Introduction
Today, people cannot ignore the fact that they heavily rely on and depend on technological progress and the development of various systems at their workplaces. Sometimes, these decisions facilitate the completion of repetitive tasks and help to find additional time and resources for other assignments. Still, not all individuals are aware of specific automation details and need additional help to understand the offered technological worth. There are many arguments to support and oppose the implementation of technological applications in the working environment. On the other hand, artificial intelligence (AI) is associated with reduced costs and the possibility of initiating new technological projects in a short period (Hargrave). On the other hand, humans face a new threat to their job opportunities of being replaced not by younger or more professional individuals but by robotics (Schwabe and Castellacci). Thus, it is hard to define a particular attitude toward automation. While automation threats human employment and lacks emotional intelligence and complex communication expertise, it should be explored in appropriate applications due to its precision and accuracy, its impact on performance speed without diversion, and its free access and relatively low prices.
Automation Essence
Before analyzing the benefits and shortages of automation and the application of AI in the workplace, it is necessary to understand what all these processes mean and what expectations people impose on these changes. When people think of automatic improvements, they believe in the power of technology and the replacement of some unreliable human resources by machines (Clegg and Davis 42). Regarding constantly changing populations’ expectations, the production of products and the delivery of services have to be regularly standardized and enhanced. According to the professor of computer science, Bart Selman, there is a belief that “machines will match human intelligence within the next 15 to 20 years” (qtd. in Shell para. 18). People continuously contribute to technological development, add personal characteristics to new devices, and hope to create an improved working environment to minimize their input without severe losses. With time, the number of human physical interventions can be significantly reduced.
Automation is usually related to multiple expectations that can be observed in different fields. The comparison of AI and human productivity affects decision-making in modern organizations. For example, some employers admit that it is not always convenient to manage people because they need promotion and review guarantees, take vacations, get sick leaves, or have parental responsibilities (Estlund 288). When most processes are done by machines, there is no threat to human injuries, insurance obligations, and other organizational concerns. Still, when the machine is broken, it is necessary to repair it. Besides, it is not easy to find an appropriate replacement in a short period. The absence of the human factor in automation provokes ambiguous perceptions of how to implement AI technologies. There has to be a person who controls machines and ensures the appropriateness of automation. Thus, the collaboration between humans and machines should not be nullified, and automation is always about how people define the role of technology at work.
Arguments Against Automation
When a company makes a decision to rely on automation, a certain analysis of the expected challenges has to be developed. Employees need to be prepared for changes and new requirements in their work to remove fears and concerns. At the same time, it is important to understand that working conditions will never be the same, and the organization might experience some losses and unpredictable expenses. Such arguments as employment threats, a lack of emotional intelligence, and more complex communication expertise may emerge at different stages of a change process.
Evident Employment Threats
One of the most critical arguments to question the worth of automation in the workplace is its evident threat of reducing employment opportunities for populations. Estlund underlines that “the prospects for job destruction are eye-opening” because “robotic and digital production of goods and services… is poised to take over both routine or repetitive tasks” (258). It means that people are happy to observe new possibilities for avoiding injuries or saving time at the initial stages of technological interventions. However, once a replacement is possible, employers and managers will continue the search for other benefits, which is not always beneficial for ordinary employees. Instead of solving personal problems in a team, it is more convenient to have a device that does not pose questions or ask for understanding.
In addition, employment changes are dangerous for people because of professional requirements and intentions for personal growth. When several individuals want to work in the same team, they have to compete in terms of their education levels, physiological differences, or experiences (Phiromswad et al.). Employees try to do everything possible to become the best in their chosen sphere. Robots should “not be perfect, only equal to – or a tad better than – complicated and expensive humans” (Shell para. 19). Thus, digital resources work hard without additional motivational factors and improved conditions. Automation in the workplace is not about professional growth or financial rewards but about high-quality performance within the already established frames and technical characteristics. There has to be a plan, goals, and steps according to which the necessary portion of work is done. Humans need more instructions, explanations, and, probably, resources, which puts them under the threat of low employment rates and insufficient salaries. Choosing automation is cheaper and less problematic today than hiring a person, and this threat should never be ignored.
Lack of Emotional Intelligence
Among a variety of positive and fast reactions associated with automation, a lack of emotional intelligence becomes evident. This ability is critical in many working processes where emotions become a meaningful part of human life. When people choose services, make purchases, search for help, and meet their basic needs, they cannot ignore their feelings. Emotional intelligence has already been recognized as a vital element of the workplace, and automation rejects all emotion-related principles. People start working harder because of fear of job loss (Schwabe and Castellacci). On the contrary, AI neglects social and cultural contexts (out of their basic characteristics) and offers decent transitions and solutions (Furman, qtd. in Estlund 265). The level of how humans address their emotional states and respond to clients’ needs and questions prevails over the steps taken in automated environments. Emotional intelligence turns out to be a weakness of automation in any organization.
Many employees like the possibility of avoiding emotional instability in their companies. Devices, software programs, and other AI-based products do not suffer from anxiety, depression, and other feeling-determined conditions. Still, people run technologies, and their emotions define their work in many ways. Automation does not aim to identify and deal with human feelings, which is why it is not always easy for people to work with AI devices and expect understanding and cooperation. The lack of emotional intelligence is a problem that modern researchers and technologists are trying to solve. Williams admits that automation must be “people-driven at all levels” (qtd. in Hargrave para. 4). Customers want to get the best services, but their positive feedback depends not only on quality and speed. The promotion of automation has increased the feeling of being left behind something in the workplace (Shell). These contradictions based on poorly identified emotional aspects introduce another argument against automation and the replacement of human resources.
Communication Complexity
Finally, the promotion of services and products among populations is more effective when people talk about them and share their experiences, while automation decreases the importance of communication skills. According to Schwabe and Castellacci, even the most unprofessional employees with poor skills and knowledge possess some basic skills to be applied in simple communication tasks. Despite the progress in the technological fields, similar abilities are not easy to automate (Schwabe and Castellacci). In other words, it is not possible for a person to talk to devices the same way it can be done with another human. Still, the development of the modern world depends on communication, and if automation does not communicate, its worth for the workplace gets weakened.
Communication is a complex process, and people have to recognize various external and internal factors when they start talking. Addressing the already made employment changes and new working conditions, people have to “recalibrate” their “cultural matrix of values” and fit in a new technologically-advanced environment (Estlund 278). There are many chances for people to achieve success in this task because they have a solid communication background and knowledge about the power of words, emotions, and interpersonal relationships. Automation facilitates communication processes between individuals but hardly participates in them. AI technologies offer solutions for people to contact from different parts of the world, exchange information, and find answers quickly. There is a specific system, a combination of elements, and tasks to ensure automation facilitates human activities. However, these technologies do not recognize all aspects of communication complexity.
Arguments For Automation
Despite the challenges of automation in the workplace, there are many positive aspects that can be mentioned to prove that this technological change is worth attention and recognition. Automation helps people complete their tasks, understand the environment, and quickly deliver the necessary information. Instead of focusing on various organizational issues, employees concentrate on their performance, knowledge, and abilities. Such characteristics as precision, accuracy, speed, and accessibility are enough to convince humans to continue using technologies in their workplaces for different purposes.
Precision and Accuracy
The quality of services depends on how people understand their tasks: while human errors are not always easy to predict and avoid, technical errors may be detected and corrected. According to Shell, “robots can be very precise, especially when it comes to routine tasks” (para. 12). If there is a clear system to complete tasks, automation strengthens the process and follows the standards, minimizing mistakes and shortages in performance. People have to work hard to identify their mistakes, choose the way to improve, address the benefits of life-long education, and take time to take every step. Technological resources are more accurate in achieving the same purposes because there are no external factors that affect their conditions. As soon as the basics are followed, there are no problems in maintaining accuracy and precision.
The importance of automation in the workplace can be seen through the prism of what people can and cannot do compared to machines. There are many controversies about the impact of feelings on human work and the lack of emotional intelligence among machines. Still, these contributions usually depend on the goals of a company and clients’ expectations, and it is wrong and inappropriate to create a single judgment about innovation. Both human workers and machines are complicated in their ways: human mistakes vs. technical errors, cultural sensitivity vs. technical superiority. The benefit of machines is the absence of false assumptions, biases, and prejudice, which helps take all steps more accurately (Shell). Automation is an obvious choice if the chosen characteristics (accuracy and precision) are critical for an organization. Human resources cannot be ignored, but their role remains subordinate.
Performance Speed
Another important reason for modern organizations to prefer automation over human cooperation is the speed of performance. In most cases, people like the idea of doing everything better and faster if there is an opportunity. Estlund informs that computers succeed in such tasks as data processing or exchange, leaving behind human beings (268). There are situations when a new solution has to be quickly tested and checked for possible shortages and benefits. The idea of automatability is used to improve systems at “far greater speed” (Hargrave para. 5). It does not take much time to create new checklists, make payments distantly, and contact stakeholders from different parts of the world. Besides, automation reduces the necessity of paperwork due to highly technological processing: digitalization allows employees to save space and protect documents from physical damage and loss (Hargrave). These steps may be poorly recognized at the current moment, but certain gains can be noticed in the future.
The factor of speed should be considered in terms of development and adaptation. Today’s learning processes include some basic technological elements in almost all spheres of education. Thus, the speed with which automation can be implemented and understood continues to grow. Modern computer-based integrated technologies are highly appreciated to support the control of human resources and customer billing (Clegg and Davis 43). Even population aging does not prevent the progress of computerization because experienced employees and older adults are eager to learn and enjoy the offered speed and technological improvements (Phiromswad et al.). If there is a chance to do something better and faster, people try to apply their skills and knowledge to catch it.
Access Worth
One of the conditions under which organizations are eager to apply new technologies in the workplace is their accessibility. Compared to the common opinion that automation is never cheap, there are many examples of how it is possible to save money if the decision to automate processes is made. In the study, Estlund reveals that automation is a “part of a larger menu of options,” and employers are able to use it for managing capital and maximizing returns (287). It means that people should not focus on the initial price and losses related to automation but consider future prospects, which are usually good and beneficial. Instead of paying an ordinary retail worker about $11.24 per hour, it is possible to implement self-service technology and save about $20,000-25,000 annually on one worker (Shell). In fact, such numbers are more impressive if the same calculations are made for one company with more than 50 employees in ten years.
Finally, automation is becoming a meaningful element of the workplace due to its accessibility and simplicity for humans. Many people have already preferred automation even without noticing it. They save passwords, use automated markers, address their search history, etc. There are many automated error correction models to speed up the writing process, audio and video programs to save time, and control elements that are not always easy to notice. Access to such opportunities is free, and people like the possibility of scheduling or organizing their work without spending money. One of the most evident examples is Google Translate which has replaced human translators at the workplace due to its free and instantaneous access (Estlund 266). Similar automation ideas emerge every day, and companies do not lose but obtain benefits in a variety of ways.
Conclusion
In general, the attitudes toward automation in the workplace may depend due to the differences in human experiences and knowledge. Some people prefer to notice the disadvantages, like a lack of emotional intelligence and the absence of communication techniques. The most terrible threat of automation is the replacement of human resources. People do not want to lose their jobs because computers and other technologies can perform their work better, faster, or more accurately. Still, such arguments as high speed, precision, and accessibility make millions of companies choose automated services to gain benefits. Instead of taking a definite position either to trust technologies or not, it is more important to find a balance between the services offered by humans and robots. Automation is a chance to improve the workplace for humans. Still, people should never forget that they have created technologies and need to control everything not to allow their creations to become a threat.
Works Cited
Clegg, Chris, and Matthew C. Davis. “Automation/Advanced Manufacturing Technology/Computer-Based Integrated Technology.” Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by Steven G. Rogelberg, vol. 1, SAGE, 2007, pp. 42–44. Gale EBooks, Web.
Estlund, Cynthia. “What Should We Do After Work? Automation and Employment Law.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 128, no. 2, 2018, pp. 254–326. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, Web.
Hargrave, Sean. “’Look for the Bottlenecks’: When, and When not, to Automate in Business.” The Guardian, 2022, p. NA. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, Web.
Phiromswad, Piyachart, et al. “The Interaction Effects of Automation and Population Aging on Labor Market.” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 2, 2022. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, Web.
Schwabe, Henrik, and Fulvio Castellacci. “Automation, Workers’ Skills and Job Satisfaction.” PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 11, 2020. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, Web.
Shell, Ellen Ruppel. “AI and Automation Will Replace Most Human Workers Because They Don’t Have to Be Perfect–Just Better than You.” Newsweek, 2018. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, Web.