implementation of (AI) in the workplace

This research project aims to find how the implementation of (AI) in the workplace influences employee perceptions of job security. The IV is AI implementation in the workplace, and the DV is employee perception of job security. The study follows a null hypothesis (H_O) that employees in organizations that have implemented AI are not concerned about their job security, unlike employees in organizations that have not implemented AI. This study references Braganza, Chen, Canhoto, and Sap (2021), Lingmont and Alexiou (2020), and Liu and Zhan (2020) since they have investigated the same topic from different angles and measures, they are current and have been peer-reviewed.

Literature Review

Article 1

Braganza, Chen, Canhoto, and Sap (2021) investigated the impact of AI adoption on psychological contracts, job engagement, and employee trust relative to productive employment and decent work. The study hypothesized that psychological contracts positively impact employees’ job engagement and that the adoption of AI weakens the relationship. The study wanted to prove that the impact of the adoption of AI in an organization is the loss of employees and engagement, which are functions of psychological contracts. The IV impacted employees’ job engagement, and the DV was the adoption of AI.

Researchers collected data from 232 responses in an online survey distributed in West London, UK, to employees aged between 18 and 34 years old. The participants filled the survey comprising of AI adoption, psychological contract, job engagement, and job satisfaction five-point Likert scale except for control variables like age and gender. The experimenter was interested in the self-reported beliefs of respondents, as seen during data analysis where employee engagement relative to AI adoption was compared for respondents who scored high and low on psychological contracts. The study found that employees with the high social contract were more engaged and that the engagement was weakened by the adoption of AI, which was consistent with the hypothesis.

I think the study could have operationalized the IV and the DV better, especially by introducing a control group. The same results would have been obtained from the methodology but with higher validity. For instance, I wonder if the study concerned residents’ awareness of the impact of adopting AI, which is a plausible IV for psychological contracts. However, the explanation for results is shallow, and I wish there were an in-depth explanation for why the results are as such. Otherwise, the study that is relevant to my project has a logical hypothesis, credible methodology, and critical analysis. The results are generalizable, and I would get similar results in other regions using respondents of similar demographic characteristics. 

Article 2

Lingmont and Alexiou (2020) investigated the contingent effect of job STARA (Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence Robotics, and Algorithms) awareness on perceived job insecurity based on organization culture. One of the hypotheses is that there is a positive relationship between the awareness of STARA and employees’ perceived job insecurity. This is important because the results should inform when and how to educate employees about STARA and how to implement it. The IV for this study is awareness of STARA, and the DV is employees’ perceived job insecurity.

This study collected data from 491 respondents in the US and India, who filled an online questionnaire distributed internationally via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The questionnaire contained construct questions measured by using a 5-point Likert scale, except for control variables like age and gender. The IV and DV per operationalized during the survey, where some questions focused on STARA awareness and others were specific of perceived job insecurity. Other variables measured were moderating in nature, such as the expectation of retraining after the adoption of STARA and organization authoritative culture. Using a scatterplot, Lingmont and Alexiou (2020) found that there is a direct linear relationship between STARA and job insecurity, which is consistent with the hypothesis.

The authors did a great job defining the IV and DV, and the operationalization of variables was logical. I also support that the hypothesis was logical for the research question, which gave room to the analysis of confounds such as STARA awareness, retraining, and authoritative culture. Also, I am positive that the results would have been the same had had the variables been operationalized differently as long as employee awareness was held constant. I feel that the study has a thorough explanation of the results, which are generalizable in sample populations of the same kind in another location.

Article 3

Liu and Zhan (2020) investigate the impact of artificial intelligence on job insecurity based on vocational learning capabilities. The main hypothesis is that AI has severe impacts on employees’ job insecurity, which is tested as a function of employee perception. The IV for this study is AI (adoption/implementation), and the DV is job security. The study aimed at proving adoption of AI makes job insecurity for employees worse, which is interesting for the current study since the two are almost directly related. The current study will investigate perception while Liu and Zhan (2020) report the actual effect.

The research sample population consisted of employees in the manufacturing industry. They filled on an online questionnaire whose part concerned the application of AI technology and employees’ job insecurity, among other issues. The IV and DV were operationalized during empirical analysis, where responses from the 225 questionnaires were explored using SPSS, and the relationship between variables was explored. The researcher seemed interested in employees’ expected to change in behavior to the introduction of AI, which would inform the impact of AI on job security. Other variables measured were the impact of vocational learning on the issues of AI and the impact they have on mediating between artificial intelligence and job insecurity. The experimenter found that analysis of results supported the hypothesis that AI hurts employees’ job insecurity.

I think Liu and Zhan (2020) did a great job, but the variable could have been operationalized at the point of data collection. Specifically, the study could have utilized a control group for the sample population to identify employees who are already working in manufacturing plants using AI and those working in plants that have not adopted AI. That way, I think the results would have been different since they counter the issue of AI awareness that Lingmont and Alexiou (2020) associated with the perceived impact on job security. Otherwise, the hypothesis is logical for the research topic, and I would expect the same results for a different sample population since they are generalizable.

Summary

From Braganza, Chen, Canhoto, and Sap (2021), I have learned the ease of focusing on respondents’ self-reported perception of the impact of AI on job security. This might not rely on the factual implications of AI, but my objective is to find the employee perceptions of job security, making the method plausible. However, I will be cautious of confounds such as awareness of AI, something that Lingmont and Alexiou (2020) have done logically. Such variables might influence the results and the direction of future research significantly. Liu and Zhan (2020) have opened my eye to notice that although I am checking the employee perceptions of job security in AI adoption, the conclusion might be biased since they are not factual impacts of AI on job security.

Proposal Plan

After reviewing the three pieces of literature, the current study is still based on a plausible research question and logical hypothesis. It is also apparently important to find out whether AI is disruptive, scares people, or transformative. Therefore, I will continue to test the impact of AI implementation in the workplace as the IV on employee perception of job security as the DV. Implementation of AI means using smart technology, artificial intelligence robotics, and algorithms, as defined by Lingmont and Alexiou (2020). A perception is a psychological contract, the concern or psychological worry of something happening, which is a definition adopted by Braganza, Chen, Canhoto, and Sap (2021). Hence, I will continue to test the null hypothesis (H_O) that employees in organizations that have implemented AI are not concerned about their job security, unlike employees in organizations that have not implemented AI.

References

Braganza, A., Chen, W., Canhoto, A., & Sap, S. (2021). Productive employment and decent work: The impact of AI adoption on psychological contracts, job engagement and employee trust. Journal Of Business Research, 131, 485-494. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.018

Lingmont, D., & Alexiou, A. (2020). The contingent effect of job automating technology awareness on perceived job insecurity: Exploring the moderating role of organizational culture. Technological Forecasting And Social Change, 161, 120302. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120302

Liu, R., & Zhan, Y. (2020). The impact of artificial intelligence on job insecurity: A moderating role based on vocational learning capabilities. Journal Of Physics: Conference Series, 1629(1), 012034. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1629/1/012034