Cross-sectional survey reveals generative AI tool usage promotes workplace creativity directly and via learning agility in retail employees, indicating AI boosts innovative problem-solving.
Type of the article: Research ArticleThis study examines the relationships among generative AI tool usage for Workplace Learning, Learning Agility, and Workplace Creativity among electronic retail employees in Indonesia. Learning Agility was modeled as a second-order construct comprising developing leadership or growth, seeking feedback, and developing systematically. Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey of 286 employees who actively used generative AI platforms for learning and work-related support. The hypotheses were tested using covariance-based structural equation modeling and bias-corrected bootstrap analysis. The results show that generative AI tool usage was positively associated with Learning Agility (β = 0.738, p < 0.001), while Learning Agility was positively associated with Workplace Creativity (β = 0.484, p < 0.001). Generative AI tool usage also maintained a positive direct relationship with Workplace Creativity (β = 0.408, p < 0.001). The indirect relationship through Learning Agility was statistically significant, with a bias-corrected 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.179 to 0.509. These findings indicate complementary partial mediation, suggesting that Generative AI Use is related to Workplace Creativity both directly and through employees’ adaptive learning capacity. The study applies Social Cognitive Theory to generative AI-supported workplace learning by distinguishing AI-enabled learning resources from employees’ behavioral engagement with those resources. The findings suggest that Generative AI Use is associated with Workplace Creativity both directly and indirectly through Learning Agility. Practically, electronic retail managers should combine AI adoption with employee development practices that encourage feedback seeking, reflection, experimentation, and systematic learning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Widjaja et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: