Abstract
‘The changes (from the Fourth Industrial Revolution) are so profound that, from the perspective of human history, there has never been a time of greater promise or potential peril’.
The face of work is changing with the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This concerns new and unanticipated changes from digitisation, whether it be from artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, automation, big data analytics, cloud technology, high-speed Internet access or other related trends (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; Schwab, 2018). Human decision-making and actions in all sorts of work domains are being replaced and augmented by AI functionality, including algorithms, natural language processing, machine learning and physical robots. Humans will increasingly work alongside intelligent robots and how we complete our work is increasingly via digital medium. One implication of increasing use of the digital medium is that when, how and where we work changes. With constant connectivity remote working and virtual teams was common, and this is likely to become the new norm in the post–COVID-19 pandemic. These changes are compounded by demographic shifts in the workforce, with increasing numbers of older workers, women and more diverse cultural and ethnic participants (Colbert et al., 2016). Expectations of diverse workforces, the increasing use of technology and economic pressures are leading to divergent ways of working, which are challenging some fundamental principles of managing and leadership, such as when, or if, the traditional reliance on hierarchies and social contact are effective means for the coordination and control of work (Kulik et al., 2016).
How the changing face of work impacts organisations and flows through to employee jobs, has already received a massive amount of attention, from international organisations (e.g. European Commission, 2019; International Labour Organization, 2019; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019; World Economic Forum, 2018), consulting firms (e.g. Ernst & Young, 2018; McKinsey Global Institute, 2019) as well as national governments (e.g. Australian Parliament, 2018). Academics have also been part of this conversation (e.g. McCredie et al., 2019), including academics from organisational behaviour (Colbert et al., 2016). So why create a special issue on this topic in the Australian Journal of Management focused on insights from organisational behaviour?
At this juncture – perhaps more than ever – organisational scholars need to take account of the context surrounding the phenomenon we study. The world of work is again at an inflexion point. Digital disruption is challenging traditional ways of working and bringing into question the relevance of models of organisational behaviour and the evidence bases that underpin them. Practice in new ways of working is, in some areas, running ahead of the field’s accumulated knowledge. In many cases, this risk of irrelevance is compounded by the lack of contextualization of the models used to test and explain the effects of different interventions. Traditionally, our field has explored organisational behaviour from either a micro (individual), meso (group and teams) or macro (organisations) perspective, and in more recent decades, these perspectives have been integrated with multilevel theory and methodology (Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). Recognition of the need to consider how changes in contexts, such as the shift from analogue to digital forms of working environments might explain variability in employee and organisational outcomes is growing (Johns, 2006, 2018; Bandura, 1997). Contextualised research requires researchers to dig much deeper than historical cross-sectional organisational surveys (Jordan and Troth, 2020), with mixed methods (Gibson, 2017) and longitudinal research (Collins et al., 2016). The environment has long been a core explanatory variable in human behaviour (Watson, 1913). However, in our pursuits for theories that encapsulate and explain behaviour in a way that is generalisable as well as teasing out cause and effect, sometimes the contribution of nuanced context is missed (Johns, 2018; Latham, 2019). The irony is that such a narrow pursuit of excellence hampers our understanding; context can flip the direction of relationships and challenge our intuitive explanations of organisational behaviour (Johns, 2006). Furthermore, we lose sight of important questions for society if we pursue our field without abductive research that starts with important research questions from industry (Mathieu, 2016). And for science, the process of inductive followed by deductive theory building has many advocates (Latham, 2019; Locke, 2007; Mischel, 2009). As the papers in this special issue highlight, embedding context from environments incorporates changes in society, business ecosystems, organisations, right through to the context created by changes in the work tasks we complete from digitisation. Thus, as our opening quote highlights, the time is right to explore how the changing face of work can be embraced, further enhanced, and be managed to reduce the impact of negative consequences.
So, are existing theories and models from organisational behaviour still relevant for the changing face of work given other changes in the business context? This special issue explores this questioning by asking researchers to consider ‘where have we been, where are we now and where are we going to in organisational behaviour’. Are the changes now just a matter of ‘old wine in new bottles’? In this special issue of the Australian Journal of Management, we took the time to look back in order to look ahead at the changing face of work. We have considered if the workplace changes now need us to revisit our seminal organisational behaviour theories and frameworks to contextualise research questions that take into account the future work trends. Each paper provides ways to theoretically and/or conceptually advance an organisational behaviour topic, and ways to explore solutions proactively with a variety of stakeholders, from industry, governments, education bodies and practitioners. Although there are many fundamental theories and principles that still apply from the early years of organisational behaviour research, new models and research programmes may well be needed to provide sustainable, evidence-based solutions to the emergent challenges. Special issues have an opportunity to draw attention to how a phenomenon can be productively viewed from multiple angles to create novel insights. Thus, it is with great pleasure that we bring together eight papers in this special issue. These papers draw together a wide range of organisational behaviour themes, touching on the micro foundations of employee behaviour, the meso level with collaborative processes, through to macro issues such as the impact of organisational systems and the surrounding context.
The micro level of organisational behaviour has a strong focus on individual outcomes such as employee performance and well-being. A large portion of this research has focused on how much agency employees have influencing these outcomes, with constructs such as goal orientation, regulatory focus, proactivity, fear of failure, core self-evaluations and psychological capital. The first paper in our special issue by Hirst, Yeo, Celestine, Lin, and Richardson reviewed this agency research then put forward several research propositions to broaden future directions of agency research, such as tackling its paradox with the societal and corporate mechanism of control, folding in the importance of employee reflection and incorporating well-being outcomes. Personal agency is an example of a construct that, with contextualisation, is directly applicable to the emergent challenges in new ways of working and to the transition or change required (Bandura, 1997). This leads to our next paper on employee well-being by Johnson, Nguyen, Groth, Joyce, Tan and Harvey. Their focus is on how two major technology-driven workplace trends – how we work with advanced technology (e.g. automation) and the location of our work (flexible work practices) – impact mental health. Immediate implications for all stakeholders are put forward, from policy to organisational practices and educational responses for individual skilling. Caines, Crane, Noone, Griffin and Earl then focus on a sub-population of employees, older workers. In a socio-political environment focused on delayed retirement, this paper draws attention to a needed shift to support older workers, including: challenging government and organisational policy to take action with a holistic and coordinated approach; utilising intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship to help older workers to find opportunities to productively utilise their skills, values and other attributes; and systems to provide feedback on cognition to optimise career longevity and reduce risk. As older people remain in the workforce longer, diversity and inclusion practices that effectively span several generations will be required to capitalise on opportunities to utilise and learn from older worker.
The next bundle of papers focuses on the meso level, unpacking the importance of how organisational systems and environments enable or hinder collectives of employees to work productively. Wiggins, Auton, Bayl-Smith and Carrigan take a comprehensive look at the future implications of human factors research with the need to optimise human – technology interactions. The central tenant of the paper is that the onslaught of technology, particularly automation, brings with it new vulnerabilities to error, in particular larger errors as a result of changes in the nature or work and reduction in the frequency of self-corrective task engagement activities. Wiggins et al. highlight the importance for a change in practice and theoretical models that put more emphasis on the critical role of organisational structures and processes. Another area of organisational behaviour that requires the role of organisational structures and systems to be unpacked is with evidence-based management. Criado-Perez, Collins and Jackson argue that information system capabilities, available resources, collaboration networks across organisational silos and organisational boundaries, as well as transformational leadership, are critical for evidence-based decisions. This paper shifts the historical focus away from the individual drivers of decision-making – both in research and practice – by drawing insights from a meta-analysis on the related strategy literature about absorptive capacity.
The meso theme in the special issue papers then moves onto the collaborative, interpersonal processes crucial to drive more dynamic ways of employees working together. Agile teams and the emergence of organisational structural forms such as holocracy are often the driver of open plan offices. Ayoko and Ashkanasy’s paper consolidates and looks to the future of open plan offices. They argue that to overcome unintended negative outcomes of open office layouts (such as conflict, noise and distractions), physical changes will be needed alongside technological solutions (e.g. Slack), as well as leadership approaches that foster interpersonal connection (e.g. servant leadership). We then move onto the paper from Rico, Gibson, Miram, Sanchez-Manzanares and Clark which focuses on how teams use coordination processes to transcend complex environments and attain adaptive outcomes. Solutions advocated from the team adaptation literature reviewed suggest team interventions such as managing emotions in structured reflective activities, novel training strategies that inject uncertainty, so teams learn how to adapt, as well as modifying organisational structures and systems to support adaptivity. The papers from Ayoko and Ashkanasy as well as Rico et al. identify important research opportunities for assessing the impact of organisational interventions as well as how to embed these findings into organisational theories.
The final paper in this special issue by Boeing, Jorritsma, Cham, Griffin and Parker addresses the macro level of organisational behaviour. The authors utilise a socio-technical approach to analyse a case study of future submarine construction. Their findings highlight the important role of surfacing the social factors – encompassing the entire gamut of organisational systems and structures – early in technology implementation. In practice, these factors are typically applied later in the design process in response to disruptions to the schedule, budget or scope of projects, limiting their impact. The authors provide practical recommendations to guide early-phase application of socio-technical systems principles into other industries and contexts, thus illustrating how theories can inform and enrich practice.
One of the goals of the special issue was to build a bridge between theory and practice. Authors were asked to consider how future theories and research might inform practice. To ensure these implications are salient to our readership, the authors of each paper have prepared a breakout box to summarise these issues.
We have squeezed eight papers into this bumper special issue. There are still many other topics to be explored. We hope that this issue will encourage our organisational behaviour colleagues to address these topics in their own research programmes. As we have seen, this may be done by contextualising or otherwise adapting existing models to the emerging forms of work or by the development of new theories and programmes of research. Topics for future issues might explore diversity in the workforce, including disadvantaged populations (e.g. refugees, lower socio-economic status, indigenous groups and those with disabilities) and examine the flow through effects from workplace changes that raise issues over who does what work; will these people have equal access to work opportunities? Relatedly, selection is a topic needing urgent attention; although efficiencies can be gained from technology, our unconscious biases can be embedded in technology that drives selection decisions. Are there technological advancements that improve communication and help curb our biases such as holograms? And, workplace changes driven from technology raise issues surrounding integrity. One implication of increasing use of digital medium is that it gives employees more access to voicing issues (e.g. such as exposing ethical misconduct with corporate scandals and sexual misconduct), but this can also distort news and evidence. How can voicing issues be used for societal good, such as promoting organisations collective efforts to manage climate change?
As this Special Issue goes to print, the world is in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis. People are working and learning from home, health care is being delivered online, and musicians and other artists are broadcasting online. In attempts to minimise the tragic deaths, infection rates and overloading of health systems around the world, social distancing has required new remote, digital ways of working and socialising. The use of social media has exploded. As the world moves to a new post–COVID-19 equilibrium, the norms and practices of work will have changed. Theories from organisation behaviour have looked at how external disruptions in the workplace radically transform how we work as individuals, teams and organisations (Gersick, 1991; Romanelli and Tushman, 1994). Even though these approaches have perhaps not addressed the scale of change that we now face from COVID-19, organisational behaviour scholars are well-placed to support the transformation which employees, organisations and more broadly society are now working through. For example, topics such as virtual teamwork and flexible working arrangements to balance work and home responsibilities are needed more than ever in organisational contexts which have historically been resistant to such changes. And are the best practices from organisations at the forefront of the curve we need to work towards? Or are there negative outcomes in those best practices which now need to be addressed (e.g. individual well-being)? Furthermore, how do collective efforts across various employment contexts work towards the good of society? The need for the research and recommendations presented in this Special Issue and the call for new models and research programmes are now urgent and require us more than ever to have collaborations across business disciplines (e.g. employment relations, information systems and economics) and perhaps most importantly across interdisciplinary boundaries (e.g. with experts from computer science, social science, the built environment and of course medicine).
In summary, the changing face of work from the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is accelerated with the COVID-19 pandemic, heightens the relevance of organisational behaviour research and provides us with evermore opportunities to do our work! We hope this special issue on the changing face of work inspires researchers and practitioners in the organisational behaviour space to redouble efforts to drive more humane and stimulating workplaces that benefit society more broadly.
