I. INTRODUCTION
The emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) represents a transformative force within the business landscape, fundamentally altering organizational strategies, operational models, and competitive dynamics [13, 29]. More than merely technological advancement, GenAI signals a paradigm shift from predictive analytics to generative creation, facilitating innovative applications across various business functions [35]. From automating complex processes to generating creative solutions, GenAI has become a catalyst for business transformation, with early adopters reporting productivity gains of 40–60% in knowledge-intensive tasks [27].
The potential of GenAI is evident across all core business functions. In the realm of strategic management, GenAI enhances real-time scenario analysis and supports data-driven decision-making [39, 8]. Within operations, it optimizes processes and reduces costs through intelligent automation [31]. Marketing has experienced particularly profound changes, with GenAI enabling hyper-personalized consumer engagement at scale [20, 13] and facilitating dynamic content creation [14]. In terms of innovation, GenAI accelerates ideation, enhances creative processes [35], and supports rapid prototyping [29]. Moreover, even resource-constrained small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are leveraging GenAI to overcome traditional barriers, thereby building resilience during crises [7] and unlocking new avenues for value creation [22].
However, the swift adoption of GenAI also introduces significant challenges that necessitate careful scrutiny. Despite its efficiency-enhancing capabilities, serious questions arise concerning its implications for business ethics, organizational structures, and competitive dynamics [31]. Key concerns include algorithmic bias, the complexities of intellectual property rights [9], and the imperative of preserving human oversight in critical decision-making processes [25]. Furthermore, the potential for market disruption and the evolution of new forms of competitive advantage [39] compel business leaders to reassess their strategic approaches.
Although the academic literature on GenAI is growing, it remains fragmented and predominantly focused on isolated applications, such as personalization or automation. While prior research often isolates GenAI’s effects within specific domains, this review offers a more integrated perspective. To our knowledge, this review is the first to provide an integrated synthesis of how GenAI impacts multiple organizational functions, strategy, operations, and workforce, while also exploring a set of diverse and interrelated tensions emerging from AI integration. By bringing these dynamics into focus, this review contributes new conceptual clarity to the evolving discourse on AI-driven transformation in organizations. This systematic review seeks to address this gap by synthesizing current knowledge, identifying patterns of transformation, and proposing directions for future research.
II. METHODOLOGY
This study employed a systematic literature review methodology to comprehensively analyze research on GenAI's transformative impact on organizations. The review process began with a targeted search across Scopus and Web of Science databases, focusing on peer-reviewed articles that examine GenAI's implications on organizations published in major business and economics journals (e.g., management journals, international business, operations management, innovation management, and organizations journals). We did not apply any restriction on the publication year of included articles. The search strategy used keywords such as “Generative AI”, “GenAI”, “generative artificial intelligence”, and “Large language models”.
After removing duplicate records and screening titles/abstracts, the full texts of potentially relevant papers were assessed for quality and relevance, resulting in a final corpus of 197 studies. Our analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s [42] six-phase reflexive thematic analysis framework, providing a structured approach to analyzing qualitative data, from familiarization and coding to theme development and reporting. This methodology enabled both a comprehensive assessment of GenAI's multifaceted implications and identification of critical gaps in current research. A Prisma flow diagram (see Figure 1) documents the review process.
III. THEMATIC RESULTS AND FRAMEWORK
This paper introduces a thematic framework comprising five dimensions: (1) Business model disruption, (2) Innovation strategy shifts, (3) Workforce and leadership transformation, (4) Sector-specific adaptations, and (5) Ethical and governance risks. These dimensions are linked through a conceptual model illustrating GenAI’s dual role as a source of opportunity and risk, shaping organizational transformation (See Table I).
A. Business models transformations
The influence of GenAI on business models is unfolding most notably across two areas: content automation and hyper-personalization. In marketing and content creation, GenAI is driving significant changes in both scale and efficiency [10]. At the same time, concerns about authenticity erosion in AI-generated branding point to rising consumer skepticism as a potential risk for firms relying heavily on automated content [21].
The shift toward personalization extends beyond marketing. Reference [29] explores how AI-driven customization is being implemented in e-commerce, reshaping customer experiences through more tailored interactions. This shift is supported by the growing effectiveness of generative pricing models, which adapt dynamically to consumer behavior and market conditions, signaling a broader move toward AI-enabled responsiveness in digital business models [18].
B. Innovation strategy shifts
One of the most significant disruptions brought by GenAI is the democratization of innovation and the risk of strategic homogenization. Reference [24] emphasizes how GenAI tools are not only prompting new ideas but also enabling novel innovation strategies, including greater cross-industry transfer. Moreover, GenAI is lowering R&D costs, particularly for smaller firms, effectively leveling the playing field and opening up space for startups to challenge incumbents [33].
However, [3] caution that widespread adoption of similar AI tools could lead to strategic homogenization, where firms lose differentiation by relying on identical algorithmic approaches. These shifts disrupt traditional R&D strategies and competitive positioning, requiring organizations to reassess how they create and capture value [48].
C. Revolutionizing workforce dynamics
As GenAI becomes more embedded in organizational life, it is not just reshaping how work gets done, it is redefining core aspects of the workplace. These shifts are unfolding across three interrelated areas: workforce structures, skill demands, and leadership roles.
GenAI is not simply automating isolated tasks; it is driving fundamental changes in how work is structured and coordinated. Reference [41] shows how AI can significantly boost productivity in creative settings when used as a support tool, complementing rather than replacing human capabilities. In contrast, [46] find that roles involving routine cognitive tasks are particularly vulnerable to displacement. Furthermore, GenAI has driven the emergence of hybrid roles that blend human judgment with AI input, often requiring new forms of collaboration and oversight [37].
As the structure of work evolves, so do the skills that organizations need. Reference [25] highlights the importance of ethical and proactive human resource development strategies to navigate this transition. Moreover, leading firms are already investing heavily in reskilling programs to equip their workforce for more complex, AI-supported roles [1]. At the same time, [5] emphasizes the role of psychological safety in supporting workers through these changes, especially as they take on tasks requiring more autonomy and problem-solving.
Leadership is also undergoing a transformation, as AI increasingly becomes a strategic asset in forecasting and planning [6]. Executive teams are beginning to incorporate AI-driven analytics into their decision-making processes, demonstrating a shift in how leadership engages with data [30]. This evolving landscape, however, calls for a new mix of capabilities, particularly AI fluency, agility, and the ability to manage uncertainty, suggesting that traditional leadership skills alone may no longer suffice [11]. Reference [32] reinforces this point, emphasizing that leadership development must be aligned with broader shifts in workforce strategy. At the same time, the risk of automation bias highlights the need to preserve room for human judgment in high-stakes decisions [38].
At a deeper level, these changes are raising new questions about autonomy and identity at work. Reference [26] shows how attitudes toward AI, especially among middle managers, are shaped by organizational culture, which can either enable or hinder meaningful adoption. Thus, thoughtful integration of AI can actually support greater autonomy, especially when accompanied by clear human oversight [12].
D. Industry-specific transformations
The application of GenAI is unfolding with striking sectoral diversity, revealing distinct patterns of transformation across industries. In healthcare, [36] presents compelling evidence of GenAI’s potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and enable more personalized treatment plans, while also pointing to the practical hurdles organizations face during implementation. The financial sector has moved quickly, with [2] highlighting how GenAI is reshaping financing models and investor behavior across both startups and national markets, and [34] examining how it is reshaping environmental, social, and governance (ESG) evaluation frameworks.
In manufacturing, [28] explores how GenAI is advancing predictive maintenance and streamlining supply chains, playing a central role in the evolution toward Industry 5.0. Education is another area seeing wide adoption and business schools are reworking their curricula to better align with AI-integrated work environments. Hence, this highlights the importance of balancing AI adoption with the continued development of human-centered skills such as critical thinking and adaptability [45].
Hospitality offers perhaps the most visible examples of front-end transformation. Reference [19] outlines a structured approach to embedding GenAI in customer service, and [40] provides a comprehensive look at AI-driven operational efficiency gains across the sector. Finally, in the creative industries, [44] documents how GenAI is challenging long-standing assumptions about originality, authorship, and human creativity. Building on this, [15] finds that AI–human collaboration is not only altering workflows but also challenging conventional ideas about what constitutes authorship and creative ownership.
Taken together, these studies show that GenAI’s impact is far from uniform. Its success, and the form it takes, depends heavily on the specific demands, norms, and infrastructures within each sector.
E. Ethical challenges and potential solutions
The integration of GenAI into business environments has raised pressing ethical concerns and exposed systemic risks that demand closer scrutiny. Without meaningful interventions, these challenges risk undermining the very promise of AI-driven transformation.
At the heart of ongoing ethical debates are issues surrounding authorship and intellectual property. Reference [17] offers foundational frameworks that tackle the blurred lines of creative ownership in AI-generated content, showing how GenAI complicates accountability in knowledge production. In the professional services domain, [16] highlights how algorithmic decision-making can compromise audit reliability, with potential consequences for trust and human judgment in financial reporting.
On the regulatory front, [43] exposes serious policy blind spots, especially in areas like consumer protection and market fairness. They argue that existing governance structures are outpaced by the rapid evolution of algorithmic bias. Adding to the complexity, [4] underscores the dual-use risks of GenAI, cautioning that tools built for business innovation can also be exploited for fraud or misinformation.
Operational risks show equally concerning patterns. For instance, over-reliance on GenAI systems is already triggering unintended consequences. Deskilling is one of the most prominent risks, as automation gradually diminishes human expertise [25]. Reference [43] also raises alarms about the emergence of algorithmic monocultures, standardized systems that, while efficient, can create cascading failures across organizations. In high-stakes domains like hiring and credit assessment, [32] shows how biased training data can reinforce systemic discrimination under the guise of neutrality.
To mitigate these risks, scholars are proposing a range of proactive solutions and calling for stronger accountability mechanisms. For instance, explainable AI, which preserves human interpretability, is one such solution [47]. Others advocate for robust governance structures [23], for example, recommending the creation of cross-functional ethical review boards to oversee AI applications. Real-time auditing, as highlighted by [34], can also play a key role in flagging and responding to emerging threats. Reference [25] proposes a more thoughtful division of labor between humans and machines, ensuring efficiency without sacrificing professional dignity. Finally, [38] argues that continuous oversight will be vital as GenAI reshapes not only tasks but also the structure of organizational roles.
Table I. Comparative analysis and thematic clustering
| Thematic cluster |
Core focus |
Main insights (examples) |
Examples of papers |
| Business models transformations (38 papers) |
- Content automation
- Hyper-personalization |
- Enables hyper-personalization and content automation at scale
- Creates new competitive dynamics and pricing models
- Democratization of innovation |
[49]
[29]
[50] |
| Innovation strategy shifts (41 papers) |
- Democratization of innovation
- Risk of strategic homogenization |
- Prompt-driven ideation
- Cross-industry innovation transfer
- SME competitive leveling
- Competitive strategy shift
- R&D strategy transformation |
[24]
[51]
[52]
[48] |
| Revolutionizing workforce dynamics (42 papers) |
- Reshaping workforce structures
- Altering skill demands
- Redefining leadership roles |
- Creates hybrid human–AI roles and workflows
- Requires significant reskilling and cultural adaptation
- Transforms leadership decision-making processes
- Impacts professional identity and autonomy
- Demands new approaches to talent management |
[41]
[30]
[25]
[11]
[32]
[38]
[26]
[12]
[15] |
| Sectoral Disruption Patterns (47 papers) |
Industry-specific transformations |
- Healthcare: enhances diagnostics but faces implementation challenges
- Finance: transforms risk assessment and ESG evaluation
- Manufacturing: enables predictive maintenance and supply chain optimization
- Education: powers personalized learning systems
- Hospitality: improves customer service and operations
- Creative industries: shows unexpected disruption patterns |
[36]
[2]
[34]
[28]
[53]
[19]
[40]
[44] |
| Ethical and governance challenges (29 papers) |
- Regulatory frameworks
- Risk management
- Authorship and intellectual property |
- Creates authorship and IP ownership dilemmas
- Reveals vulnerabilities in professional practices
- Highlights regulatory gaps in AI governance
- Risks of algorithmic bias and monocultures
- Requires explainable AI and ethical review frameworks
- Needs continuous monitoring mechanisms |
[17]
[16]
[43]
[4]
[25]
[47]
[23]
[34] |
IV. DISCUSSION
While this review highlights the broad impact of GenAI across organizational domains, a closer look reveals a series of tensions and contradictions that merit deeper critical analysis (See Figure 2). These are not simply implementation challenges; they point to more fundamental uncertainties about how organizations are redefining value, capability, and control in the context of AI.
A key contradiction lies in the dual narrative of innovation democratization and strategic homogenization. While GenAI has lowered barriers to ideation and R&D, especially for smaller firms [24], the widespread adoption of similar tools may lead to convergence around generic solutions, undermining differentiation [3]. This paradox questions the long-term strategic value of accessible AI tools if competitive positioning is eroded. Another underexplored tension is between automation and authenticity in business models. Although AI enhances content creation and personalization at scale, concerns are growing over the loss of human touch and declining trust in AI-generated experiences [21].
At the heart of ongoing ethical debates are issues surrounding authorship and intellectual property [17]. This suggests limits to automation in areas where meaning, emotion, and identity play a central role. In workforce transformation, the contrast between achieving efficiency and causing displacement is especially sharp. While some roles are enhanced through AI collaboration, others are at risk of marginalization or elimination [46; 38]. These outcomes are highly dependent on organizational choices about job design, cultural readiness, and leadership priorities.
Critically, literature offers few answers on how organizations can navigate these tensions deliberately. The findings suggest that GenAI’s impact is not just technical or operational but deeply strategic and political, shaping what kinds of work are valued, who retains control, and how organizations sustain differentiation in environments where algorithmic solutions are becoming increasingly standardized.
Three key gaps reflect this challenge. First, there is insufficient understanding of how to maintain competitive advantage in the face of algorithmic homogenization, where reliance on similar GenAI tools risks eroding strategic differentiation. Second, few empirically validated frameworks exist to guide effective human–AI collaboration in decision-making and organizational design. Third, there is a clear absence of sector-specific governance models that account for the distinct ethical, regulatory, and operational demands of industries such as healthcare, finance, or education. Addressing these issues requires moving beyond descriptive studies toward more critical, comparative research that interrogates trade-offs and unintended consequences. This review takes a first step in surfacing these tensions and invites future work to engage more deeply with their implications.
V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
This systematic literature review reveals GenAI's multifaceted and dual role as both catalyst and disruptor in organizations. This review offers a novel contribution by being the first to systematically identify and synthesize the multidimensional tensions organizations face when implementing GenAI. These include the trade-off between automation and authenticity, the risk of strategic homogenization reducing strategic differentiation, the balance between augmenting human capabilities and displacing workers, and the trade-off between achieving efficiency while dealing with authorship issues. These tensions are not only underexplored in current literature but are also central to understanding the complex role GenAI plays in organizational transformation. Addressing these issues requires moving beyond descriptive studies toward more critical, comparative research that interrogates trade-offs and unintended consequences. This review takes a first step in surfacing these tensions and invites future work to engage more deeply with their implications.
This review highlights several underexplored themes that warrant further investigation. One key area is the strategic tension between strategic homogenization and competitive differentiation where widespread access to similar GenAI tools may reduce firms’ ability to differentiate. Another promising theme is the transformation of leadership capabilities in AI-integrated environments, particularly the emergence of AI fluency, ethical agility, and data-informed decision-making as core competencies. Additionally, more research is needed on how GenAI affects organizational identity and employee autonomy, especially in hybrid human–AI roles. Finally, the role of organizational culture in shaping the adoption, resistance, or adaptation of GenAI technologies remains a critical yet insufficiently studied theme across sectors and firm sizes. Future research should aim to unpack these tensions empirically and develop frameworks capable of managing them in diverse organizational settings and different sectors.
To extend this short paper, a full-length systematic review is planned. An extended thematic synthesis will be conducted alongside a meta-analysis of eligible empirical studies to quantify GenAI’s impact on organizational outcomes such as productivity, innovation, and decision-making. The subgroup and moderator analyses will further explore contextual differences across sectors and firm types. These steps will support the development of a more comprehensive, evidence-based framework on the role of GenAI in transforming organizations.
REFERENCES
[1] Ardichvili, A., Dirani, K., Jabarkhail, S., El Mansour, W., & Aboulhosn, S. (2024). Using generative AI in human resource development: An applied research study. Human Resource Development International, 27(3), 456–478.
[2] Siddik, A. B., Li, Y., & Du, A. M. (2024). Unlocking funding success for generative AI startups: The crucial role of investor influence. Finance Research Letters, 69(Part B), Article 106203.
[3] Eisenreich, A., Just, J., Gimenez-Jimenez, D., & Fueller, J. (2024). Revolution or inflated expectations? Exploring the impact of generative AI on ideation in a practical sustainability context. Technovation, 143, 103123.
[4] Grinbaum, A., & Adomaitis, L. (2024). Dual use concerns of generative AI and large language models. AI and Society, 39(2), 123–145.
[5] Manresa, A., Sammour, A., Mas-Machuca, M., Chen, W., & Botchie, D. (2024). Humanizing GenAI at work: Bridging the gap between technological innovation and employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 1–21.
[6] Doshi, A. R., Bell, J. J., Mirzayev, E., & Vanneste, B. S. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence and evaluating strategic decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 46(4), 583–610.
[7] Shore, A., Tiwari, M., Tandon, P., & Foropon, C. (2024). Building entrepreneurial resilience during crisis using generative AI: An empirical study on SMEs. Technovation, 28(5), 321–335.
[8] Talaei-Khoei, A., Yang, A. T., & Masialeti, M. (2024). How does incorporating ChatGPT within a firm reinforce agility-mediated performance? The moderating role of innovation infusion and firms' ethical identity. Technovation, 132, 102975.
[9] Filippo, C., Vito, G., Irene, S., Simone, B., & Gualtiero, F. (2024). Future applications of generative large language models: A data-driven case study on ChatGPT. Technovation, 133, 103002.
[10] Zamudio, C., Grigsby, J. L., & Michelsen, M. (2025). RAISE: A new method to develop experimental stimuli for advertising research with image generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Advertising, 1–16.
[11] Jenkins, D., & Khanna, G. (2025). AI-enhanced training, education, and development: Exploration and insights into generative AI's role in leadership learning. Journal of Leadership Studies, 19(2), 9–29.
[12] Korayim, D., Bodhi, R., Badghish, S., Yaqub, M. Z., & Bianco, R. (2025). Do generative artificial intelligence related competencies, attitudes and experiences affect employee outcomes? An intellectual capital perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 26(1), 100560.
[13] Hermann, E., & Puntoni, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence and consumer behavior: From predictive to generative AI. Journal of Business Research, 7(1), 1–12.
[14] Osadchaya, E., Marder, B., Yule, J. A., Yau, A., Lavertu, L., Stylos, N., Oliver, S., Angell, R., de Regt, A., Gao, L., Qi, K., Zhang, W. Z., Zhang, Y., Li, J., & Alrabiah, S. (2024). To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: Navigating the paradoxes of generative AI in the advertising industry. Business Horizons, 67(4), 555–570.
[15] Pantano, E., Serravalle, F., & Priporas, C.-V. (2024). The form of AI-driven luxury: How generative AI and large language models are transforming the creative process. Journal of Marketing Management, 40(17–18), 1771–1790.
[16] Agbon, G. (2023). Who speaks through the machine? Generative AI as discourse and implications for management. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 45(2), 102–115.
[17] Islam, G., & Greenwood, M. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence as hypercommons: Ethics of authorship and ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(2), 385–402.
[18] Park, H. E. (2023). The double-edged sword of generative artificial intelligence in digitalization: An affordances and constraints perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 40(10), 1953–1969.
[19] Zhang, H., Xiang, Z., & Zach, F. J. (2023). Generative AI vs. humans in online hotel review management: A task-technology fit perspective. Tourism Management, 98, 104758.
[20] Chan, H.-L., & Choi, T.-M. (2024). Using generative artificial intelligence in marketing: Development and practices. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52(3), 209–224.
[21] Bruens, J. D., & Meissner, M. (2024). Do you create your content yourself? Using generative artificial intelligence for social media content creation diminishes perceived brand authenticity. Journal of Social Media Studies, 15(2), 123–145.
[22] Rajaram, K., & Tinguely, P. N. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in small and medium enterprises: Navigating its promises and challenges. Business Horizons, 67(5), 629–648.
[23] Sidaoui, K., Mahr, D., & Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2023). Generative AI in responsible conversational agent integration: Guidelines for service managers. Organizational Dynamics, 52(3), 100974.
[24] Sundberg, L., & Holmström, J. (2024). Innovating by prompting: How to facilitate innovation in the age of generative AI. Business Horizons, 67(5), 561–570.
[25] Yorks, L., & Jester, M. Y. (2024). Applying generative AI ethically in HRD practice. Human Resource Development International, 27(3), 245–260.
[26] Zhao, L., He, Q., Kamal, M. M., & O'Regan, N. (2025). Technophobia and the manager's intention to adopt generative AI: The impact of self-regulated learning and open organisational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 1–19.
[27] Chui, M., Hazan, E., Roberts, R., Singla, A., Smaje, K., Sukharevsky, A., Yee, L., & Zemmel, R. (2023). The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier. McKinsey & Company.
[28] Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Vilkas, M., Grybauskas, A., & Amran, A. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in manufacturing: Opportunities for actualizing Industry 5.0 sustainability goals. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 63, 345–367.
[29] Mariani, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in innovation management: A preview of future research developments. Journal of Business Research, 165, 114054.
[30] Tabata, M., Wildermuth, C., Bottomley, K., & Jenkins, D. (2025). Generative AI integration in leadership practice: Foundations, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Leadership Studies, 19(2), 45–67.
[31] Rana, N. P., Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., & Malik, N. (2024). Assessing the nexus of generative AI adoption, ethical considerations and organizational performance. Technovation, 135, 103064.
[32] Andrieux, P., Johnson, R. D., Sarabadani, J., & Van Slyke, C. (2023). Ethical considerations of generative AI-enabled human resource management. Organizational Dynamics, 52(3), 100975.
[33] Norbäck, P.-J., & Persson, L. (2024). Why generative AI can make creative destruction more creative but less destructive. Small Business Economics, 63(3), 349–377.
[34] Wang, Q. (2025). Generative AI-assisted evaluation of ESG practices and information delays in ESG ratings. Finance Research Letters, 35(1), 100560.
[35] Heigl, R. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in creative contexts: A systematic review and future research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 15(3), 123–145.
[36] Fleurence, R. L., Bian, J., Wang, X., Xu, H., Dawoud, D., Higashi, M., & Chhatwal, J. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence for health technology assessment: Opportunities, challenges, and policy considerations: An ISPOR Working Group Report. Value in Health, 28(2), 175–183.
[37] Chowdhury, S., Budhwar, P., & Wood, G. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence in business: Towards a strategic human resource management framework. British Journal of Management, 34(4), 2089–2105.
[38] Krakowski, S. (2025). Human–AI agency in the age of generative AI. Information and Organization, 35(1), 100560.
[39] Modgil, S., Gupta, S., Kar, A. K., & Tuunanen, T. (2025). How could generative AI support and add value to non-technology companies: A qualitative study. Technovation, 25(2), 100–115.
[40] Dogru, T., Line, N., Hanks, L., Acikgoz, F., Abbott, J., Bakir, S., Berbekova, A., Bilgihan, A., Iskender, A., Kizildag, M., Lee, M., Lee, W., McGinley, S., Mody, M., Onder, I., Ozdemir, O., & Suess, C. (2025). The implications of generative artificial intelligence in academic research and higher education in tourism and hospitality. International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100822.
[41] Eapen, T. T., Finkenstadt, D. J., Folk, J., & Venkataswamy, L. (2023). How generative AI can augment human creativity. Harvard Business Review, 101(4), 56–65.
[42] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
[43] Kumar, V., Kotler, P., Gupta, S., & Rajan, B. (2023). Generative AI in marketing: Promises, perils, and public policy implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 42(3), 203–216.
[44] Chu, W., Baxter, D., & Liu, Y. (2025). Exploring the impacts of generative AI on artistic innovation routines. Technovation, 143, 103209.
[45] Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarok or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790.
[46] Hui, X., Reshef, O., & Zhou, L. (2023). The short-term effects of generative artificial intelligence on employment: Evidence from an online labor market. Organization Science, 34(2), 123–145.
[47] Wei, X., Kumar, N., & Zhang, H. (2025). Addressing bias in generative AI: Challenges and research opportunities in information management. Information & Management, 62(1), 100560.
[48] Cui, Y. (G.), van Esch, P., & Phelan, S. (2024). How to build a competitive advantage for your brand using generative AI. Journal of Business Research, 98(4), 345–367.
