Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly transforming knowledge-intensive work, creating both opportunities and challenges for employees. Drawing on Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, this study investigates how employees' perceptions of GenAI shape their emotional and behavioral responses and, ultimately, their work-related outcomes. Specifically, the study examines the effects of GenAI perceived utilitarian value and GenAI perceived hedonic value on perceived enjoyment, employee creativity, job enhancement, and job insecurity. Data were collected from 332 employees in the United Kingdom and analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results reveal that GenAI perceived utilitarian value has a strong positive effect on employee creativity but a significant negative effect on perceived enjoyment. In contrast, GenAI perceived hedonic value positively influences perceived enjoyment, which subsequently enhances employee creativity. Furthermore, employee creativity significantly increases perceptions of job enhancement while reducing job insecurity. These findings reveal two distinct pathways through which employees respond to GenAI: an instrumental pathway, whereby utilitarian value directly promotes creativity, and an affective pathway, whereby hedonic value enhances creativity through perceived enjoyment. The study extends COR theory by demonstrating that functional and emotional resources may operate through parallel rather than mutually reinforcing resource gain processes, highlighting an important boundary condition of resource gain spirals in technology-enabled workplaces. The findings also position employee creativity as a critical resource-conversion mechanism through which employees transform GenAI-related resources into positive workplace outcomes. Practically, the results suggest that organizations should emphasize both the functional benefits and enjoyable experiences of GenAI to foster creativity, enhance job enrichment, and alleviate concerns regarding technological displacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: