When AI performs, what remains? An integrative review of generative AI and cognitive capital in individuals and organizations
Authors: Giuseppe Riva, Stefania La Rocca, Brenda K. Wiederhold, Andrea Gaggioli
Organizations: Humane Technology Lab., Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy · Applied Technology for Neuro-Psychology Lab., IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy · Virtual Reality Medical Center, Scripps Memorial Hospital, La Jolla, California, USA · Research Center in Communication Psychology (PSICOM), Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy
Generative artificial intelligence is rapidly entering knowledge work, and its short-term productivity benefits are increasingly documented. Less is known about what happens, over time, to the knowledge, skills and judgment that remain in people and organizations. This integrative narrative review addresses that question through the construct of cognitive capital: the accumulated, renewable and depletable stock of knowledge, cognitive and metacognitive capabilities, and practices that enables an individual or an organization to learn, interpret information, exercise judgment, solve problems and adapt. We distinguish individual and organizational cognitive capital from the capability of the human-AI system, so that gains in joint performance and losses in human capability can be observed at the same time. Drawing on experimental, field and conceptual work, we propose four mechanisms through which interaction with AI affects cognitive capital: substitution of practice, scaffolding and feedback, metacognitive calibration, and organizational aggregation. Seven principles summarize the current evidence, including that assisted performance differs from retained competence, that the same technology can support or displace learning depending on design and use, and that individual gains can coexist with reduced collective diversity. For each mechanism we derive testable propositions, and we discuss five design levers for organizations as proposals to be validated rather than established practice. We conclude that cognitive capital offers a multilevel frame for governing AI adoption and outline a research agenda centered on longitudinal, multilevel measurement.
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is transforming how firms create, process, and apply knowledge, yet little is known about the heterogeneity of its productivity effects across users. We report results from a randomized controlled experiment in which participants-analogs of early-career knowledge workers-were assigned to self-study a technical domain using either traditional resources or large-language-model (LLM) assistance. On average, GenAI access significantly increased task performance, but the distribution of gains was highly uneven. Improvements were not predicted by GPA or prior knowledge, but by AI Interaction Competence (AIC) -- the ability to elicit, filter, and verify model outputs. High-AIC participants realized outsized gains; low-AIC participants saw limited or even negative marginal returns. A scaffolding intervention (conceptual maps) reduced outcome variance, indicating that standardized workflows can mitigate inequality in AI-mediated performance. We interpret these findings through the lens of human-AI complementarities: GenAI raises mean productivity while introducing a new axis of capability inequality. Managerially, firms should pair GenAI access with short AIC micro-training and simple standard operating procedures to capture value consistently and avoid uneven adoption outcomes.
Lihi Idan, Bharat Anand
Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, Texas A&M University · Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University
Generative AI imposes new metacognitive demands on knowledge workers as their work shifts from production to planning, evaluation, and orchestration. In a randomized, between-subjects experiment on AI-assisted writing (297 workers, 594 essays), we test dynamically-generated metacognitive scaffolds supporting goal specification and task decomposition. We find that scaffolds improve writing quality, with this boost persisting in short-lag transfer when scaffolds are removed. We also find evidence of improved topic recall three days later. These effects are consistent with observed changes in how people learn to prompt AI systems after exposure to scaffolding. However, scaffolded participants rate the AI as less helpful and more cognitively demanding even as they perform better, suggesting that subjective ease can understate the value of support. Our findings make the case for metacognitive scaffolds in AI-assisted knowledge work, revealing a productive friction worth designing for as workers increasingly delegate work to agentic AI.
Organisations deploying AI face a scoping problem: which tasks can be automated, which should remain with humans, and which are best shared between the two. Aggregate benchmark scores provide little insight into where systems will succeed or fail in practice, while human judgements of model capabilities quickly become outdated. We introduce a pipeline that profiles agents and tasks using a shared set of core cognitive capabilities. Cognitive capability profiling infers an agent's capabilities from performance on a benchmark battery annotated for the cognitive demands of each item. Task requirements weighting elicits from domain experts the relative importance of these same capabilities for their work. As both use a common set of cognitive dimensions, they can be updated independently as models and roles change, and combined to estimate AI suitability at the level of a domain, organisation, role, or individual duty. We validate capability recovery on synthetic agents, profile six AI systems, and elicit task requirements from 410 employees across six occupational domains. AI systems differed more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities converged on a shared cognitive core. The resulting scores provide a comparative scoping tool for identifying promising candidates for piloting and areas where current systems are unlikely to be well suited. We discuss extending the framework to profile human workers alongside AI systems, moving from AI suitability towards human-machine task allocation.
Jonathan Prunty, Marko Tešić, Patrick Quinn +2
University of Cambridge · Department for Science, Innovation and Technology · Universitat Politècnica de València