiga JF, Dino RN. The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008; 93(6): 1412–1421. doi: 10.1037/a0012722

20.      Chamakiotis P, Panteli N, Davison RM. Reimagining e-leadership for reconfigured virtual teams due to COVID-19. International Journal of Information Management. 2021; 60: 102381. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102381

21.      Ajzen M, Taskin L. The re-regulation of working communities and relationships in the context of flexwork: A spacing identity approach. Information and Organization. 2021; 31(4): 100364. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100364

22.      Kellogg KC, Valentine MA, Christin A. Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals. 2020; 14(1): 366–410. doi: 10.5465/annals.2018.0174

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

24.      Jarrahi MH. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons. 2018; 61(4): 577–586. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007

25.      Berente N, Gu B, Recker J, Santhanam R. Managing artificial intelligence. MIS Quarterly. 2021; 45(3): 1433–1450. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2021/16274

26.      Murray A, Rhymer J, Sirmon DG. Humans and technology: Forms of conjoined agency in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 2021; 46(3): 552–571. doi: 10.5465/amr.2019.0186

27.      Vrontis D, Christofi M, Pereira V, et al. Artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced technologies and human resource management: A systematic review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2022; 33(6): 1237–1266. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2020.1871398

28.      Hillebrand L, Raisch S, Schad J. Managing with artificial intelligence: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Annals. 2025; 19(1): 343–375. doi: 10.5465/annals.2022.0072

29.      Mikalef P, Gupta M. Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Information & Management. 2021; 58(3): 103434. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2021.103434

30.      Meijerink J, Boons M, Keegan A, Marler J. Algorithmic human resource management: Synthesizing developments and cross-disciplinary insights on digital HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2021; 32(12): 2545–2562. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2021.1925326

31.      Jarrahi MH, Newlands G, Lee MK, et al. Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data & Society. 2021; 8(2): 1–14. doi: 10.1177/20539517211020332

32.      Puranam P. Human-AI collaborative decision-making as an organization design problem. Journal of Organization Design. 2021; 10(2): 75–80. doi: 10.1007/s41469-021-00095-2

33.      Orlikowski WJ. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science. 1992; 3(3): 398–427. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.398

34.      Mazmanian M, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J. The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science. 2013; 24(5): 1337–1357. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0806

35.      Kahn WA. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal. 1990; 33(4): 692–724. doi: 10.5465/256287

36.      Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007; 22(3): 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115

37.      Faraj S, Pachidi S, Sayegh K. Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization. 2018; 28(1): 62–70. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005

38.      von Krogh G. Artificial intelligence in organizations: New opportunities for phenomenon-based theorizing. Academy of Management Discoveries. 2018; 4(4): 404–409. doi: 10.5465/amd.2018.0084

39.      Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006; 66(4): 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471

40.      Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International. 2008; 13(3): 209–223. doi: 10.1108/13620430810870476

41.      Parent-Rocheleau X, Parker SK. Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs. Human Resource Management Review. 2022; 32(3): 100838. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838

42.      Anthony C. When knowledge work and analytical technologies collide: The practices and consequences of black boxing algorithmic technologies. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2021; 66(4): 1173–1212. doi: 10.1177/00018392211016755

43.      Lebovitz S, Lifshitz-Assaf H, Levina N. To engage or not to engage with AI for critical judgments: How professionals deal with opacity when using AI for medical diagnosis. Organization Science. 2022; 33(1): 126–148. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1549

44.      Jussupow E, Benbasat I, Heinzl A. An integrative perspective on algorithm aversion and appreciation in decision-making. MIS Quarterly. 2024; 48(4): 1575–1590. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2024/18512

45.      Morikawa M. Productivity dynamics of work from home: Firm-level evidence from Japan. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 2024; 34(2): 465–487. doi: 10.1007/s00191-024-00849-7

46.      Waizenegger L, Schaedlich K, Doolin B. Sociomateriality in action: Theorizing change in sociomaterial practices of working from home. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 2023; 65(3): 235–257. doi: 10.1007/s12599-023-00796-w

47.      Delaney JT, Huselid MA. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal. 1996; 39(4): 949–969. doi: 10.5465/256718

48.      Venkatraman N, Ramanujam V. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review. 1986; 11(4): 801–814. doi: 10.5465/amr.1986.4283976

49.      Wall TD, Michie J, Patterson M, Wood SJ, Sheehan M, Clegg CW, West M. On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology. 2004; 57(1): 95–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02485.x

50.      Dawson JF. Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2014; 29(1): 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

51.      Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. 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: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879