CategoryIssue 1-2026, publication

inż. Oliwia ŻACZEK, inż. Paulina WELKE, inż. Aleksandra RESMEROWSKA, inż. Beata STEFAŃCZYK, inż. Szymon BRZOZOWSKI, dr inż. Anna Maria TRZASKOWSKA, dr inż. Ewa MARJAŃSKA – Politechnika Gdańska, ul. Gabriela Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdańsk, Polska

Received 13.01.2026. Accepted 5.02.2026

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this exploratory study is to examine how managers perceive and make sense of the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in leadership and managerial decision-making. Particular attention is given to perceived usefulness, people-oriented limitations, ethical concerns, and conditions under which AI is considered acceptable in leadership practice. The study conceptualises AI-supported leadership as a paradoxical phenomenon shaped by coexisting tensions between ethical considerations and human judgment, rather than as a question of performance or effectiveness.
Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts an exploratory mixed-methods research design. A quantitative survey (N = 47 managers) was conducted to identify dominant patterns in perceptions of AI-supported leadership. These findings were complemented by semi-structured in-depth interviews with managers (N = 4) analysed using thematic synthesis. In addition, a systematic literature review of 14 peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus was conducted following PRISMA principles.
Findings/conclusions: The results indicate that managers perceive AI primarily as a decision-support tool for analytical and task-oriented leadership activities, while clearly recognising its limitations in people management, ethical judgment, and relational decision-making. Openness toward AI adoption coexists with strong resistance to delegating leadership authority or moral responsibility to algorithms. The findings reveal structural paradoxes of AI-supported leadership, including usefulness versus limitation and innovation versus control.
Research limitations: The study is exploratory and based on a purposive sample, which limits the generalisability of the results. The literature review was restricted to a single database, and the findings reflect perceptions rather than observed leadership behaviour. As the analytical dimensions were used as exploratory and interpretative categories rather than validated measurement constructs, the quantitative results should be interpreted as indicative patterns and tensions, not as psychometrically generalisable measures. As the study prioritised the identification of perception patterns and paradoxical tensions over measurement precision, the quantitative results should be interpreted as exploratory indicators rather than psychometrically validated scales. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory insights that inform further theory development and future confirmatory research, rather than as generalisable or definitive empirical evidence. The study was based on a purposive and relatively small sample, which limits statistical generalisability. However, this should be understood as a consequence of the exploratory and qualitative-dominant mixed-methods design rather than as a methodological weakness. The aim of the study was not population-level inference, but the identification of recurring perception patterns, tensions, and boundary conditions in managers’ sense-making regarding AI-supported leadership. The literature review was limited to a single database and a focused set of publications, which constrains its breadth but is consistent with its supportive role within an exploratory empirical study.
Practical implications: AI-based leadership tools should be designed as decision-support systems rather than autonomous decision-makers. Managers should define ethical and relational boundaries for AI use, while system designers should prioritise transparency, explainability, and user control.
Originality/value: The study integrates a systematic literature review with mixed-methods empirical evidence to conceptualise AI-supported leadership as a paradoxical configuration, highlighting how human judgment and ethics remain central in AI-enabled organisations.

Keywords
artificial intelligence, leadership, managerial decision-making, ethics, human judgment

prof. dr hab. Tadeusz BORYS – Uniwersytet Zielonogórski, Instytut Nauk o Zarządzaniu i Jakości, ul. Podgórna 50, 65-246 Zielona Góra, Polska, e-mail: t.borys@wez.uz.zgora.pl

Received 5.02.2026. Accepted 16.02.2026

Abstract

Purpose: This article to some extent refers to a series of qualitative essays that I published in „Problems of Quality” in 2021–2022. They were devoted to finding the feelings module in the quality of life and recognizing several of its representatives, such as hope, gratitude, patience, empathy, compassion or trust (cf. [11, 12]). The aim of this article – in my intention to initiate further images of the quality of life – is to analyze the cause-and-effect of a peculiar and constantly „spillover” pandemic of various forms of human destruction, increasingly threatening his subjectivity – degrading his HUMANITY, i.e. being simply human in everyday life. The common denominator for the growing “repertoire” of destructive actions is SELF DESTRUCTION overt or camouflaged self-destruction, which justifies the use of this term in the title of this article. The content of this article is subordinated to the answers to the following four important questions: (1) What are the relations between destruction, degradation, and devastation? – this is the etymological level of this diagnosis; (2) How to distinguish natural destruction from anthropogenic destruction? – it is the level of agency; (3) What are the „faces” of human destruction? – this is a typological level with a proposal of several criteria for recognizing destruction, and (4) Why does a person choose self-destruction? – after all, he has a more advantageous alternative.
Research methodology: The article uses methods of semantic and logical analysis in relation to the concept of destruction, as well as a literature review that highlights its interdisciplinary and multidimensional nature.
Conclusions: The main conclusions of the article are formulated in its final part in the form of six conclusions that bring us closer to answering the previously formulated question: why does a man choose destruction, and especially his self-destruction, i.e. the regression of his HUMANITY, instead of developmental change? – well, for every individual this choice should be obvious.
Cognitive value: The features of the cognitive novelty of this article should be seen primarily in the presented approach to destruction, and above all in the consideration of this category in the context of its two “sisters” – devastation and degradation – and in the analysis of destruction on three interrelated levels – etymological, causative, and typological. According to the literature review, such an approach is not only original, but also has a utilitarian value for further research on the phenomena of destruction.

Keywords

quality of life, destruction, degradation, classification

prof. dr hab. Katarzyna SZCZEPAŃSKA – Politechnika Warszawska, Wydział Zarządzania, ul. Narbutta 85, 02-524 Warszawa, Polska, e-mail: Katarzyna.Szczepanska@pw.edu.pl

Received 17.12.2025. Accepted 12.01.2026

Abstract

Purpose: Discussion of the concept of marketing research quality and presentation of criteria for assessing the quality of the marketing research process.
Design/methodology/approach: The aim of the study was to identify criteria for assessing the quality of the marketing research process that can be used to evaluate its quality level and to propose measures and indicators for determining the quality level of the marketing research process. The following methods were used to achieve the aim of the study: literature analysis and logical analysis and construction.
Findings/conclusions: It was found that: (1) the quality of the marketing research process is determined on the basis of two aspects: functional – the process of conducting marketing research, and formal – compliance with the general methodology of science, (2) the criteria for assessing the quality of the marketing research process are: effectiveness (taking into account qualitative and quantitative criteria) and efficiency, which can be measured using the proposed metrics and indicators.
Research limitations: Types of marketing research, elements of statistical methods, fields of science, research procedure.
Practical implications: Conducting quality assessments of marketing research in organisations.
Originality/value: Identifying the relationships between research procedures in general scientific methodology and in the field of social sciences, defining measures and indicators for assessing the quality of the marketing research process.

Keywords

methodology, marketing research, marketing research process, marketing research quality, marketing research quality indicators