Augmentation or automation? A dual-path model of GenAI usage motivations and employee creativity

Purpose Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can both enhance and constrain employee creativity, yet the mechanisms underlying these divergent effects remain unclear. This study examines how augmentation and automation motivations for GenAI usage shape employee creativity through distinct knowledge-processing mechanisms. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on dual-process theory and self-regulation theory, we distinguish augmentation and automation motivations for GenAI usage and propose distinct cognitive mechanisms linking them to creativity. We test the hypotheses using a multi-wave, multi-source field survey and a scenario-based experiment. Findings Augmentation motivation is positively associated with employee creativity through knowledge integration, whereas automation motivation is negatively related to creativity through knowledge dependence. Conscientiousness strengthens the positive indirect effect of augmentation motivation and attenuates the negative indirect effect of automation motivation on employee creativity. Research limitations/implications Augmentation and automation motivations may coexist and vary across tasks and use episodes. Future research could explore these dynamics, examine how other individual differences shape their effects, and assess whether the consequences of GenAI dependence vary across work contexts. Practical implications Organizations should encourage employees to use GenAI to generate and develop ideas rather than replace their own judgment. Training could help employees critically assess AI-generated suggestions and combine them with their own knowledge. Originality/value This research shifts attention from how much employees use GenAI to why they use it. By distinguishing augmentation and automation motivations, it explains when and why GenAI can enhance or constrain employee creativity through distinct knowledge-processing mechanisms.