Citations
Sources & Citations
Every reference across the research, deduplicated and grouped by theme. Each entry links back to the writings it informed.
119 unique sources · 11 writings
01
AI Awareness & Adoption Readiness
88 sources
AI awareness & employee effects
- 01
Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. A. (2025). Awareness of artificial intelligence: diffusion of AI versus ChatGPT information with implications for entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 50, 96–113.link ↗
- 02
Kong, H., Yuan, Y., Baruch, Y., Jiang, X., & Wang, K. (2021). Influences of artificial intelligence (AI) awareness on career competency and job burnout. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(2), 717–734.link ↗
- 03
Kong, S. C., & Zhu, J. (2025). Developing and validating an AI ethical awareness scale. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100447.link ↗
- 04
Li, J. J., Bonn, M. A., & Ye, B. H. (2019). Hotel employee's artificial intelligence and robotics awareness and its impact on turnover intention: The moderating roles of perceived organizational support and competitive psychological climate. Tourism Management, 73, 172–181.link ↗
- 05
Li, X., Lin, X., Zhang, F., & Tian, Y. (2025). The double-edged sword effects of AI awareness on employee performance: A self-determination perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management.
- 06
Liang, X., Guo, G., Shu, L., Gong, Q., & Luo, P. (2022). Investigating the double-edged sword effect of AI awareness on employee's service innovative behavior. Tourism Management, 92, 104564.link ↗
- 07
Moldt, J.-A., et al. (2024). AI awareness and familiarity in professional contexts. (Working paper.)
- 08
Yuxuan, Z., & Hussain, W. M. H. W. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) awareness (2019–2025): A systematic literature review using the SPAR-4-SLR protocol. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101870.link ↗
- 09
Zhou, S., Teng, R., Zheng, W., & Ma, C. (2024). An empirical study on the dark side of service employees AI awareness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 79, 103869.link ↗
National adoption & sovereignty
- 01
Chui, M., Hall, B., Mayhew, H., Singla, A., & Sukharevsky, A. (2022, Dec 6). The state of AI in 2022—and a half decade in review. McKinsey & Company.
- 02
Crosley, B. (2026). France's AI sovereignty push. Introl.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 03
Cybernews. (2026, February). AI adoption index 2025: Which countries use AI tools the most?link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 04
Digital Watch Observatory. (2024). The UAE national strategy for artificial intelligence 2031.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 05
Edelman. (2025). Edelman Trust Barometer. (As cited in Mejias, 2026.)
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 06
Grant Thornton. (2025). Transition from 'black box' to 'glass box': The AI governance framework for UAE leaders.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 07
Jahidi, A. (2026, March 3). Where global economies sit in the AI stack. Franklin Templeton.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 08
McGuire, C. (2026, January 14). The new AI chip export policy to China: Strategically incoherent and unenforceable. Council on Foreign Relations.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 09
Mejias, M. (2026, January 27). What the UAE and South Korea know about AI adoption that American organizations don't. Sidecar AI.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 10
NAVER Cloud HyperCLOVA X Team. (2025). HyperCLOVA X THINK technical report. arXiv.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 11
Neufeld, D. (2026, January 22). Mapped: AI adoption rates by country. Visual Capitalist.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 12
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2026). OECD digital education outlook 2026. OECD Publishing.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 13
Oxford Insights. (2026). AI in France: Betting on AI adoption and sovereignty rather than racing for the most powerful models.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 14
Tournesac, A., Hjartar, K., Krawina, M., Hillenbrand, P., & Olanrewaju, T. (2025). Accelerating Europe's AI adoption: The role of sovereign AI capabilities. McKinsey & Company.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox
Productivity, paradox & macro
- 01
Allen, R. C. (2009). Engels' pause: Technical change, capital accumulation, and inequality in the British industrial revolution. Explorations in Economic History, 46(4), 418–435.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 02
Azhar, S., Zhang, Z. X., & Lu, S. Y. (2025). Empirical analysis of the Solow paradox in artificial intelligence. Open Journal of Business and Management, 13(5), 3716–3729.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 03
Bank of America Institute. (2025, October). Economic shifts in the age of AI. Bank of America.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 04
Bara, M. (2026, February 15). The AI productivity paradox is not a paradox. It is a pattern. Medium.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 05
Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies: 'Engines of growth'? Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83–108. (As cited in Jovanovic & Rousseau, 2005.)
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 06
Cazzaniga, M., Jaumotte, F., Li, L., Melina, G., Panton, A. J., Pizzinelli, C., Rockall, E., & Tavares, M. M. (2024). Gen-AI: Artificial intelligence and the future of work (Staff Discussion Note SDN/2024/001). International Monetary Fund.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 07
Crafts, N. (2004). Steam as a general purpose technology: A growth accounting perspective. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 338–351.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 08
Kroese, B. (2024, December). GDP in the future. Finance & Development, 61(4). International Monetary Fund.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 09
Penn Wharton Budget Model. (2025, September 8). The projected impact of generative AI on future productivity growth. University of Pennsylvania.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor
Policy, governance & industry reports
- 01
Associated Press. (2025, April 30). Trump hosts dinner with tech CEOs in White House Rose Garden to discuss AI and investments. AP News.link ↗
Used inAI Costs for Small Retail - 02
Associated Press. (2026, January 13). Pentagon embraces Musk's Grok AI chatbot as it draws global outcry. PBS News Hour.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 03
Cisco Systems, Inc. (2026). Cisco 2026 data and privacy benchmark study.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 04
Defense Innovation Unit. (2025). The Replicator initiative: Progress update. U.S. Department of Defense.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 05
International Association of Privacy Professionals. (2026, February 4). Global AI law and policy tracker.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 06
IoT Analytics. (2025, March 4). The leading generative AI companies.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 07
Koetsier, J. (2026, April 8). AI transformation: No one's at the wheel, says 500-company study. Forbes.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 08
Main, K. (2026, July 1). Top small business statistics. Forbes Advisor.
- 09
Microsoft AI Economy Institute. (2026, January). Global AI adoption in 2025 – AI Economy Institute.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 10
Microsoft. (2019, July 22). Microsoft invests in and partners with OpenAI to support us building beneficial AGI [Press release].link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 11
Mila – Quebec AI Institute, Vector Institute, & Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute. (2024). Artificial intelligence adoption by small- and medium-sized enterprises: Insights from G7 case studies and Canada's experience. Vector Institute.
- 12
National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. (2021). Final report.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 13
Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. (2026). AI index report 2026: Public opinion.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 14
The White House. (2025, July 28). New federal AI action plan.link ↗
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 15
Thomson Reuters Institute. (2026). 2026 AI in professional services report.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 16
UXDA. (2025). Financial AI in practice: 21 case studies of artificial intelligence in banking CX.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 17
Westmoreland, H. (2026, April 7). What the 2026 Thomson Reuters AI in professional services report reveals for tax and audit firms. Certinia.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox
Theory, frameworks & methods
- 01
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.link ↗
- 02
Ameen, N., Sharma, G. D., Tarba, S., Rao, A., & Chopra, R. (2024). Toward advancing theory on creativity in marketing and artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing, 41(8), 1685–1707.
- 03
Bashir, S., & Sadowski, B. M. (2014, June 22–25). General purpose technologies: A survey, a critique and future research directions [Conference presentation]. 25th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Brussels, Belgium.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 04
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications.
- 05
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- 06
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.link ↗
- 07
Dorobantu, S., Kaul, A., & Zelner, B. (2017). Nonmarket strategy research through the lens of new institutional economics: An integrative review and future directions. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 114–140.link ↗
Used inAI Costs for Small Retail - 08
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.link ↗
- 09
Gopinadh, M. P. V. S., Sindhu, K. L., Raju, S. S. P. R., & Swarna, Y. (2024). Regional bias in large language models. arXiv.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 10
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications.
- 11
Jovanovic, B., & Rousseau, P. L. (2005). General purpose technologies (NBER Working Paper No. 11093). National Bureau of Economic Research.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 12
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
- 13
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
- 14
Puntoni, S., Reczek, R. W., Giesler, M., & Botti, S. (2021). Consumers and AI: An experiential perspective. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 131–151.link ↗
- 15
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
- 16
Sampath, G., Krishnamoorthy, B., & Kumar, R. (2021). Strategic agility: A review and conceptual framework. Strategic Change, 30(2), 103–115.
- 17
Sánchez, E., Calderón, R., & Herrera, F. (2025). Artificial intelligence adoption in SMEs: Survey based on TOE–DOI framework. Applied Sciences, 15(12), 6465.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 18
Shoham, A., Frynas, J. G., Arslan, A., Bazel Shoham, O., Lee, S. M., Khan, Z., & Tarba, S. (2024). The interrelationships between corporate political activity and corporate environmental performance: The role of language diversity. Journal of International Business Studies, 55, 1204–1217.link ↗
Used inAI Costs for Small Retail - 19
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
- 20
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.link ↗
- 21
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.link ↗
- 22
Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books.
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox
Other
- 01
Aljaraidah, S., & Shihamit, E. (2026). Technological, organisational and environmental factors affecting AI adoption: Insights from leaders and employees in Swedish SMEs [Master's thesis, Uppsala University]. DiVA Portal.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 02
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1, pp. 33–52). Prentice-Hall.
- 03
Bollweg, L., Bärsch, S., Lackes, R., Siepermann, M., & Weber, P. (2021). The digitalization of local owner-operated retail outlets: how environmental and organizational factors drive the use of digital tools and applications. Business Information Systems, 329–341.link ↗
- 04
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.link ↗
- 05
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.link ↗
- 06
Harris, M., Twum-Darko, M., & Lububu, S. (2025). Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in digital marketing to improve the performance of small retail businesses in Cape Town. International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy, 7(6), 25–34.link ↗
- 07
Kozlov, M. (2026). Determinants of E-Commerce Aspiration and Technology Prioritization Among Independent Brick-and-Mortar Retailers in North America. The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations, 8(05), 11–24.link ↗
- 08
Lin, B., Yang, Q., & Wang, X. (2025). AI adoption in business decision-making: Challenges, enablers, and organizational readiness assessment. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research, 8(11), 253–257.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 09
Machulla, P. (2025, January 8). The compressed diffusion curve: How generative AI redefines innovation adoption. Medium.link ↗
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 10
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Used inInnovation–Adoption Paradox - 11
Oldemeyer, L., Jede, A., & Teuteberg, F. (2025). Investigation of artificial intelligence in SMEs: a systematic review of the state of the art and the main implementation challenges. Management Review Quarterly, 75, 1185–1227.link ↗
- 12
Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Pine Forge Press.
- 13
Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Birds of a feather don't always flock together: Identity management in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 316–337.link ↗
- 14
Sohn, K., & Kwon, O. (2020). Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial intelligence-based intelligent products. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 101324.link ↗
- 15
Stone, B. (2013). The everything store: Jeff Bezos and the age of Amazon. Little, Brown and Company.
Used inGen-AI, Power & Labor - 16
Thong, J. Y. L. (1999). An Integrated Model of Information Systems Adoption in Small Businesses. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 187–214.link ↗
- 17
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.link ↗
02
Power & Governance
12 sources
CEO power & upper echelons
- 01
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778.
- 02
Chillingworth, A. (2025, October 7). Who has the most followers on X/Twitter in 2025? Epidemic Sound.link ↗
Used inTesla & Agency Theory - 03
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives' values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232.
- 04
Choi, I., & Pang, M.-S. (2023). Do CEOs matter? Divergent impact of CEO power on digital and non-digital innovation. Working paper.
Used inTesla & Agency Theory - 05
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
Used inTesla & Agency Theory - 06
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317.
- 07
Hernandez, E., & Shaver, J. M. (2019). Network synergy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 171–202.
- 08
Howe, M. (2025, November 3). The CEO revolving door speeds up. Forbes.link ↗
- 09
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). College enrollment rates. In The Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.link ↗
- 10
Shin, R. (2023, June 14). A professor started tracking 'Fortune 500 CEO colleges' 20 years ago, and 'the results were stunning.' Yahoo Finance.link ↗
Executive pay & governance disputes
- 01
Hals, T. (2024, January 30). Judge voids Elon Musk's 'unfathomable' $56 billion Tesla pay package. Reuters.link ↗
Used inTesla & Agency Theory - 02
Vella, L. (2025, October 9). Battle over Elon Musk's trillionaire pay package builds as pension funds face off against Tesla. Fortune.link ↗
Used inTesla & Agency Theory
03
Institutional Pressure
5 sources
- 01
Bharati, P., Zhang, C., & Chaudhury, A. (2014). Social media assimilation in firms: Investigating the roles of absorptive capacity and institutional pressures. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2), 257–272.
Used inRapid Tech & Mimicry - 02
Caplan, R., & Boyd, D. (2018). Isomorphism through algorithms: Institutional dependencies in the case of Facebook. Big Data & Society, 5(1).link ↗
Used inRapid Tech & Mimicry - 03
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.link ↗
- 04
Flanagin, A. J. (2000). Social pressures on organizational website adoption. Human Communication Research, 26(4), 618–646.
Used inRapid Tech & Mimicry - 05
Reis, J. F., & Pinheiro Junior, L. P. (2025). Institutional theory (IT) and diffusion of innovation (DOI): A theoretical approach on artificial intelligence (AI). BAR, Brazilian Administration Review, 22(1), Article e240067.
Used inRapid Tech & Mimicry
04
Firm Structure
3 sources
- 01
Karim, S., & Kaul, A. (2015). Structural recombination and innovation: Unlocking intraorganizational knowledge synergy through structural change. Organization Science, 26(2), 439–455.link ↗
Used inHP's Half Ambidexterity - 02
O'Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5–21.link ↗
Used inHP's Half Ambidexterity - 03
Weber, Y., & Tarba, S. Y. (2014). Strategic agility: A state of the art. California Management Review, 56(3), 1–8.link ↗
Used inHP's Half Ambidexterity
05
People at Work
11 sources
- 01
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 02
Bernstein, E., Horn, M., & Moesta, B. (2024). Why employees quit. Harvard Business Review, 102(6), 44–54.
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 03
Colledani, D., Falvo, R., De Carlo, A., & Capozza, D. (2024). Further evidence for the validity of the KUT: A measure of organizational commitment. TPM, Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 31(3), 377–396.link ↗
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 04
Doggett, J. M. (2025). Beyond satisfied: Focus on employee commitment to drive engagement. Alaska Business Monthly, 41(4), 60–63.
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 05
Garvin, D. A. (2024, June). Leaders need to reframe the return-to-office conversation. Harvard Business Review.link ↗
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 06
Hanaysha, J. (2016). Examining the effects of employee empowerment, teamwork, and employee training on organizational commitment. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 298–306.
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 07
Kayani, B. N. (2023). Impact of organisational culture on organisational commitment: Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Accounting, Business and Management (JABM), 30(1), 86–96.
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 08
Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 222–238.link ↗
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 09
Krishnaveni, R., & Ramkumar, N. (2008). Revalidation process for established instruments: A case of Meyer and Allen's organizational commitment scale. The Icfai Journal of Organizational Behavior, VII(2), 7–17.
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 10
Mercurio, Z. (2025). The power of mattering at work. Harvard Business Review, 103(3), 100–109.
Used inPost-COVID Commitment - 11
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.
Used inPost-COVID Commitment
End of citations · 119 sources