Managing Technology and Middle- and Low-skilled Employees

Advances for Economic Regeneration

Claretha Hughes, Lionel Robert, Kristin Frady, Adam Arroyos

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781789730791
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Gestión de recursos humanos

As technological change and digital disruption becomes normalized in the fourth industrial revolution, workplace leaders are seeking new solutions to evolving problems. Managing Technology and Middle- and Low-Skilled Employees is an illuminating study of workplace leadership for improving the employee experience and adjusting the organizational culture to reduce tensions between technology and people at work.
Reliance on artificial intelligence has created apprehension and anxiety among some employees and the general public as they try to understand whether or not employees will be replaced by new technologies. This book examines technological developments, such as artificial intelligence and big data, and reveals the practical implications of how people and new technologies can co-exist, harmoniously, within the workplace through virtual teams.
Managing Technology and Middle- and Low-Skilled Employees offers routes to new solutions for scholars and professionals in the fields of business, human resource development, human resource management, information systems, and workforce development.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract

The introduction of rapidly changing technologies into the workplace has made it more important for organization leaders to understand how to manage technology, middle-skill, and low-skill employees in the workplace. The knowledge of employees within these levels in the workplace is the least known. There are varying levels of influence in workplaces, and the dynamic between people and technology has implications for human resource professionals throughout the world as they grapple with change from technological advancement and human improvement.

Workplaces use technology in just about all facets of operations. Bigelow (1829) defined technology as:

principles, processes, and nomenclature of the more conspicuous arts, particularly those which involve applications of science, and which may be considered useful, by promoting the benefit of society, together with the emolument of those who pursue them. (p. 4)

Yet, many individuals first think of computer technology when the term “technology” is mentioned in the context of the workplace; however, technology encompasses all technology in the workplace – computer, equipment, robotics, pneumatics, and others. Organization leaders use many different types of computer-based technologies to manage employee performance when employees are operating equipment, driving trucks, interacting with customers, and just about every other aspect within the workplace. Thus, middle- and low-skill-level employees help create the context for determining technology’s impact on the workforce. To understand technology’s impact on low- and middle-skill-level employees, organization leaders must obtain relevant background information to understand how artificial intelligence (AI), human resource management, and human resource development (HRM/HRD) affect these employees. Much is known about virtual teams and new hiring processes but not in the context of how it affects AI and middle-skill-level and low-skill-level workers. The role of HRM and HRD in implementing AI into business processes will require major changes to existing employee hiring and development practices (Hughes, 2018; Ross 2018). The roles of employees will need to be upgraded to include new work tasks that will allow them to use problem-solving skills and autonomy.

Plastino and Purdy (2018) provide eight strategies for organizations to gain value from AI. The eight strategies are the following:

(1) Articulate AI’s benefits to the C-suite;

(2) Reinvent HR into HAIR;

(3) Learn with machines;

(4) Appoint a chief data supply chain officer;

(5) Create an open AI culture;

(6) Go beyond automation;

(7) Combine AI’s capabilities with the crowd in the cloud; and

(8) Measure return on algorithms. (Plastino & Purdy, 2018, pp. 19 − 21)

Their second suggestion of reinventing HR into human AI resources (HAIR) because chief human resource officers (CHROs) will be responsible for supervising AI “workers” is cogent to this book as we examine how HRM and HRD professionals can assist with hiring and development of low- and middle-skilled workers. Plastino and Purdy further suggested that CHROs will have “a much bigger role in business strategy and innovation and will need to develop a solid understanding of AI technologies and how these will shape the future of work” (p. 19). The content of this book can help CHROs develop a solid understanding of how AI technologies shape the future of work and the workers themselves.

There is a distinct dichotomy between people and technology in the workplace. Yet, the dominance of technology seems to be the prevailing theme as organizations seek to improve productivity and leverage their resources for profitability. Without technology, some jobs would never be completed in the workplace, especially aseptic production where food products must be produced free from the possibility of contamination. The environment, in general, easily contaminates humans. There are positives as it relates to technology, and there are negatives. We want to suggest a happy medium of the use of technology and the work of employees, especially middle- and low-level employees in the workplace.

Middle- and Low-skilled Workers and Technology Development

Middle- and low-skilled workers are of most concern when leaders plan strategies for technology development in the workplace. Middle-skilled workers are defined as workers requiring some education beyond high school but not a four-year degree. Low-skilled workers are often described as those who have no high school or high school with no college. It is evident from the research that middle- and low-skilled employees have not been of interest in the United States since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the late 1990s (Bernhardt & Osterman, 2017). The reemergence of interest is still a huge issue because there is a need for jobs at these levels (Bernhardt & Osterman, 2017). Yet, the new jobs being created require skills that middle- and low-skilled employees do not currently possess. These employees’ education and training do not align with the available jobs to the extent necessary for them to remain employed. These issues are not new (Smith, 2012); they are just gaining recognition as employers seek to increase productivity. Hughes’s (2010, 2012) valuing people as technology concept was developed because of these issues. HRM/HRD does not exist without the employees nor does AI.

Wage Inequality and Low-skill Workers

There is sometimes confusion with individuals equating low skilled with low wage. Schmitt and Jones (2012) found that 43% of low-wage workers had some college experience or higher which would align them with middle-skilled workers. When these educated workers are making less than $15 per hour, it reveals the inequality that is inherent across American society. Many employees who work over 40 hours a week are also not paid the legally required overtime (Bernhardt, Spiller, & Polson, 2013). US President Barack Hussein Obama pushed for a minimum wage increase, but Congress never supported his efforts. Despite the Obama administration’s efforts to deny federal contracts to companies who consistently violated labor laws using executive orders, there have been minimal changes (Bernhardt & Osterman, 2017). Advocates for a higher income for low-wage workers to help eliminate inequality have remained persistent in their efforts despite congressional-level resistance.

Since work roles have been officially documented, there has been a division of labor between high-society people and those who were considered low-society people (Greenspan & Wooldridge, 2018; Servan-Schreiber, 1967; Wartzman, 2017). Then there was the forgotten middle (Temin, 2017). Society has not changed much in this regard. Many economic scholars describe it as the dual economy (Lewis, 1954; Temin, 2015). There is also mention of the top 1% and the rest of America and the world (Alejo, Pimentel, Aymar, & Lawson, 2018). There is little perception that this divide in income will ever be eliminated (Chang, 2018; Weissmann, 2018) and that in fact AI will help the gap increase (Clifford, 2018a; Mathis, 2018). As low-wage workers’ incomes increase, so does the pace of automation. As new industries are derived, there are fewer jobs being created for unskilled or semiskilled workers because their jobs are being replaced through automation (Autor, 2015; Lordan & Neumark, 2018).

Oxfam commissioned a report on how workers are losing out to wealthy owners and detailed some of the prevailing conditions leading to inequality. The conditions were determined to be:

(1) Deregulation to reduce workers’ rights. In rich and poor countries alike, labour regulations have been reduced, often under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank.

(2) Race to the bottom on labour. The use of global supply chains forces countries to compete on the cheapness of their labour.

(3) Automation and ownership of technology. New technologies could eliminate hundreds of millions of jobs and prevent poor countries from using low-skilled labour as a path to development. Value accrued through new technology goes to the owners of the machines, rather than to workers. This has generated calls from Bill Gates and others to ‘tax the robots’, and give governments an oversight role in technological development to ensure the benefits accrue to the majority.

(4) Exploitation of gender inequality. Social norms around gender inequality legitimize paying women less and giving them fewer rights in the workplace, which in turn reduces the bargaining power of labour.

(5) Overwhelming dominance of wealthy shareholders over corporations. While there has been a diversity of business structures for centuries, the neoliberal era has seen an expansion of a particularly extreme model where boardrooms, which are predominantly male, represent only the interests of wealthy investors, and all commercial decisions must be made with the aim of maximizing returns to shareholders. …

(6) Growth of the financial sector, and the deregulation of finance and capital. Capital is now highly mobile, moving in and out of countries and corporations, giving major bargaining power to financial markets and driving returns to shareholders above all else. The rise of the financial sector has been linked to rising inequality.

(7) Tax dodging and tax havens. Rich corporations and individuals can avoid paying the tax they owe using a global network of tax havens. …

(8) Race to the bottom on taxation. Tax rates on wealth have fallen dramatically across the world in recent years. …

(9) Increased corporate concentration and monopoly power. Over the last 30 years, net profits posted by the world’s largest companies more than tripled in real terms, from $2 trillion in 1980 to $7.2 trillion by 2013. Much of this profitability can be linked to the growing concentration of corporate power and monopolies, which in turn drive up inequality. (Alejo et al., 2018, pp. 49–50)

These economic forces are not much different than those described by Kincheloe (1999) when he asked how do we tell the workers that the American workplace is not fair. The dismantling of unions by political forces has led to the declining power of workers and increased the bargaining power for the highly paid and the owners of wealth (Alejo et al., 2018; Bernhardt & Osterman, 2017).

Low-skilled employees are often referred to as performers of low-paid, unchallenging, and uninteresting work. They are perceived to have no interest in career growth opportunities and are content with monotonous, routine work tasks. Some authors described how low-skilled employees are considered to be disadvantaged workers who are disproportionately Blacks and other immigrants. (Law & Marks, 2009; Obama, 2018). Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2006) described young Black males, stigmatized workers (e.g., welfare recipients), workers without recent work experience, those without high school diplomas, and other minorities as disadvantaged workers. They also suggested that the labor market has to be tight for these workers to even be considered for employment. If the labor market is not tight, they are consistently left out. This is another form of disadvantaged workers: those who are economically disadvantaged. Although there have been programs designed to help these workers, many were not helped because of biases and stigmas against them. Many of them were never provided the most successful type of training – on-the-job training (Anderson, Burkhauser, Raymond, & Russell, 1991).

The workers in these unemployment and limited hiring possibility predicaments are usually the working poor. Their pay is exploited because of their lack of experience and education (Baum & Ruhm, 2016; Nikolić & Natek, 2018). However, why are they being punished when they evidently have the skills to perform the required work tasks? Milgrom and Oster (1987) discovered that some firms “profit by hiding talented disadvantaged workers in low-level job” (p. 454) and pay them less on average and promote them less often than other workers with the same education and ability. This type of discrimination in wage and promotion policies results in disadvantaged workers experiencing lower returns to investments in human capital than their peers do. Hughes (2018) suggested that workplace inter-personnel diversity initiatives can be developed and used by workplace leaders to pay employees for their skills, knowledge, and performance.

Phelps (1994) suggested that employer or governmental subsidies should be considered to increase the pay of low-waged workers. Haveman and Palmer (1982) also examined the role of these subsidies for workers. Bill Gates has even suggested the corporations be taxed on the robots that they use to replace or displace workers to subsidize the loss tax revenue from human workers (Delaney, 2017). Gates suggested that the funds be used to create new jobs and retrain human workers.

A fairer, more human economy is possible; however, there are many barriers to the labor market for those who are considered disadvantaged. The perceived disadvantage includes ex-prisoners and offenders (Graffam, Shinkfield, & Hardcastle, 2008). One of the barriers that is common across low-skilled, middle-skilled, and disadvantaged workers and their ability to become employed and maintain employment is the bias of HRM, HRD, and other leaders in the workplace against hiring and developing these workers. The perceptions against and mistreatment of these workers limit the potential of organizations to grow. Employer attitudes must change if the plight of low-skilled, middle-skilled, and disadvantaged workers is to improve (Danson & Gilmore, 2009; Hughes, 2014a, 2018). Organization leaders must want to help these employees and dedicate themselves to ensuring their success (Hughes, 2018). Employees need champions who are cheering them on as they seek to grow, develop, and succeed in the workplace.

Technology Disruption of Traditional Work

The demand for goods and services determines how many workers are affected by unemployment or new openings in the workplace. Technology eliminates positions for workers but not the work itself (Bowen & Mangum, 1966a,1966b; Ross, 2018). Technology can be a disruptor to the job stability of many workers (Aron, Dutta, Janakiraman, & Pathak, 2011; Rosedale, 2017; Xu, 2011). As noted by Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014):

[…] there’s never been a worse time to be a worker with only “ordinary” skills and abilities to offer because computer, robots and other digital technologies are acquiring these skills and abilities at an extraordinary rate. (p. 11)

The quality of jobs available can be reduced by the introduction of automation and technology, but there is still a need for workers. Human beings still want human touch (Naisbitt, Naisbitt, & Philips, 1999).

“[T]he emergence of greatly improved computing power, artificial intelligence, and robotics raises the possibility of replacing labor on a scale not previously observed” (Autor, 2015, p. 4). All of these suggestions of the increase in the numbers of employees replaced by technology have led to the increase in automation anxiety (Akst, 2013; Simon, 1966) among workers. To alleviate the anxiety employees should be informed that not all technology is intended to replace their work but to complement the work that they do. Sometimes technology actually increases the demand for human labor. Most workplace technologies were developed to save workers from some manual labor tasks that were very difficult for workers to perform. Workers and organization leaders should seek ways to benefit from the synergies that are created between people and technology in the workplace (Hughes, 2012).

With the advent of big data and extensive learning content management system technologies, the use of technology to manage people and knowledge within the workplace is becoming commonplace. There are varying levels of influence in workplaces, and the dynamic between people and technology has implications for human resource professionals throughout the world as they grapple with change predicated by technological advancement and human improvement (Hughes, 2018). Workforce training in the age of automation calls for extensive changes in thought processes about the traditional concept of work. Some organizations are considering using travel time as work time – checking email during commute.

Employees and technology must actually have utility versus being perceived to have utility. A lot of technology is perceived to have utility just as employees are perceived to have potential. Until the utility and potential are actualized, they are worthless to organizations. In fact, the technology may create a deficit for the organization because of the technology development costs (Davenport & Ronanki, 2018). There have been projections that as many as 50% of all workers are at risk of losing their jobs in the next 10 years without workforce training, and in the next 5–7 years, 20 million people could be out of work (Kahn, 2018). Cities must close the education gap by online training, partnering with universities, technical schools, local schools, business community, and free two-year colleges. It all gets back to partnerships.

The Differences between Education and Training

The differences between education and training are extensive but are seldom discussed.

Banks (2002) stated:

Education, much broader in nature than training, is designed to prepare individuals for future aspirations as opposed to current needs […]. Education focuses more on theory and background of applications as opposed to practical application. Training and education are different in many respects; however, they are similar with regard to their primary purpose, which is to transfer knowledge to an individual. (p. 3)

Education provides knowledge...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series Page
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• Chapter 2 Middle-skill-level Employees and Technological Environments
• Chapter 3 Virtual Teams and Technological Environments
• Chapter 4 A Hiring Paradigm Shift through the Use of Technology in the Workplace
• Chapter 5 Artificial Intelligence, Employee Engagement, Fairness, and Job Outcomes
• Chapter 6 Designing and Managing Technology, Innovation Training, and Development for Middle-skill, Low-skill, and Disadvantaged Workers
• Chapter 7 Managing People and Technology in the Workplace
• Chapter 8 Emerging Technologies and Trends
• References
• Index