The Impact of Automation on Corporate Citizenship Behaviour of Affected Staff

By Mo Kader

Background

1. The history of the issue

2. How it affects the current business environment

3. Why it is important

4. What this paper will reflect on

The issue of automation in business has been in debate since the mid 1980's (Smith, 2015). Various approaches to automation of work have meant a range of impacts on staff. This has ranged from staff reductions (Peters, 2014) to changes to entire industries (Kale, 2014).

Automation affects the way in which workers perceive the firm (Dale, 2013). It, therefore, has an impact on productivity, motivation and contingency (Fala, 2013; Waka, 2015). These factors have been shown to affect firm performance and competitiveness making it an important managerial issue (Jaeesa, 2014).

Explanation of the Case Study

1. What does the case study say?

2. Where did it take place?

3. What do other sources say about the same topic?

Choi (2016) identifies that automation affects the corporate citizenship of both impacted staff and those stating within the firm. This manifests itself in lower productivity (Hagel, 2013) and lower staff morale (Jasde, 2012). By all accounts, automation has been shown (Choi 2016) to create a negative working environment. The case applies this analysis to a Korean company that has experienced major automation and concludes that automation changes the motivational drive for staff.

Implications for Staff Performance

1. Your opinion of this issue

2. What others say

3. Do you agree or disagree- why?

The current literature describes productivity in the context of a Korean firm. Korean companies are known for high levels of corporate citizenship. This casts doubt, in my view, over the application of Choi's (2016) paper in other cultural contexts, such as that in Australia. Performance is affected by other factors that Choi's study does not mention such as motivation and the role of the leader. King (2013) identifies leadership as a moderating factor in cases of low organisational citizenship. I agree with this notion given the fact industries and firms differ in leadership traits.

Implications for Motivation

1. Your opinion of this issue

2. What others say

3. Do you agree or disagree- why?

Evaluation

1. Final position (critique) of the case study

2. Literature views of the topic

The literature is divided on the issue of performance. Kay (2014), Lange (2015) and Jones (2017) describe a variety of concepts, while Jasser (2015) applies leadership theory to motivation. This creates doubt over whether automation is the real reason for lower productivity or whether it is the mix of other factors, internal and external, that cause this. Of the various approaches in the literature, I agree with that of Joyce (2012) that states that performance is the result of environmental factors more so than leadership. The evaluation is that automation does not affect performance.

Questioning the findings

1. Did the case study lack depth, concept or other challenges that render it less applicable?

2. Do I have any experiences I can reflect on here?

Choi (2016) presents good arguments for the link between automation and productivity, but falls short of providing evidence for this. The case applies to Korean companies and is very specific to technology firms. What of other firms and industries and can we apply this narrow case to all organisations? This is a doubtful situation and one where more research is needed.

In my own experience, having worked in the insurance industry for 10 years is that motivation can be extrinsic and intrinsic, something that Choi (2016) does not cover.

Challenging the findings

1. What do you disagree with?

2. What does that mean for the industry or topic?

Ultimately, my view is that performance is too complex and issue to allocate to automation. The findings within the literature and my own views and experiences point to the fact that to automate is to enhance technical abilities, but to motivate is far greater an achievement. The two are not linked and have been shown to sometimes conflict (Kaka, 2016). Overall, the reflective result points to a misalignment between Choi's work and that of several other works.

Research Summary

1. Summarise the case findings

2. Summarise your view

3. Reach a conclusion that is practical (i.e. can affect a manager's decision)

References