in\u017c. Oliwia \u017bACZEK, in\u017c. Paulina WELKE, in\u017c. Aleksandra RESMEROWSKA, in\u017c. Beata STEFA\u0143CZYK, in\u017c. Szymon BRZOZOWSKI, dr in\u017c. Anna Maria TRZASKOWSKA, dr in\u017c. Ewa MARJA\u0143SKA – Politechnika Gda\u0144ska, ul. Gabriela Narutowicza 11\/12, 80-233 Gda\u0144sk, Polska<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Received 13.01.2026. Accepted 5.02.2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Purpose: <\/strong>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. Keywords<\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" in\u017c. Oliwia \u017bACZEK, in\u017c. Paulina WELKE, in\u017c. Aleksandra RESMEROWSKA, in\u017c. Beata STEFA\u0143CZYK, in\u017c. Szymon BRZOZOWSKI, dr in\u017c. Anna Maria TRZASKOWSKA, dr in\u017c. Ewa MARJA\u0143SKA – Politechnika Gda\u0144ska, ul. Gabriela Narutowicza 11\/12, 80-233 Gda\u0144sk, 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[120],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1435"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1435"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1435\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1437,"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1435\/revisions\/1437"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/problemyjakosci.com.pl\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Design\/methodology\/approach:<\/strong> 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:<\/strong> 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:<\/strong> 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\u2019 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:<\/strong> 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:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
artificial intelligence, leadership, managerial decision-making, ethics, human judgment<\/p>\n\n\n\n