The impact of emerging technologies on work: a review of the evidence and implications for the human resource function

Automation and changing skills requirements

Evidence suggests that there are enormous financial incentives for employers to increasingly automate their (currently human) processes ( Markoff, 2011) and that advances in automation could dramatically change the nature of jobs available ( PWC, 2017). Realistically, whether a task can be automated depends on the ability of coders to write a set of procedures that will improve the problem specification and account for every possible contingency ( Frey & Osborne (2017)). Despite this limitation, automation is increasingly being used in areas that require the storing or access of information ( Frey & Osborne (2017)), such as in fraud detection, medical diagnosis ( Cohn, 2013; Wolcott, 2018) and law ( Markoff, 2011). In addition, the automation of manual tasks is increasingly widespread, including tasks such as driving ( Autor et al., 2003; Veres et al., 2011), cargo handling ( Bloss, 2011) and mining ( Frey & Osborne (2017)).

The role of HR practitioners in the process of automation is not clear from the evidence, but it would seem that they could play a key role in identifying tasks (and thus eventually roles) that could be automated. Perhaps more important however, is the HR function’s role addressing the impact of job losses as a result of automation ( Frey & Osborne (2017); PWC, 2017). Not only should HR practitioners be central to supporting employees through a period of uncertainty while such decisions are made, they should also be responsible for considering how employees can be re-skilled or up-skilled in order to replace obsolete skills so that they can be retained in the workforce.

The evidence suggests that the type of knowledge, skills, and abilities required by organisations will change. For example, the need for routine cognitive and manual skills is decreasing, while the need for non-routine cognitive and manual skills has increased ( Autor et al., 2003). Research suggests that organisations will need a workforce with increased skill variety, autonomy, and interdependence, as well as increased cognitive, creative, technical and social skills, ( Liu & Grusky, 2013; Wegman et al., 2018), to complement machines ( MacCrory et al., 2014) and to perform the remaining tasks that are not automated ( Makridakis, 2017). The HR function has a key role in ensuring the recruitment and development of these competencies as well as in designing leader development programmes that consider the new challenges related to managing employees in a modern work context and in coordinating humans and machines ( Frey & Osborne (2017)).

Increased flexibility of time and place

There is considerable evidence that organisations are increasingly offering flexible working practices in order to meet employees’ needs and to reduce costs associated with having a physical workplace ( Berkery et al., 2017; de Menezes & Kelliher, 2011; Stavrou et al., 2015). It is clear that developments in internet, and more recently mobile, technologies have increased the ability of individuals to work remotely and therefore out of usual office hours. However, it is also important to realise that technology is not the sole driver for an increase in flexible working as this has also been influenced by higher numbers of women in the workplace and by flexible pension arrangements ( Atkinson, 2017). The management of flexible working policies, and creation of career and performance management systems that ensure that employees are not disadvantaged by working flexibly are undoubtedly the remit of the HR function. Indeed, research suggests that flexible working arrangements, while offering employees freedom about where and when they work, can also lead to work intensification ( Kelliher & Anderson, 2010).

The increase in remote working has led to a perceived decline in the physical workplace ( Waber et al., 2014), although data would suggest that in most companies the take-up of home working is slow ( Bevan, 2017). One reason for this might be the importance of face-to-face interaction, which has been shown to be necessary in order to sustain trustful relationships between employees ( Forbes, 2013), maintain low stress levels ( Chron, 2017) and improve employee performance ( Waber et al., 2014). Indeed, as employees become increasingly dispersed, building relationships in the workplace will become a challenge. As virtual systems are becoming more frequently implemented within organisations, research focusing on the importance of social interactions in the workplace is increasing ( Heaphy & Dutton, 2008; Marlow et al., 2017; McGrath et al., 2017). For example, Heaphy & Dutton (2008) suggested that social interactions at work, whether brief connections or enduring relationships, have physiological correlates and effects on the cardiovascular, immune, and neuroendocrine systems. They maintain that physiological resourcefulness built in positive social interactions shapes micro-organisational behaviour, such as engagement and work recovery, and that organisations shape employees by providing (or failing to provide) opportunities for these positive social interactions to occur. In a similar vein, McGrath et al. (2017) found that a greater level of social interaction predicts higher engagement in the workplace suggesting that such interactions act as a resource encouraging employees to immerse themselves in work. Moreover, their findings suggest that these positive effects do not end with the working day. To the contrary, on days when employees are engaged in their work, after work, they report greater participation in experiences that foster recovery. Therefore, organisations need to ensure employees find ways to interact. As a response to this need many organisations (e.g. Facebook) have led the development of shared spaces where employees can meet to work and interact.

Employment arrangements

The evidence suggested that the trend towards workers undertaking jobs using AI platforms via the gig economy and open talent economy is resulting in employment relations increasingly based on self-employment contracts, subcontracts, and various forms of ‘gig-work’ ( Deloitte, 2013). Research suggests that almost 2.8 million workers in the UK are involved in the gig economy to some extent and that this is contributing to a decrease in demand for permanent employees, allowing organisations to reduce costs and increase their numerical flexibility ( Berg, 2016). This in turn is said to be leading to precarious work conditions ( Fleming, 2017; Moisander et al., 2018), the inability of individuals to be able to influence their working environment ( CIPD, 2017) and a lack of institutional connectedness ( Fitzgerald et al., 2012). In addition, the gig economy has been linked to growing economic insecurity, low productivity, diminished autonomy and increased levels of personal debt ( Fleming, 2017).

HR practitioners therefore need to think about how the organisation might benefit from the flexibility that this approach might offer, while still ensuring that employees are not put at risk from a lack of support and employment security. It is important here that employers take a responsible, and longer term, approach to using these contracting arrangements, rather than focusing solely on short-term cost savings and flexibility.

Effects on employee well being

The above discussion suggests that employers need to consider a possible downside of the increased use of technology in the workplace. Indeed, research has proposed that the move to a workforce that is increasingly connected and contactable, along with the increase of global working, means that work is becoming nearer to 24/7 ( Deloitte, 2016) and that the potential for employees to overwork (and thus damage their wellbeing) is increasing ( Chron, 2016; Schlacter et al., 2018). Media coverage demonstrates that employees are concerned about this prospect. For example, employees from Google referred to connectivity as an “electronic leash” that damages their wellbeing ( Independent, 2017), while other reports have linked increased connectivity with stress and burnout ( The Guardian, 2016).

The HR function is central in the process of addressing such concerns as policies relating to employee wellbeing are to a large degree their responsibility. Indeed, some companies such as Daimler have introduced policies to encourage employees to disconnect outside of working hours ( HR Magazine, 2017). However, it is difficult to enforce such ideas, and especially to balance the need for choice of when and where to work with the risk of overwork.

Author roles

Parry E: Conceptualization, Writing - Original Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & Editing; Battista V: Conceptualization, Writing - Original Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & Editing

Miguel R. Olivas-Lujan, Department of Management and Marketing, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Clarion, PA, United States

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

This review was published on 02 April 2019.

This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

recommendation: approve

I believe that this article represents a very clever (second) use of all the work involved in the comprehensive literature review carried out for an earlier project. I applaud the authors for finding a creative way to capitalize on the significant amount of effort invested in that work. I cannot disagree with most of the points made in this article, but I have a few suggestions to hopefully improve this contribution.

Within the Methods section, I recommend defining "the gray literature" in specific ways (preferably through a published reference, but this is not necessary). The last paragraph of the same section mentions "three areas investigated," without specifically mentioning them. My guess is that these three areas are the ones mentioned in the second paragraph, namely: how technology is changing work, what trends are likely to affect work, and HR roles in relation to these changes. My suggestion is to be explicit about “the three areas investigated.”

For the Findings section, I would add to the sentence on blockchain that "privacy" is not a strength for blockchain applications (at least not at the time of this review). A high level of security in the form of immutability is the major strength of this emerging technology, but privacy is not, because of the need to keep replicas of the blockchain database for independent verification (Olivas-Lujan, 2018 ¹).

Overall, I found the article well-written, with compelling arguments based on recent, informed publications. I believe it offers a valuable contribution to the HR innovations literature and look forward to reading its final version.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

HRM, OB, HRIS.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

References

1. Olivas-Luján MR: Blockchains in e-HRM: Hit or Hype?. 7th International e-HRM Conference. 2018.

Sharna Wiblen, Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

This review was published on 13 March 2019.

This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

recommendation: approve-with-reservations

I thank the authors for the opportunity to review this paper and wish to commend them for their endeavours to engage with a complex, but timely, topic as organisations seek to explore the challenges and opportunities associated with implementing technological innovations in an increasingly digital and interconnected world.

I offer the following feedback as mechanisms to further enhance the rigour and contributions of the paper:

1. Consider revising your Introduction to better articulate the context of your paper and state why we should be interested in learning more about the potential influence of emerging technologies on how we "work" and on the HR function. Positioning your paper within discussions about the 4th Industrial Revolution may be useful. As you know, technological-based change is not a new phenomenon. What is new, however, is that these new emerging technologies are able to not only automate defined processes, but there is the potential for certain technologies to be able to act as subjects - that is machine learning and AI may be able to make decisions. Be clear about what's new and different about technology today? What do these technologies promise to do? Discussion of how this era of change differs from those previously experienced can help to negate any potential assertions that your paper offers nothing "new". Make sure you also talk about how the notion of "work" is changing in your introduction. You note that "It is true to say that the most recent advancements in technology, such as AI, are having a dramatic effect on the workplace" - what are these dramatic effects and again how are they changing work in ways that are different from previous ways? Support these assertions with wider examples to allow the reader to appreciate the complexity of change.

2. Given that your paper is about the intersection between technology and "HR", I think that explicit discussion of relevant HR theories and concepts would further enhance your introduction. If technology is to change the way HR works and contributes to organisations, then we should reflect on what the role of HR today is - debates about HR being the keeper of the process, data or strategic business partner may prove useful. There is also an extensive body of work showing that technology decreases, rather than enhances the role and impact of HR in operational and strategic processes. Will we see a larger or smaller role for HR? What do the above technology vendors say about the potential impact of their technology on the HR function?

3. Please elaborate on your Methods and more specifically how did you arrive at your "themes"? I appreciate that you narrowed the literature down to 51 documents, but how did you analyse and categorise these 51 documents to get to the themes presented in your Findings? How did you analyse the papers for references to technology and HR? Did all the papers talk about HR specifically? If the paper dealt only with technology then how did you decide what the role of HR is to these changes? Greater detail would help address any questions about methodological rigour. Maybe a table outlining the different "themes" may clarify the findings.

4. Be mindful of the way that you present your ideas. In parts of the paper the wording used infers that technological change is a given and that innovations "will" influence how we work and "will" require a role for HR. Technology is part of a larger complex system and the influence of technology will not be experienced equally. Some organisations, some HR functions and some individuals will experience this change in different ways. Qualifying statements such as "potential", "desired", "promoted" may help avoid positivistic inferences.

Other minor feedback points:

• Support “Some commentators” on page 3 with references.

• Replace “propaganda” with “rhetoric”. Technology vendors sell a vision and offer promises - but I would debate that they publish and promote propaganda.

• Consider separating the research questions into 2 distinct questions. Discourses and rhetoric about the technology; influence and implications for HR (not impact as “impact” implies positivistic outcomes).

• Clarify what you mean by "grey literature" as I'm unfamiliar with this term and way to categorise texts.

• Be mindful about the references included. Given your study examines 51 documents, I would expect numerous references for each theme.

• Remove reference to “mental health” on page 6 as you talk about employee well-being. References to this new concept seem to appear as an additional discussion point rather than afford a conclusion.

• Include further details to explain how technology may change the role of HR. For example, on page 6 you note "At its most dramatic, the increase in automation and rise in self-employment and the gig economy might result in a significantly smaller permanent workforce, meaning that the role of HR will be fundamentally changed" - please explain how? Do you have a case study or example to draw upon to show how each of these technological factors has changed the way HR operates?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

HR technology; electronic human resource management; Digiatalised talent management;

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Stefan Strohmeier, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

This review was published on 27 February 2019.

This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

recommendation: approve

Research on the consequences of technological developments on human work is a) highly important since severe changes are to be expected and b) highly convoluted since numerous, heterogeneous and often contradictory consequences are assumed. Thus, the current contribution constitutes a timely and highly required overview on research on the impact of technological developments (“digitalization“) on human work. It is the merit of the authors to identify relevant aspects of this research topic and to summarize central findings in an easily accessible way. Initially, the categorization of central consequence areas (Automation and changing skills requirements; Increased flexibility of time and place; Employment arrangements; Effects on employee well-being) is useful and maps the core areas of the current discussion. Expected consequences in these areas are summarized briefly and concisely. Major consequences for HRM are derived. In sum, readers get a quick, intelligible and systematic overview of the field.

I would like to suggest a major, a medium and a minor improvement – hoping that the authors will assume them as constructive suggestions.

The major point refers to the “technological determinism” that, in my view, implicitly underlies larger parts of the paper. As potential differences in consequences are mentioned sometimes, impacts of technologies are frequently presented as if there were only one direction of change. This overlooks the fact that digital technologies offer potentials, which can be used in different directions. This depends on the intentions of the employing organizations and refers to a position that might be called “organizational voluntarism” (Strohmeier, 2009 ¹). The same base technology, such as augmented reality or robotics, thus can induce very different and even clearly contradictory consequences depending on the kind of its usage. Considering this position might offer explicitly different advantages: firstly, it offers an explicit and (from my perspective) more adequate conceptualization of technological consequences. Secondly, it allows explaining and explicitly considering different (and even contradictory) findings and assumptions in literature. For instance, based on the seminal study of Frey & Osborne (2017 ²) the paper expects (dramatic) job losses; yet, there are also studies that expect even (slight) job gains due to technological developments (e.g., Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2015 ³)). Thirdly, the possibilities and necessities for action on the side of HRM can be conceptualized more adequately. What HR (as well as general management) needs to do is to identify proactively and exploit purposefully the (often extremely) broad potentials of new technologies to design work adequately, rather than reactively cope with fixed uni-directional (since causal) consequences.

A related medium point refers to enlarging the considered literature. However, the aim of it should not and need not be a “complete anthology” of available contributions. Instead, a few contributions should be added to uncover the respective range of expected consequences. To use again the above example of employment consequences: beside the studies that expect dramatic job losses, also the studies with deviating results should be considered. This will inform readers about consequences, on which literature agrees, and about consequences, on which literature does not agree.

As a final minor point, you could enlarge and concretize the method section and uncover further aspects such as the number, sources, topics etc. of studies you have found.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No source data required

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Digitalization (of HRM); HR technologies, e-HRM, HRIS

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

References

1. Strohmeier S: Concepts of e-HRM consequences: a categorisation, review and suggestion. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2009; 20 (3): 528-543

2. Frey C, Osborne M: The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017; 114: 254-280

3. Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs: Transfer of the study from Frey/Osborne (2013) to Germany. Final Report. 2015.