Conceptual analysis demonstrates generative AI optimizes decision support through information filtering in organizational managers, highlighting the necessity of human verification.
The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has intensified debate about the role of artificial intelligence in managerial decision-making. Much of this debate focuses on whether GenAI can generate recommendations, predict outcomes, or participate directly in managerial choice. This article develops an alternative perspective: GenAI may create substantial managerial value when used as an information-filtering mechanism rather than as an autonomous decision-maker. Drawing on research concerning information overload, irrelevant information, decision-support systems, and emerging human-GenAI collaboration, the article examines how generative systems may support the identification, extraction, organization, summarization, and prioritization of decision-relevant information. The synthesis suggests that managerial decision problems often arise not only from information volume but from difficulty distinguishing relevant evidence from contextual noise, redundancy, ambiguity, and low-value detail. At the same time, prior decision-support research shows that technological assistance can introduce new errors, distort attention, and encourage inappropriate reliance. The article therefore proposes a human-centered conceptual framework in which GenAI transforms complex information environments into decision-ready representations while human managers retain responsibility for verification, interpretation, trade-offs, accountability, and final choice. Six propositions are developed concerning information complexity, filtering accuracy, traceability, managerial expertise, algorithmic influence, and decision stakes, followed by managerial implications and a future research agenda for project-based and operational contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sergey Kutukoff (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: