Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This study investigates how different modes of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) appropriation are associated with two complementary dimensions of continuous improvement in decision-making. The first is decision-making performance, which reflects the cognitive ability to make effective choices; the second is pre-feedback self-assessment calibration, which captures the metacognitive ability to align perceived decision quality with objective outcomes across iterative decision-making cycles. Design/methodology/approach The study involved 36 managers from manufacturing companies enrolled in lean six sigma green belt courses. To assess decision-making performance over time, a multi-round business simulation game designed to replicate complex decision-making scenarios was employed. At the end of each simulation round, participants completed a questionnaire measuring their ability to self-assess the quality of their decisions. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted to examine how participants interacted with GenAI. Findings The results indicate that different modes of GenAI appropriation are associated with distinct trajectories of decision-making performance and self-assessment calibration. Reflective use of the technology was associated with higher decision-making performance and greater improvement in self-assessment calibration. Passive use, characterised by a high level of delegation of decision-making to GenAI, was associated with more volatile performance trajectories and poorer calibration. Progressively reflective use was associated with intermediate but improving trajectories over time. Originality/value This study introduces a longitudinal perspective on GenAI-supported decision-making by jointly examining decision-making performance and pre-feedback self-assessment calibration across repeated decision cycles. By relating different appropriation modes to cognitive and metacognitive trajectories, this study extends research beyond approaches focused on isolated performance outcomes and provides a process-oriented view of decision-making improvement over time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marolla et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: