Siiski on erisused, kuigi on palju neid, kelle arvates on … kõik üks ja seesama

“Public sector human resource management (HRM) continues to attract the interest of scholars due to the distinct public-serving operating context compared to profit-driven private sector organisations (Blom et al., 2020; Boselie et al., 2019).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 800)

Eemaldumine ja lähenemine

“From the 1990s onwards, New Public Management (NPM) and subsequent management reforms were introduced that impacted public sector values, in many cases placing efficiency and effectiveness on par with traditional public values of legality and impartiality (Bezes, 2018; Leisink & Knies, 2018; Van de Walle et al., 2016). Moreover, during a similar timeframe, private sector organisations have become more socially responsible (Poole et al., 2006) and, consequently, have shifted towards a ‘model employer’ type of HRM, similar to the welfare-focussed public sector HRM (Paauwe & Farndale, 2017).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 800)

Autorid lubavad:

“The study contributes to the extant HRM literature in several ways. First, we examine the expectation that public-private sector differences have decreased over time (aka cross-sector convergence). Second, building from institutional theory, we theorise patterns of both change and continuity during this period (Beszter et al., 2015; Fernández-Alles & Llamas-Sánchez, 2008).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 801)

Ei ole olemas mingit lineaarset avalik-era dihhotoomiat:

“To address our research question, it is important first to note that there is no simple public-private sector dichotomy. Increasingly, the two sectors overlap and interrelate in several ways, largely due to outsourcing and public-private partnerships that many governments initiated as part of public management reforms in recent decades (Goldfinch & Wallis, 2010; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2017).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 801) […] “Traditional differences in HRM between private and public sector organisations originated from fundamentally different models of managing work and people. Private organisations typically adopted a ‘hard’ model of HRM, primarily aimed at improving organisational performance, while public organisations adopted the ‘soft’ model, primarily aimed at improving employee well-being (Boyne et al., 1999).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 802) […] “Based on their data and analyses, the question of whether there were substantial differences between HRM in the public and private sectors can be answered with a firm ‘yes’. However, there are two important caveats. First, both studies rely on cross-sectional data and as such only provide us with a snapshot of sectoral differences and not with any information on trends (are the differences stable, increasing, or decreasing over time). Second, this snapshot is already more than 2 decades old.” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 803)

Institutsiooniteoreetiline perspektiiv:

“We build on the work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) who coined the concept of institutional isomorphism to explain organisational change. From the three types of isomorphic change that DiMaggio and Powell (1983, pp. 150–152) distinguish, coercive isomorphism (change resulting from pressures exerted by other organisations such as legal requirements and cultural expectations in society) and mimetic isomorphism (when uncertainty drives organisations to imitate organisations that are seen as model) appear particularly relevant for our argument.” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 803)

Muudatused erasektori personalijuhtimises:

“There are two primary reasons why we posit a shift in private sector HRM towards public sector HRM through mimetic and coercive isomorphic mechanisms. First, although there are regional differences, competition in the labour market for highly skilled employees has generally increased over recent decades as a result of the ageing workforce in many Western countries and increasing international mobility (Basri & Box, 2008; Johnson & Zimmermann, 2008).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 805) […] “Second, through the process of coercive isomorphic change, governments have introduced regulations (hard and soft laws) to stimulate equal opportunities and inclusive workplaces (Riccucci, 2018). S” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 805)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“By exploring a broad range of HRM practices clustered into four primary areas, two representing ‘soft’ HRM and two ‘hard’ HRM, we were able to uncover the extent to which the public sector continues to have a distinctive approach to managing employees. Our findings imply that only some ‘soft’ HRM practices (equal opportunities) are still dominant in the public sector, while the private sector still holds strong for the range of ‘hard’ HRM practices, which continue to be used less in the public sector.” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 820) […] “Despite these limitations, this study makes an important contribution to managerial practice. It provides both public and private organisations with insights into the distinctiveness of their HRM. It shows what HRM practices are used both within and across sectors, which provides a relevant benchmark that can help organisations build their HRM and position themselves as employers of choice.” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 821)

Knies, E., Borst, R. T., Leisink, P., & Farndale, E. (2022). The distinctiveness of public sector HRM: A four-wave trend analysis. Human Resource Management Journal32(4), 799–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12440

Kontekstiks: talendijuhtimine kui kompleksne ja keerukas

“Talent management (TM) has achieved significantly increased visibility in public sector organizations in recent years (Boselie, Thunnissen & Monster, 2021; Kravariti & Johnston, 2020; Kravariti, Tasoulis, Scullion, & Khaled Alali, 2022). While scholars highlight the benefits of TM in public sector organizations (e.g. Brunetto & Beattie, 2020; Poocharoen & Lee, 2013), managing the implementation of TM is challenging because of the existence of two or more competing institutional logics that prevail in public sector organizations (Grant, Garavan, & Mackie, 2020; Fossestøl, Breit, Andreassen & Klemsdal, 2015).” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 1) […] “Institutional complexity, emphasizing the coexistence and interaction of multiple logics, is a key characteristic of TM implementation in public sector organizations, and results in tensions in implementing TM.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 2)

Avaliku ja erasektori erisused:

“In private sector organizations, the emphasis is on market legitimacy, financial growth and knowledge, whereas public sector organizations tend to value professionalism, social legitimacy and social capital (Christensen, Lægreid & Røvik, 2020; Thunnissen & Buttiens, 2017).” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 2)

Autorid väidavad:

“We argue that investigation of how different and potentially conflicting values, belief systems and practices are managed in the context of the implementation of TM in public sector organizations can surface issues related to both the creation and resolution of tensions in day-today implementation of these practices.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 2)

Uurimisküsimused:

“Therefore, building on both institutional logics and paradox perspectives, we answer the following research questions: (i) what institutional logics and paradoxical tensions come into play for HR actors when implementing TM day-to-day in public sector organizations and (ii) what mechanisms do HR actors use to resolve tensions arising from these competing institutional logics.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 2)

Kes on talent?

“Kravariti & Johnston (2020: 80) define public sector talent as individuals who possess ‘competencies, knowledge and values that reflect the public sector’s core principles, which enable him/her to use their exceptional abilities to serve the public for the common good’.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 3)

Paradoksiteooria ja paradoks:

“Paradox theory emphasizes that tensions are inherent in organizations and the need for ‘both/and’ solutions to address competing priorities (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Paradoxes are defined as ‘competing, simultaneous, interrelated and persistent demands that cannot be resolved for good and require constant attention’ (Beletskiy & Fey, 2020: 865).” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 5)

Uurimisdisain:

“Our research design draws on the principles of case study design using an inductive approach.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 6)

Valimi selgitus:

“We selected our case organization sample based on similarity between (i) economies and (ii) how the science funding organizations are managed and operate in relation to government departments and ministries.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 6)

Professionaalsusloogika:

“The professional logic emphasizes that talent resides with individuals and there is a strong focus on credentials and professional qualifications as well as experience in different professional roles.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 10)

Pinged:

“Study participants identified three specific tensions that arose within their organizations: (i) inclusive TM versus ambivalence about exclusive TM associated with TM in private and commercial organizations; (ii) objective measurement of talent potential; and (iii) openness in talent identification versus a more closed approach within the public sector.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 13)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“Utilizing institutional complexity and paradox theory, we reveal that TM actors encounter different conflicts around the goals, roles and day-to-day TM practice implementation shaped by four logics. TM actors use three distinct mechanisms to resolve tensions: role enactment and performance, distancing and transformation, and language.” (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 19)

McCarthy, A., Garavan, T., Holland, D., Bohle Carbonell, K., Virtanen, T., O Kane, P., & Van Wart, M. (2022). Talent management in public science funding organizations: Institutional logics, paradoxical tensions and HR actor responses. Public Management Review0(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2133160

Tehisintellekt on inimestejuhtimise valdkonda kohale jõudmas:

“a recent industry study found 300 plus human resources (HR) technology start-ups developing AI tools and products for HR or people management, with around 60 of these companies ‘gaining traction’ in terms of customers and venture capital funding (Bailie & Butler, 2018).” (Charlwood and Guenole, 2022, p. 730)

Artikli panus:

“The contribution of this article is to bring together contrasting accounts of how AI might be deployed for HR and people management to address the question of how AI could affect our field. It is possible to imagine a future in which the deployment of AI for HR and people management leads to large gains in fairness and efficiency. However, AI could also usher in an increasingly dystopian future of widespread unfairness and intensified managerial control. Indeed, a paradox lens suggests that both imaginaries will co-exist alongside each other (Collings et al., 2021; Smith & Lewis, 2011).” (Charlwood and Guenole, 2022, p. 730)

Terminoloogia muutub täpsemaks:

“AI is typically defined as the use of digital technology to create systems capable of autonomously performing tasks commonly thought to require human intelligence (Office for AI, 2019). In contrast to popular representations of artificial general intelligence in science fiction, recent advances in AI have occurred in the field of machine learning (ML), a sub-set of AI where digital systems autonomously improve their performance at undertaking a specific task or tasks over-time as the system learns through experience (Office for AI, 2019).” (Charlwood and Guenole, 2022, p. 731)

Pessimistidele:

“Our pessimistic case focuses on possible consequences of the sorts of use cases set out above for workers and societies. The central problem is that firms tend to introduce new technologies in ways that reduce worker autonomy, wages, and job security.” (Charlwood and Guenole, 2022, p. 732)

Optimistidele:

“The key question then is what can be done to contain the negative and promote the positive? In” (Charlwood and Guenole, 2022, p. 733) […] “answering this question, we stake out two claims. First, problems of AI bias are eminently solvable. Second, while the threat of AI snake-oil is real, it is possible to develop fair, ethical and efficient AI ML if design is informed by domain knowledge.” (Charlwood and Guenole, 2022, p. 734)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“Therefore if we want to avoid ‘bad AI’ in HR and people management, new laws to deal with the challenges that AI poses will be needed regardless of where we are in the world. Given the ethical values of the AI profession, and the threat to these values posed by unscrupulous employers using AI, logically HR professional bodies should be advocating for such regulation.” (Charlwood and Guenole, 2022, p. 737)

Charlwood, A., & Guenole, N. (2022). Can HR adapt to the paradoxes of artificial intelligence? Human Resource Management Journal32(4), 729–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12433

Kontekstiks:

“Its underlying argument offered me the analytical tools to understand that our research is not simply a set of ideas or analyses bereft of moral considerations. Rather, it must be informed by—and, concomitantly, it must inform—the moral orders of knowledge construction in management and organization studies (MOS).” (Alamgir, 2022, p. 1)

Olemasoleva kriitika:

“The book provides a meaningful critique of how neoliberalism and transnational capitalism regimes reconfigure lives and identities and thus organize work. While the richness of the book will certainly make it relevant to a wide-ranging group of scholars, I consider Philosophy and Managements Studies to offer six critical insights for MOS in particular.” (Alamgir, 2022, p. 1)

Relatsioonilisus:

“The takeaway from the argument offered is that research is a conscious journey insofar as the assumptions we hold have a critical impact on how what is studied is interpreted (Harcourt, 2020). Further developing this point, they emphasize the idea of relationality—that is, our relational engagement with the research process.” (Alamgir, 2022, p. 2)

Uurijate kesksed küsimused:

“What is being inquired about? How is it being inquired? And, whom does it impact?” (Alamgir, 2022, p. 2)

Tuleb tunnistada meie uurimistööd mõjutavaid eelduseid:

“Therefore, Mir and Greenwood ask us to unpack and acknowledge the fundamental assumptions that underpin our research.” (Alamgir, 2022, p. 3)

Alamgir, F. (2022). Book review: Philosophy and Management Studies: A Research Overview. Organization, 135050842211316. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084221131639

Kontekstiks

“Chiara Cordelli’s impressive book, The Privatized State, offers a comprehensive critique of the privatization of state services, and an ideal theory – broadly inspired by Kant – of how official discretion in public administration could be made democratically legitimate.” (Stilz, 2022, p. 1)

Terminitest: legitiimsus

“Cordelli’s argument focuses on the value of legitimacy, which she understands as a procedural value distinct from the substantive content of political decisions. Cordelli defines legitimacy as a ‘right to make and impose certain decisions on others, and . . . the standing to make those decisions in a way that results in changing the normative situation (the rights and duties) of those subject to them’ (Cordelli, 2020, p. 6).” (Stilz, 2022, p. 1)

Terminitest: legitiimne riik

“Unlike Stuart, the legitimate state is thought to possess the moral standing to determine its subjects’ entitlements. But how, if at all, does the legitimate state differ from Stuart? Kant offers an influential answer: while Stuart’s decisions are merely private exercises of his unilateral will, a legitimate state is a public power that articulates an omnilateral will – a will that is shared by, or is representative of, the members of the community.” (Stilz, 2022, p. 2)

Eeldus õigest vastusest ja teadmine õigest vastusest:

“First, it gets the phenomenology of democracy wrong. When citizens debate law and policy, they see themselves as disagreeing about questions that have right answers. They assume that there are principles of justice – independent of a society’s decisions – that should govern these matters. When citizens debate one another, they address the question of what these independent principles are. They do not see themselves as simply discussing indeterminacies that could be settled in a variety of equally acceptable ways.” (Stilz, 2022, p. 3)

Kui mul on õigus, kas siis ka võim?

“Why is being right not the same as having authority? I would characterize the Kantian answer as follows: part of treating others as independent equals as principles of right most fundamentally require – involves respecting their capacity to form and act on their own deliberative judgments. We should respect people as autonomous deliberators, people who can reason how to govern themselves, in both private and public life.” (Stilz, 2022, p. 4)

Indiviid on vaba oma otsustes ainult selles ulatuses, mis arvestab ka teiste inimeste võrdset õigust samasugusele vabadusele. Kes aga käituvad viisil, mis ei võimalda teistel oma vabadust realiseerida, neil puudub õigus realiseerida ka enda vabadust otsustada.

“It is true that this claim to autonomy has moral limits: people’s capacity to act on their own judgments should be respected only so long as they are willing to reciprocally recognize the equal independence of others. Individuals who are manifestly unwilling to recognize others as independent equals have no valid claim to govern themselves in a way that denies others’ independence.” (Stilz, 2022, p. 4)

Ametnikele antud volitused saab tagasi võtta.

“Rather, we as a political community have given this administrator the power to define certain entitlements, and we could take that power back, if we democratically decided to do so.” (Stilz, 2022, p. 6)

Stilz, A. (2022). Kantian democracy and public administration. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy0(0), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2022.2133827

Kontekstiks:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) is among the most important of all international institutions, and its performance attracts much commentary, especially during health crises such as the ongoing COVID19 pandemic or the 2014–16 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa, when WHO was accused of costly failures. Although close attention to its performance is to be expected, it is nonetheless striking how frequently analysts advocate for reform.” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 1)

Autorid lubavad:

“In this paper we present the results of our inquiry based on a systematic survey of literature on WHO performance and reform. We employ a framework for analysis that we developed for this purpose based on organizational theory and performance literatures from five disciplines: economics, sociology, political science, management, and psychology.” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 2)

WHO osalistering ja kõrge eesmärk:

“As of March 2022, 194 nations are WHO members (World Health Organization, 2022a), supporting its objective—“the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health“ (World Health Organization, 1946).” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 2)

WHO sisesed kontrollimehhanismid:

“WHO has several institutional processes to self-assess and advance reforms. It carries out thematic, programmatic and office-specific evaluations through its Evaluation Office (World Health Organization, 2019).” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 2)

Hinnangud …

“When we surveyed academic articles, we found they almost never specified any basis for judging WHO, how improvements would be measured, or the detailed logic of how proposals would change WHO’s performance.” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 3)

Andmeallikad:

“For our systematic review of global health literature related to WHO’s performance, reform, or governance we used Pubmed, Google Scholar, Academic Search Premiere, and EBSCO Global Health. (Search conducted in November 2018.)” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 3)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“We find that despite its substantial gaps, the literature offers some tentative suggestions for further investigation, although in none of the categories we defined was there general positive agreement. WHO’s goals and strategies were unclear and in dispute. Its legitimacy and governance were found lacking. Its authority and relationships appeared to be weak and susceptible to non-democratic interference. The structure and performance of WHO seemed to be antagonistic to its mission and its workforce appeared to be overly specialized and inadequately adaptable.” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 9)

Moser, F., & Bump, J. B. (2022). Assessing the World Health Organization: What does the academic debate reveal and is it democratic? Social Science & Medicine314, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115456

Kontektsiks:

“This article aims to explain the main technological changes introduced in the police forces in recent years, especially in terms of the use of data (crime mapping, data mining and big data), technological innovations in criminal investigation or patrolling (body and car cameras or vehicle licence plate readers, UAVs -drones-), to end with a more diffuse technological development such as the application of the misnamed (We say misnamed, because there are multiple types of intelligence and not just one, just as the terminological concreteness leads us to indicate that they are mathematical processes, more or less complex, but still far from human intelligence. We don’t know in a few years’ time, but at present technological development indicates that this is the case) artificial intelligence to decision-making in the police (predictive policing).” (Gonzalez-Garcia and Sanchez, 2022, p. 118)

Kolm tehisintellekti mudelit:

“It is currently recognised that there are three models of AI, based on the Harbers, Peters and Neerinxc model [23], the first of which is man in the loop, in which humanmachine interaction is continuous, human input is needed at intervals; secondly, man on the loop, when the machine is capable of acting by itself based on previous programming;” (Gonzalez-Garcia and Sanchez, 2022, p. 122) […] “and thirdly, man out of the loop, in which the machine acts independently based on what it has learned.” (Gonzalez-Garcia and Sanchez, 2022, p. 123)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“This debate stems from the vast amount of data that police forces can collect with the technologies discussed in this preliminary analysis. For this reason, police forces need to be very clear about certain issues, such as: the police model they want to implement (for example: community policing, problem-solving policing, policing oriented hot spots…), an exhaustive analysis of their resources and, above all, whether technology can help in the implementation of this model or, on the contrary, be counterproductive.” (Gonzalez-Garcia and Sanchez, 2022, p. 124)

Gonzalez-Garcia, A., & Sanchez, L. A. G. (2022). Technology and Police: A Way to Create Predicting Policing. In A. Dziech, W. Mees, & M. Niemiec (Eds.), Multimedia Communications, Services and Security (pp. 118–125). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20215-5_10

“At the turn of the 1990s, Thomas L. Brown made a compelling argument for the value of employees’ psychological ownership in the practitioner-oriented Industry Week. He described psychological ownership as the true ownership-taking in organizations, the source of competitive advantage and the key to effectively managing in the decade to come (Brown, 1989).”

Psühholoogilise omamise teooria seletusvõimekus:

“It is psychological ownership theory that explains why and how employees experience ownership feelings towards their organizations or jobs in their entirety as well as towards specific parts of their organizations or jobs (e.g. policies, knowledge; Hideg et al., 2011; Liu, 2012; Pierce et al., 2001, 2003; Renz, 2022). To perceive psychological ownership, employees do not need to have legal ownership rights (Etzioni, 1991; Peck and Shu, 2009; Pierce et al., 1991; Vandewalle et al., 1995), such as rights to control, to be informed about or to benefit financially from the target of ownership (Pierce and Jussila, 2011).”

Autorite ambitsioon:

“To provide access to this field, this study presents a bibliometric review of psychological ownership theory and guide for management scholars – ranging from doctoral students to experts of other management areas.”

Varasemad kirjandusülevaated:

“Existing reviews of the management literature on psychological ownership are Olckers and Du Plessis (2012), Qian (2016), Dawkins et al. (2017) and Zhang et al. (2021). The foci, scopes and contributions of these reviews are summarized and critiqued in the following to underline the scholarly need for and contributions of the presented bibliometric review and guide to advance psychological ownership research.”

Analüüsimeetodist:

“In line with established guidelines for bibliometric analyses (Donthu et al., 2021; Linnenluecke et al., 2020; Zupic and Cater, 2015), the bibliometric procedures were driven by identification, i.e. the optimal approach to answering the research questions. Following Donthu et al. (2021), procedures of both performance analysis and science mapping were implemented in the bibliometric analyses (i.e. co-authorship, citation and keyword cooccurrence analyses). The bibliometric analyses were performed with the VOSviewer version 1.6.13, following Van Eck and Waltman (2010, 2014, 2019, 2022).”

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“The top two journals of the field (i.e. Academy of Management Review and Journal of Organizational Behavior) received more than 40% of all citations, yet published less than 8% of the studies (see Tables 3 and 4).”

Renz, F. M., & Posthuma, R. (2022). 30 years of psychological ownership theory: A bibliometric review and guide for management scholars. Journal of Management Historyahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-01-2022-0001

Kontekstiks:

“Digital technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), is likely to give rise to dramatic changes in professions and professional practice. Yet the socio-economic process of this transformation is not well-understood.” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 1)

Ennustused erinevad suurel määral:

“To date, empirical studies on the future of work are primarily about estimating the proportion of today’s jobs that are at risk of automation, or otherwise susceptible to digital technology. But such estimates vary enormously, from 9% in OECD countries Arntz, Gregory and Zierahn (2016), 10–30% in the UK (The British Academy and Royal Society 2018), 47% of 702 O*NET occupations in the US (Frey and Osborne 2017) to 96% of 769 occupations (Dellot, Mason and Wallace-Stephens 2020; Manyika et al. 2017; Muro, Whiton and Maxim 2019).” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 2)

Autorid seavad eesmärke:

“Our aim is to empirically track a profession’s response, and to analyze the rationale behind the chosen response in terms of the nature of professional jurisdictional control. This approach enables us to link the concept of professional jurisdictional control to the contrast between “protective professionalism” and “connective professionalism” (Noordegraaf 2020; Noordegraaf and Brock 2021).” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 2)

Lugemisfookuse sättimiseks:

“Digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), are transforming the world of work. In order to shed light on specific impacts on professional work, this section reviews two areas of literature: first, economic analysis of the future of work, and second, sociological analysis of the system of professions.” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 3)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“With respect to the economic analysis of the future of work, our study points to professional jurisdictional control as an important factor that mediates the impact of digital technology on packaging tasks into jobs. In particular, professional jurisdictional control helps us narrow down the scoping condition, and points us to specific resolutions in terms of how new tasks are packaged into existing or new jobs.” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 24) […] “It is also possible that a relational perspective of open interfaces with new professions (Kahl et al. 2016) and connective professionalism (Noordegraaf 2020) is more important than occupational closure for the survival of a profession when jurisdictional challenges come from professions whose knowledge base is quite different yet complementary.” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 24)

Sako, M., Qian, M., & Attolini, J. (2022). Future of professional work: Evidence from legal jobs in Britain and the United States. Journal of Professions and Organization, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joac011

Kontekstiks:

“In the mainstream literature, AI is often conceptualized as having a two-fold purpose: to take over simple jobs or routine tasks from humans (commonly referred to as “automation”), and to assist humans in more complex tasks, such as” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 1) […] “data analysis and decision-making (commonly referred to as “augmentation”) (Raisch & Krakowski, 2021).” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 2) […] “Tasks that are performed by humans versus those conducted by AI-enabled automation or augmentation solutions (referred to in the text as “AI-solutions”) are a moving target. This is due to the pace of technological change and idiosyncrasies in each workplace ecosystem (for example, digitalizing a car manufacturing plant is different from digitalizing investment banking advisory services). Moreover, what is commonly accomplished by humans versus by AI has changed considerably in the past decades (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2017;Daugherty&Wilson,2018; Davenport & Kirby, 2016).” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 2)

Perspektiivi määratlemine:

“Our research takes as its starting point Raisch and Krakowski’s (2021, p. 203) review essay inviting scholars to apply a paradox theory perspective (Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011) in their empirical studies of AI in organizations to explore “human–machine interactions in real-world settings.” According to the paradox perspective, AI-enabled automation and augmentation solutions are both contradictory and interdependent, leading to inherent tension between the two (Schad et al., 2016).” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 2)

Lakkamatu õppimine:

“Rather, our research emphasizes a need for continual learning for a harmonious co-existence to form between humans and locally implemented AI-solutions, and longterm development work for people to comprehend the nature of the new technology and to find the perfect “fit” between humans and AI.” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 2)

Inimese ja tehisintellekti kooseksisteerimine:

“We thus define the co-existence of humans and AI in the workplace ecosystem as organizational members interacting with AI-solutions, including any kind of contact or bond between people and AI generating beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and behavioral patterns once the AI-solution is implemented and as it evolves over time.” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 3)

Relatsiooniline suhe:

“Humans shape AI through their daily choices, actions, and interactions by defining objectives, setting constraints, generating, and choosing the training data, and providing AI with feedback (Deng et al., 2017). Simultaneously, AI shapes human behavior by informing, guiding, and steering human judgment (Lindebaum et al., 2020; Moser et al., 2022).” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 4)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“Our study offers practical advice for business leaders and HR professionals interested in implementing AI and other digital technologies.” (Einola and Khoreva, 2022, p. 14)

Einola, K., & Khoreva, V. (2022). Best friend or broken tool? Exploring the co-existence of humans and artificial intelligence in the workplace ecosystem. Human Resource Managementn/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22147