Abdulhadi Albaqshi English 102 Assignment 21 12/5/2017 The Impact of Technology at Workplace When it comes to technology in a workplace, most human resource managers, suppliers, employees and other stakeholders dealing with the organization will readily agree that the effect has been both positive and negative. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is the question of the technological advancements applicable to a particular organization. Whereas the use of technology has revolutionized the workplace environment, others are convinced that technology is to blame for the current mess in the workplace. The mess may be poor communication process, low efficiency in operation activities and slow decision making process. Equally, research done by Hernandez, Kevin, et al notes that technology is the new face of the workplace environment and must be implemented fully to realize the goals and objective of an organization. An organization with an objective of achieving a competitive edge in the global market, improving its efficiency, undertaking timely decisions making and meeting the expectations, needs and desires of its employee must embrace technology in its operating activities. Also, technology is important in achieving a collaborative and dedicated workforce, thus increasing their productivity which translates into more revenue to the organization. Human resource practitioners today tend to believe that technology is a crucial aspect of the workforce and thus must be treated as an integral part of the workplace environment. The research conducted by Keegan (23), argues that the impacts of the digital technologies on the human thinking and their behavior have had a positive outcome in the productivity of employees. Keegan’s claim that technology at the workplace has impacted on the consequential effects on the qualitative research that have been done on the same issue rests upon the questionable assumption that the previous many researcher view technology as a new dawn in the human resource development. According to Kegan, workplace efficiency does not directly relate to the nature of technology applied. Instead, Kegan rather expounds that the technological advancements in the workplace are an unnecessary change that is not for any better results to the society. Keegan's theory of technology in an organization’s Human Resource department is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of uncooperative employees and slow decision making processes. Besides, the theory also shed insight into the how the low technological advancements in an organization leads to low productivity. Kegan is of the opinion that technological advancements in an organization’s production process should be tackled intelligently to help the millennial brains from addictions on technology and particularly, internet. It is important to note that once people have become addicted to technology, they become lazy and less creative or innovative. As a result, many people stay away from work or refusing to work. Even those who report to duty do not work at all, leading to a decline in the overall productivity of the company. I think Keegan is mistaken, because she overlooks the fact that technology plays a key role in HR practices at workplace. Kegan, however, focuses on only on attention space but does not look at how technology impacts the productivity of workers. This makes his argument a little bit less significant in analysis why technology is inconsequential to the productivity and operational efficiency of an organization Although Keegan, may seem of concern to only a small group of employees, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about the effect of technology on the overall performance and social coexistence of the organization. Keegan asserts that technology has led to the acquisition of certain cognitive skills that gives them deep thinking capabilities to undertake their activities. This is mainly attributed to the continuous use of technology that has resulted into alterations in the neural circuitry of millennial brains. As such, it can be noted that the use of technology has enhanced the technical skills, expertise and ability of many employees, thus increasing their potential and productivity to the organization. The productivity in employees directly translates to more revenue and profits due to the increased efficiency with which the company conducts its activities. Keegan suggests that digital technology at the workplace has changed the way employee discharge their activities. He, however, complains that there has been limited discussion about the long-term effects of technology on the brain of employee and particularly how they react to the technology. According to Keegan, the use of digital technologies at the workplace has reshaped the brains of employees. None the less, Keegan goes ahead to lay down his ideas and reason as to why such an initiative may not work. In particular, Kegan acknowledges that the use of technology has several implications for society and the research industry at large. This argument puts the critics on the spotlight over the issues they raise against the use of technology within an organization. The arguments about the use of technology in a workplace and their effects on the employee's productivity seem to draw more attention and appear equally persuasive. Hernandez, Kevin, et al., note that technology has a significant impact on the broader domain of how the employees work. The scholars are of the opinion that technology helps the employee to strike a balance between their social life and their official responsibilities and expectations at the workplace. As a result, the employees will be in a position to schedule all their daily activities and responsibilities and discharge them in a timely manner. Although Hernandez, Kevin, et al. might seem trivial, the application of technology at the workplace is, in fact, crucial in terms of today's concern over the manner, in which the 24-hour communicative affordances of technology affected people's work/life balance. The authors argue that the digital technologies have greatly affected the reasoning in humans, thus leading to greater achievement in their duties. Even though I agree with the authors up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that the productivity of employees is solely based on the use of technology and is, therefore, the main causes the internet adaption in humans. The argument by Hernandez, Kevin, et al that digital technology is in the process of eating the world and has thus had a significant influence on the way that humans interact and transact with each other is not clear. My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support Hernandez, Kevin, et al’s position that technology has become an inevitable aspect of the workplace on global, regional, national and local economies. However, I find the author’s claim that there is still a possibility that the use of technology will lead higher productivity and performance at a workplace more practical and convincing. This claim appears more realistic because with technology, an organization will be positioned to utilize its maximum potential to realize success. Proponents of the use of technology in the workplace are right to argue that the dynamic world has made technology an inevitable part of the ordinary working of the staff. However, they exaggerate when they claim that organization that does no incorporate technology into their functions have always failed to achieve their goals. As Crary note that the automation technology plays a great role in everyday life, it is important to note that the use of technology has a potential effect on workplaces. Of course, many will probably disagree with this assertion of Crary notes that the automation of the workplace environment will lead to the elimination of very few occupations entirely in the next decade. My own view, however, is that, though it will affect the percentages of almost all jobs to a greater or lesser degree, the magnitude of the effect will depend on the type of work undertaken by the employees. At first glance, employees might say that technology at the workplace has little effect on the overall productivity of employees and how they relate to their workplace environment. However, a closer look at the scenario reveals that technology accounts for 78% of success in the workplace environment. Crary notes that note that the effects of digital technology on the security of people’s occupation have been a major concern to the employees. However, anyone familiar with the use of technology in a workplace will agree with me that human labor has been replaced with the widespread use of technology in almost every aspect of the daily operation of a business. However, Crary overlooks what I consider an important point about the effect of auto motives, heavy duty robots and artificial intelligence to the overall performance of the organization. Thus, Cray’s argument may not be reliable in justifying the need for technology in an organization. My own view is that Crary argument that the digital technology has led to high rate of joblessness in many industries within the countries that have embraced technological advancement is not a big issue to the business entity. In particular, the employees are taking the mess of the technology to their areas of work. This cause disruptions and distraction of the employees, thus leading to nonperformance and low productivity. Most employees will be conditioned to just check their phone and do not do their professional duties. The effect of this is reduced efficiency and effectiveness of the use of technology in undertaking numerous activities in the organization. Perhaps they might have based their argument on the fact that the robots have replaced even the professional occupations who do clerical duties. The authors, therefore, conclude by saying that the digital technology despite having worked to improve the productivity and economy, its hazards has outshined the advantages, thus creating more problems to the employees of an organization that implements them. This argument is still subject to debate and discussions to answer the many issues of the inefficient use of technology. In case nothing is changes in the use of technology, more challenges may still arise at the implementation stage due to unresponsive employees. This challenges however does not justify why technology should not be used as a tool of success in an organization. In conclusion, the impact of technology at the workplace is both positive and negative. It has led to an increase in the overall productivity of the employees while at the same time rendering many employee jobless. None the less, organization have found a way of using technology to maximize the outcome of the benefits while reducing its adverse impacts. While some researchers and scholars have criticized the use of technology in an organization, other see technology as the new face of operation, production and decision making in an organization. The controversy on whether technology has had positive or negative effect to the performance of an organization are based on the person who should bear responsibility of the inefficiencies, redundancy and unresponsiveness of employees in an automated environment. Whichever the case, the critics of the use of technology in an organization have failed to substantiate why technology is to blame for the failed performance of an organization. Their opinions on why technology should not be used in an organization’s production and operating activities does not hold up. Thus, it is important to agree with the proponent of technology and go by their thoughts. Works Cited Crary, Jonathan. 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. New York: Verso, 2014. Print. Keegan, Sheila. "Digital technologies are re‐shaping our brains: What are the implications for society and the research industry?" Emerald insight (2012): 328-346. Michael, Chui, James Manyika and Mehdi Miremadi. "How many of Your Daily Tasks could be Automated?" Harvard Business Review (2015).
Purchase answer to see full attachment