SAY HI TO YOUR NEW COLLEAGUE: STARA
A research about the association between technological advances in the workplace and the perceptions of employees
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication MSc Corporate Communication track Master thesis
Floor van Ligten (10556680) Supervisor: dhr. W. van Zoonen Word count: 7155
Abstract
To an increasing extend, employees must deal with technological advances within the workplace. Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA) is making its entrance into the labour market. This can have an impact on the perceptions of employees regarding their own job and careers. Current research aims to shed light on the impact of STARA on employees’ organizational commitment, organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) and job insecurity. Gaining more insights on these work perceptions is critical in order to maintain valuable employees in the organization. This research
investigated whether the impact of STARA is associated with organizational commitment. This association is explained by examine the mediating role of OBSE and job insecurity and the moderating role of internal locus of control (ILOC). Data was gathered through a survey among 121 employees. The results show an significant association between OBSE and job insecurity and organizational commitment. This indicates that employees with a high level of OBSE, felt a higher level of organizational commitment. Furthermore, employees with a high level of job insecurity, felt a lower level of organizational commitment. No significant
association had been found between STARA awareness and OBSE and job insecurity and ILOC did not moderate the association between STARA awareness and job insecurity.
Theoretical and practical implications are provided and limitations and implications for future research are discussed.
Introduction
The pace of technology today is only a shadow of what it will be in the next 15 to 20 years. Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms made an entry into the labour market and are known as STARA (Brougham & Haar, 2016). Several researchers attempt to predict the outcome of STARA as it seems to have a great influence on the labour market. On the one hand it expected to have a great influence on the labour market: “computers get more powerful, companies have less need for some kinds of workers. Technological progress is going to leave behind some people, perhaps even a lot of people, as it races ahead” (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2011, pp. 10-11). Thus, new technologies with more sophisticated software have the potential to disrupt the labour market by making employees more redundant (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2011). Examples of the capability of STARA to create this technological unemployment can be seen in multiple industries. For instance, machines have proven to be more intelligent decision-makers during critical situations in data-driven fields such as healthcare, stock markets and courtrooms, because of the absence of human biases (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Moreover, the ability of algorithms to quickly screen through large amounts of documents, may threaten employment such as patent lawyers and paralegals, which are indeed rapidly being automated (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Because of these technological advances, it is expected that 47 percent of employment today is potentially automatable over the next decades (Frey & Osborne, 2017). On the other hand, it is also stated that new jobs are created because of the rise of STARA, for example: IT development, big data consultancy and app creation (McKinsey, 2017). Without the implication of STARA it is assumed that these jobs would not exist. Furthermore, Autor (2015) claims that STARA does not replace employers but act as a complementary to their work. It is suggested that jobs that persist in the future will combine routine based tasks performed by STARA with a set of non-routine in which employers hold a comparative
advantage: adaptively, flexibility, interpersonal interaction and problem solving (Autor, 2015). Thus, for now it is not clear if employers will be replaced or more and different jobs will be created by STARA.
It is likely that employees are becoming more aware of STARA and its influence on the labour market due to the increasingly prominent place of technology themes within the mass media. For instance, documentaries such as ‘Robo Sapiens’ (VPRO, 2017), books like ‘Homo Deus’ (Harari, 2017) and newspaper articles with ‘the future of work’ (NRC, 2017) headlines are making it almost impossible to avoid the topic. The extent to which employees are aware of the impact of STARA on their job, tasks, organization and industry can be defined as STARA Awareness (Brougham & Haar, 2016). In line of this, current research focus on examine the influence of STARA awareness on the work perception. As is stated in the literature (Autor, 2015; Brougham & Haar, 2016; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2011; Frey & Osborne, 2017), STARA seems to have an increasing influence on employment possibilities, both negative and positive. As employers get more and more exposed to media about STARA in the workplace, it is of great value to examine which perception is shaped by employees regarding these technological advances. Current research will help to improve the understanding of the impact of STARA within the workplace, as research on STARA awareness is now scarce. The main purpose of this research is to test STARA awareness, what is likely to be developed via the media, and determine if it is associated with work perceptions. This helps employees and employers to prepare adequately when STARA is changing the future career.
Brougham and Haar (2016) made a first attempt to investigate STARA awareness among employees. They examined the association between STARA awareness and organizational commitment. Nowadays, organization commitment is becoming increasingly important due to the fact that employees switch more often between organizations. The
duration of the relationship between an employee and employer is easily reduced to very few years. (Baruch, 2003). For employers it is of great importance to strive for organizational commitment in order to avoid losing valuable employees to competitors. A high level of organizational commitment prevents employees from leaving the organization. (Allen & Meyer, 1991). However, STARA could have a detrimental influence on organizational commitment.When employees perceive STARA as a threat to their job, it is likely that they feel undervalued and not regarded highly by their employers. This is likely to reduce employee’s organizational commitment (Brougham & Haar, 2016). Brougham and Haar (2016) suggested that STARA awareness is directly associated with organizational commitment. However, commitment develops slowly, but consistently over time as employees thinks about the relationship between the organization and themselves (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Arguing that this process is formed merely by STARA awareness seems too narrow. Organizational commitment itself is formed by several different factors, which have to be taken into account when looking at STARA awareness. First, when employees are more aware of STARA, it could change their organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). This OBSE occurs when employees perceive themselves as important and worthy members of the organization (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989). It might be challenging for employees to perceive themselves as an important and worthy member when a robot could easily take over tasks and jobs. This perceived membership is an important aspect of feeling committed to the organization. In other words, more awareness of STARA may affect employee’s OBSE and in turn organizational commitment. Second, as employees become more aware of the possibilities of STARA, the certainty of maintaining the same job and tasks can be affected. For example, in the Netherlands there are already 2 to 3 million jobs at risk due to technological advances (Deloitte, 2014). This threat of technological unemployment may increase job insecurity among employees and may trigger discontinue
membership. Thus, OBSE and job insecurity are likely to tie STARA awareness and organizational commitment together. From an individual perspective, it is expected that individual differences play a role within these relationships. Employees who have the feeling that they ‘control’ these changes by STARA are more likely to be successful in their organization. In this case, the employee beliefs that it is in one’s ability to have control over their career prospects (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986). Therefore, employees with this internal locus of control (ILOC) who are aware of STARA may feel less job insecurity due to their belief that they control the situation.
Thus, different responses and perceptions among employees regarding STARA awareness have to be considered before any statement can be made about organizational commitment. The purpose of this research is to provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between STARA awareness and organizational commitment, by examining its underlying mechanisms of OBSE, job insecurity and ILOC. The question that is central to this research is:
RQ: To what extend do organization-based self-esteem and job insecurity mediate and locus of control moderate the association between STARA awareness and organizational commitment?
Theoretical framework STARA awareness
Considering the increasing attention among technological advances themes within the media, it is expected that the media plays an important role for shaping the awareness among employees. News articles such as: “Rapid digitization and rising life expectancy means that work will look different in the future. "No one will work non-stop from the age of 21 to the
age of 80” (NRC, 2017) are expected to contribute to the awareness of STARA in the workplace. As Brougham and Haar (2016) mentioned, STARA awareness captures the extent to which an employee views the likelihood of Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Algorithms impacting on their current job, workplace, organization and industry. If employees share the same view about the future workplace as Frey and Osborne (2017), they can expect a significant decrease in workplace opportunities.
STARA awareness is associated with organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is defined as “a psychological state that characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization, and has implications for the decision to continue or discontinue membership in the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1991, p. 67). Organizational commitment is conceptualized in three dimensions. First, affective commitment (psychological) refers to an employee’s emotional attachment, identification with, and involvement in the organization. When employees experience a high level of affective commitment with the organization, they continue employment because they want to. Second, when employees stay at an organization because of the costs associated with leaving the organization, it is called continuance commitment (economic). In this case, employees feel that it is a need to stay at an organization. Third, normative commitment (social) occurs when employees feel an obligation to the organization to continue employment. Employees feel that they ought to remain with the organization when they experience a high level of normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1991).
It is expected that STARA awareness is associated with organizational commitment. This can be explained through the psychological contract between the employee and the organization. The psychological contract refers to “the perceived mutual obligations that characterize the employee's relationship with his/her employer”(Robinson & Rousseau, 1994,
p. 246). Violation of the psychological contract occurs from unmet expectations and perceptions (Rousseau, 1989). STARA could be seen as a negative unmet expectation and perception, since it could have effect on the future career of an employee. The organization might fail to honour the contract between the employee when it choses to implement STARA, as STARA has the potential to replace employees. This creates a sense of wrongdoing in the psychological state between the employee’s relationship with the organization and thus lower the organization commitment (Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2006). In short, when an employee is aware of the implementation of STARA within the organization, it could mean that the psychological contract is breached what may reduce the organizational commitment.
H1: Employees experiencing a higher level of STARA awareness will experience a lower level of commitment
STARA awareness is associated with organization commitment through organization-based self-esteem
Pierce et al. (1989, p. 625) defined organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) as “the degree to which an individual believes him/herself to be capable, significant, and worthy as an organizational member”. When an employee feels a high sense of OBSE, they have satisfied needs from their organizational roles in the past and a sense of personal adequacy as organizational members. (Pierce et al., 1989). These employees believe that they ‘count around here’ and perceive themselves as competent, important and capable within their organization (Pierce & Gardner, 2004).
Underpinning the analysis of OBSE as a mediator of STARA awareness and organizational commitment relationship, there are two key arguments. First, based on
employee’s self-concept, the association between STARA awareness and OBSE. Self-concept reflects “the perceptions that individuals hold about their actual traits, competencies, and values” (Leonard, Beauvais & Scholl, 1999, p. 975). Self-esteem is seen as the evaluative component of the self-concept. (Campbell & Lavallee, 1993). Thus, when the self-concept is influenced, the self-esteem may change. Being aware of the threats of STARA within the organization could lead to negative sense of worth and could therefore influence the self-concept (Wu, Birtch, Chiang, & Zhang, 2006). For instance, Algorithms for big data are able to access and store information. Computers have an advantage when compared to human labour: scalability. Algorithms scale better in performing laborious computation than human labour (Campbell-Kelly, 2009). Consequently, it is likely that employees perceive the idea that STARA could easily replace them and therefore would question their own worthiness. Employees could create the feeling that they are not a valuable and contributing organization member anymore. The perceived negative influence of STARA on the self-concept, might represent essentially believing that employers view an employer as redundant, what is expected to be detrimental to employee’s self-esteem at work. The incorporation of this negative role of STARA into an employee’s self-concept leads to deteriorated OBSE (Pierce & Gardner, 2004)
The second argument highlights the association between OBSE and organizational commitment. Employees experiencing a high level of OBSE will most likely experience an increased degree of attachment with the organization, thus organizational commitment (Pierce & Gardner, 2014). A high level of OBSE implies a high level of experienced competence and organizational worth. (Pierce et al. 1989). The association between OBSE and organizational commitment can be explained by Brockner’s behaviour plasticity concept (1988). Behaviour plasticity refers to the extent to which an individual is affected by external factors (Brockner, 1988), in this case STARA in the workplace. (Brockner, 1988) Perceived
negative information about STARA could be seen as an organizational uncertainty and can be a salient form of negative information (Hui & Lee, 2000 ). Brockner (1988) stated that employees with low OBSE are more plastic (reactive) than employees with high OBSE, because they are more easily influenced by external cues and employees with high OBSE probably have the confidence to act on these cues. When employees feel threatened by STARA, they will have a low level of OBSE because of the negative sense of self-worth and consequently may cope passively with this negative stimulus by lowering organizational commitment (Hui & Lee, 2000). By contrast, it is stated that employees with a high level of OBSE will engage in problem focused coping behaviour by reporting a higher level of organizational commitment (Hui & Lee, 2000).
H2a: Employees experiencing a higher level of STARA awareness will experience a lower level of organization-based self-esteem
H2b: Employees experiencing a higher level of organization-based self-esteem will experience a higher level of organizational commitment
H2c: OBSE mediates the relationship between STARA awareness and organizational commitment
STARA awareness is associated with organizational commitment through job insecurity Several definitions of job insecurity are formulated in the literature: ‘Powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation’ (Greenhalgh & Rosenbalatt, 1984, p. 483), ‘overall concern about the future existence of the job’ (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996, p.587) and ‘expectations about continuity in a job situation’ (Davy, Kinicki, & Scheck,
1997). More importantly, when an employee experiences job insecurity, it does not automatically mean that he or she will actually lose his/her job. Job insecurity refers to “the anticipation of a stressful event in such a way that the nature and continued existence of one’s job are perceived to be at risk” (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002, p. 27).
Again, there are two key arguments for job insecurity as a mediator of STARA awareness and organizational commitment. First, based on framing, the association between STARA awareness and job insecurity. STARA is likely to change the nature of work across several industries and professions. As mentioned before, Frey and Osborne (2017) predict that 47% of the total employment is at high-risk to be replaced by STARA. STARA is entering several domains because of technological progress. Multiple kinds of jobs are susceptible to STARA. For instance, employees who are working in transportation and logistics, office and administrative support and the service sector are at risk (Frey & Osborne, 2017). It has already been observed that there is a growth in the market for service robots (MGI, 2013). Furthermore, STARA is entering the domains of legal and financial services. Certain algorithms are able to take over tasks of paralegals, contract and patent lawyers. Law firms rely on algorithms that scan thousands of legal briefs for the pre-trial research (Markoff, 2011). As more and more media gives attention to these technological advances and the risk of technological unemployment, job insecurity among employees may grow. This can be explained by the framing theory. Frames involved: “selection and salience—‘‘to frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’’ (Entman, 1993, p. 52). When looked at the frame of STARA in the media, the disrupted effect of STARA on the labour market is becoming more salient. Articles such as: “Automation and anxiety. Will smarter machines cause mass unemployment” (The
Economist, 2016) are prominent in current media. By highlighting and focussing on this aspect, perceptions regarding STARA are shaped by this framing (Birkland & Lawrence, 2009, p. 1406). Because this frame is dominating the popular media, it is expected that employees will take over this frame and develop a higher feeling of job insecurity regarding STARA.
Second, the association between job insecurity and organizational commitment. Job insecurity is an important antecedent for an employee’s organizational commitment. Job insecurity has been found to be negatively associated with organizational commitment (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). Employees and organizations have a psychological contract in which it is clear what each will receive and give (Schein, 1980). In this contract, employees perceive a sense of mastery: a sense of control over events in one’s lives. This control is important in the lives of employees, and certain organizations or job related aspects that threaten this control would result in strong feelings of insecurity (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989). Employees count on their organizations to be trustworthy in a way that they uphold their end of the psychological contract (Buchanan, 1974). However, perceived job insecurity is a reflection of an employee’s perception that the organization has breached the psychological contract. In this case the job itself seems at risk and threatened. Employees perceive their organizations to be unreliable in carrying out their commitments and in turn, employees feel less committed to their organization (Ashford et al., 1989). This can be explained by the Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964). This theory states that employees feel obligated to the organization by adopting positive attitudes when it is perceived as a favourable work environment, however they change their attitude negatively when they are treated unfavourably (Parzefall & Salin, 2010). This negative social exchange between the organization and an employee can trigger discrete emotional reactions such as a lower organizational commitment (Lavelle, Brockner, Konovsky, Price, Henley, Taneja & Vinekar,
2009). When applied on this research, it is expected that the STARA frame within the media could change the perceived traditionally secure working environment to an insecure one, due to the possibility of replacement of employees. This perceived job insecurity could be seen as a trigger for shaping a negative attitude that lowers the organizational commitment. Employees who are aware of STARA are assumed to experience higher levels of job insecurity, which in turn decreases organizational commitment.
H3a: Employees experiencing a higher level of STARA awareness will experience a higher level of job insecurity
H3b: Employees experiencing a higher level of job insecurity will experience a lower level of organizational commitment
H3c: Job insecurity mediates the relationship between STARA awareness and organizational commitment
Locus of control as a moderator on the association between STARA awareness and job insecurity
The strength of the relationship between STARA awareness and job insecurity is likely to vary based on individual differences of employees. Specifically, employees can be more or less sensitive to the consequences of STARA awareness based on the level of internal locus of control (ILOC).
ILOC is defined as “the belief that much of what happens in life stems from one's own actions” (Buddelmeyer & Powdthavee, 2017, p. 1; Rotter, 1966). ILOC can act as a psychological buffer against negative events, in this case STARA awareness. Employees with
an internal locus of control have the feeling that negative events have less impact on them and believe that they have the power to counteract whatever technological threat comes in their way (Mitchell, Smyser, & Weed, 1975; Rotter, 1960). More importantly, these ‘internals’ have a strong belief in their own competence and in turn reduces the effect of negative event, in this case STARA (Lied & Pritchard, 1976). When ILOC is applied on the association between STARA awareness and job insecurity, it is expected that a high level of ILOC weakens the association of STARA awareness and job insecurity. Anderson (1977) stated that employees with an ILOC take more active steps to directly address the threat of a business loss. Employees could take active steps regarding these technological developments by taking extra courses to gain more technological knowledge for instance. These employees take control by learning new skills. Therefore, when ILOC is considered in the relationship between STARA and job insecurity, it is expected that employees with a high level of ILOC perceive STARA less threatening to their employment security.
H4: The relationship between STARA awareness and job insecurity is weaker when there is a higher degree of internal locus or control
In figure 1, the aforementioned hypotheses are visually presented in a conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Method Procedure and sample
For this study a convenience sample is used. Due to financial and time restrictions, the survey was spread via social media like Facebook and LinkedIn, e-mail, door-to-door, peers, friends and family. The respondents had to meet two certain criteria. First, they had to work in an organization with at least 30 employees. So it concerns employees of organizations that can actually invest in STARA. Second, their workweek had to consist at least 20 hours in order to include employees who can actually feel committed to the organization. It took approximately three weeks to gather all the respondents. Via a short introduction with the purpose of the study and a link to the only survey tool Qualtrics, the respondents were asked to fill out the survey. After opening the survey, general information was presented about the purpose of the study. Then the respondents were showed an informed consent. The survey started after the agreement of the terms and conditions. The respondents were exposed to
several statements to measure STARA awareness, OBSE, job insecurity, organizational commitment and locus of control. Through a 5-point Likert scale ranging between (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, the respondents were able to indicate to what extend they (dis)agreed with the statement. Respondents were prompted to answer all the questions in order to avoid missing values. They did not receive compensation for their participation. See appendix I for complete survey.
After deleting 26 dropouts, the sample consisted 121 respondents. The age of these respondents ranged between 21 and 65, with an average age of 37.32 (SD = 14.57). The majority of respondents was female (54.8%) and had a Master’s degree (35.5%) or an Applied Science degree (35.5%). On average, respondents worked 6.27 years for their current employer (SD = 8.23) and worked for 39.02 hours per week (SD = 8.95). In general, they had work experience of 13.78 years (SD = 14.27). The respondents work in different industries: public administration (12.1%), communication/marketing (10.5%), business services (8.9%), health care (8.9%) financial institutions (8.1%), education and science (7.3%), and food service industry (5.6%).
Measurements STARA awareness
STARA awareness is based on the Brougham and Haar (2016) scale. The four items of STARA awareness: “I think my job could be replaced by STARA”, “I am personally worried that what I do now in my job will be able to be replaced by STARA”, “I am personally worried about my future in my organization due to STARA replacing employees” and “I am personally worried about my future in my industry due to STARA replacing employees” are redefined so it cannot be confused and is not overlapping the variable job insecurity. Examples of items in this research are: “My job could be replaced by smart
technologies, automation, robotics, and/or artificial intelligence” and “My organization might replace employees due to smart technologies, automation, robotics, and/or artificial intelligence in the future”. These items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The higher the score, the more a respondent is aware of STARA.Through a confirmatory principal component analysis (PCA) the four items were loaded on one factor. The factor had an explained variance of 62.6% and an Eigen Value of 2.50. These four items make a reliable scale (α = .80, M = 2.32, SD = 1.07).
Organization-based self-esteem
OBSE, is measured with five items by the scale of Pierce, Gardner, Cummings & Dunham (1989) on a 5-point Likert scale . The following items are included in the research: “I count around here”, “I am taken seriously”, “I am trusted”, “I am helpful”, “I am valuable” (M = 4.34, SD = .52). ). Originally, the scale of Pierce et al. (1989) consists ten items. However, through a principal component analysis (PCA) it has been found that the ten items together form a two-dimensional scale. Only the items with factor loadings of .7 or higher are included in order to create a valid scale. The threshold value for factor loadings to be included in the scale is .7, as this would give an explained variance of .50% for the item (Field, 2013). Factor loadings ranging from .71 to .80. These five items are formed into a one scale (eigenvalue = 2.93; percentage variance = 58.6%). The higher the score, the higher the level of OBSE. The OBSE scale showed a good internal consistency (α = .81).
Job insecurity
Job insecurity is measured by the scale of Van Der Elst, De Witte and Cuyper (2013) via a on a 5-point Likert scale. The following items are included in the research (M = 2.06, SD = 0. 99): “There is a risk that I will lose my present job in the near future”, “I am sure that I am able to keep my job”, “I feel uncertain about the future of my job” and “I think that I
will lose my job in the near future”. The higher the score, the more insecure a respondent felt regarding their current job. “I am sure that I am able to keep my job” is therefore recoded. Through a principal component analysis (PCA) it has been found that the four items together form a one-dimensional scale (eigenvalue = 2.93; percentage variance = 73.34%). In addition, these four items make a reliable scale (Cronbach’s α = .87).
Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is measured by the scale of Allen and Meyer (1991). It comprises eighteen items and three dimensions: affective, normative, and continuance. An example item of affective is: “ I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with my organization”, normative: “Too much of my life would be disturbed if I decide that I want to leave my organization”, and continuance: “I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it”. Items were recoded when necessary. These items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The higher the score, the more committed a respondent felt to the organization. Through a principal component analysis (PCA) it has been found that the eighteen items together form a three-dimensional scale, with an Eigenvalue of 5.16 for affective, 2.56 for normative, and 1.64 for continuance. Together these three dimensions explain 51.97% of the variance in organizational commitment. All scales contained six items. First, the affective commitment scale showed a good internal consistency (α = .81, M = 3.36, SD = .80). Second, the normative commitment items seem to make a reasonably reliable scale (α = .65, M = 3.07, SD = .85). Last, the items of normative commitment show a good internal consistency (α = .79, M = 2.51, SD = .75).
Locus of control
The moderating variable locus of control is based on the Rotter (1966). The Rotter scale is very general because its items are based on several domains like work, politics and
education. Because this research investigated locus of control among employers, the work related locus of control of Spector (1988) is applied. However, these items only measure the extent to which individuals perceive that people in general have control over what happens regarding their jobs. As stated in the research of Levenson (1974), these items should measure the feelings of the respondent, and not what the respondent believes about people in general. To measure this, the modified scale of Gupchup and Wolfgang (1997) is used. This scale measures with sixteen items both the external and internal locus of control. For the current research the focus is on internal locus of control. Again, to form a valid scale, only items were included with a score of .7 or higher in order to form a valid scale (Field, 2013). Four items formed a one scale with factor loadings ranging from .69 to .81. (eigenvalue = 2.15; percentage variance = 53.78%). The following four items were used: “My job is what I make of it”, “On my job, I can pretty much accomplish whatever I set out to accomplish”, “If I know what I want out of a job, I can find a job that gives it to me”, and “ If I were unhappy with a decision made by my boss, I should do something about it” (α = .71, M = 4.01, SD = 0.66). These items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The higher the score, the more the respondent felt ILOC.
Analysis
As suggested by Hayes (2013), direct, moderation and mediation hypotheses were tested via PROCESS macro with 5000 bootstrap samples by applying model 7. This model tests the direct association between the independent variable STARA awareness on the dependent variable organizational commitment. The model includes the mediation of OBSE and job insecurity between STARA awareness and organizational commitment. Accordingly, it tests one single moderator, in this case locus of control, on job insecurity. Since PROCESS
can only test one dependent variable at a time, this model is estimated three times for each dimension of commitment – i.e., affective, continuous, and affective commitment.
Results
STARA awareness associated with organizational commitment.
The first hypothesis, whether the more employees are aware of STARA, the less they feel affective, normative and continuance commitment with their organization is tested. The regression with STARA awareness as an independent variable and affective, normative and continuance commitment as dependent variables. The association with affective commitment b = .01, t = .08, p = .938, 95% CI [-.12, .13], normative commitment b = .12, t = 1.53, p = .128, 95% CI .03, .28] and continuance commitment b = -.02, t = -.38, p = .703, 95% CI [-.15, .10] are non-significant. This means that organizational commitment is not predicted by STARA awareness. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is rejected.
STARA awareness associated with organization-based self-esteem and job insecurity Hypothesis 2a predicted, the more an employee is aware of STARA, the lower the level of OBSE. Via a regression, this association appears to be non-significant b = .01, t = .29, p = .766, 95% CI [-.08, .11]. STARA awareness is not a predictor for OBSE.
Hypothesis 3a predicted that a high level of STARA awareness is associated with a high level of job insecurity. STARA awareness is not significantly associated with job insecurity b = .09, t = 1.00, p = .321, 95% CI [-.09, .27]. STARA awareness is not a predictor for job insecurity. Hypotheses 2a and 3a are rejected.
Organization-based self-esteem and job insecurity associated with organizational commitment
With Hypothesis 2b it was expected that a high level of OBSE is associated with a high level of affective, normative and continuance commitment. OBSE is a significant predictor of affective commitment b = .83, t = 6.67, p < .001, 95% CI [.59, 1.08] and normative commitment b = .43, t = 2.88, p = < .01, 95% CI [.14, .73]. However, the association between OBSE and continuance commitment is non-significant b = .12, t = .71, p = .479, 95% CI [-.21, .44]. OBSE is not a predictor for continuance commitment. This means that respondents with a high level of OBSE feel an affective and normative commitment to the organization. Hypothesis 2b is partly accepted.
Furthermore, job insecurity has a significant association with affective commitment b = -.12, t = -1.97, p < .05, 95% CI [-.25, .00] and continuance commitment b = .18, t = 2.18, p < .05, 95% CI [.02, .35]. Job insecurity is not associated with normative commitment b = -.03, t = -.30, p = .762, 95% CI [-.21, .15]. The higher the degree of job insecurity, the lower the degree of affective commitment. However, it also appears that the higher the degree of job insecurity the more a respondent is continuance committed to the organization. The association between job insecurity and organizational commitment was expected to be negatively associated. This is only the case with affective commitment. Therefore, hypothesis 3b is partly accepted.
Mediator organization-based self-esteem and job insecurity
Hypothesis 2c predicted mediation between STARA awareness and affective, normative and continuance commitment through OBSE. Regression shows that affective commitment b = -.02, SE = .05, 95% CI [-.12, .08], normative commitment b = -.01, SE = .03, 95% CI [-.07, .04] and continuance commitment b = -.00, SE = .01, 95% CI [-.05, .01] are not indirectly associated with STARA awareness through OBSE. Thus, OBSE does not
mediate the association between STARA awareness and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 2c is rejected
Via Hypothesis 3c it was expected that STARA is associated with lower levels of affective, normative and continuance commitment through a high level of job insecurity. The regression shows that affective commitment b = -.01, SE = .02, 95% CI [-.05, .02], normative commitment b = -.00, SE = .01, 95% CI [-.04, .01] and continuance commitment b = .01, SE = .02, 95% CI [-.03, .06] are not indirectly associated with STARA awareness through job insecurity. Job insecurity does not mediate the association between STARA awareness and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 3c is rejected.
Moderator internal locus of control
The last hypothesis predicted that the relationship between STARA awareness and job insecurity is weaker when there is a high degree of ILOC. The interaction between STARA awareness and ILOC is non-significant b = .07, t = .58, p = .564, 95% CI [-.16, .29]. Graph 1 shows the non-significant outcome of the predication that locus of control moderates the association between STARA awareness and job insecurity. It appears that respondents with a high level of STARA awareness, score a lower level of job insecurity when they have a high degree of ILOC. However, the association is not significant and hypothesis 4 is therefore rejected. See table 1 for full overview of results.
Graph 1. ILOC as moderator on association between STARA awareness and job insecurity
Conclusion Theoretical implication
The aim of this research is examining the association between STARA awareness and OBSE, job insecurity, organizational commitment and the moderating role of ILOC in these relationships. The mean STARA awareness score of 2.32 (on a 1-5 scale) indicates that
0 1 2 3 4 5
Low STARA Average STARA High STARA
Jo
b
in
se
cu
rity
Low ILOC Average ILOC High ILOCemployees are not fully aware of what STARA may change in their career prospects and therefore may have not yet developed (negative or positive) perceptions regarding STARA. This stresses the importance that employees should consider their career prospects and opportunities and the relation with STARA in order to ensure they can properly anticipate when their jobs may change by it. This is the first research that demonstrates the association between STARA awareness and these work perceptions.
The association of STARA awareness and organizational commitment is not significant. It was expected that STARA awareness could create a breach in the psychological contract and therefore reduce employee’s organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1991; Bordia & Tang, 2006; Restubog, Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1989). However, the psychological contract only becomes an important influence for certain job outcomes when it is broken or undergoes a substantial change (McDonald & Makin, 2000). It could be the case that employees do not ‘blame’ the organization for implementing STARA. Organizations might depend on these STARA implementations to maintain their competitive position, as technological innovations can have important strategic implications for competitive advantages (Porter, 1985). When employees understand these circumstances, they might not perceive STARA as something that changes their expectations of the organization. The psychological is not breached by STARA and therefore STARA awareness is not association with organizational commitment.
It might be difficult for employees to imagine a future with STARA in organizations. The future is difficult to predict as it is dynamic, interactive and emergent (Pryor, Amundson & Bright, 2008). Employees might maintain their current OBSE, because they are not certain of the outcome of STARA in the future. The outcome of STARA could be both negative or positive for their career prospect and opportunities (Autor, 2015; Brougham & Haar, 2016;
Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2011; Frey & Osborne, 2017). Not knowing what the future holds, might explain why employees do not feel any threat of STARA what leads to a lower OBSE.
Furthermore, the relatively low level of STARA awareness could mean that employees are not informed well enough. Even worse, it could be the case that employees are informed about STARA but that they hold the idea that STARA does not have an effect on their own career prospects and opportunities. This is known as the third-person effect (Davison, 1983). Employees might think that the information regarding STARA only applies for other employees (third persons) and not on themselves. When employees do not perceive STARA as a potential threat for their own career prospect and opportunities it is likely that they are not insecure about their job. This might be an explanation why STARA awareness is not associated with job insecurity.
However, there is a significant association between OBSE and job insecurity and employee’s organizational commitment. OBSE is a predictor for organizational affective commitment and organizational normative commitment. This in line with previous research (Hui & Lee, 2000; Pierce & Gardner, 2014). Meaning that employees with a high level of OBSE feel a high level of commitment to their organization. Employees who have the feeling that they have satisfied needs from their organizational roles and feel worthy as an organizational member are more emotional attached to their organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Employees will remain with the organization because of their believe that this is the ‘right’ and moral thing to do (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Furthermore, an employee with a high level of job insecurity seems to feel a lower affective commitment to the organization. This means that the employees have the feeling that they are not treated favourable and therefore feel less emotional attached to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Parzefall & Salin, 2010). This negative social exchange between the employee and organization creates a feeling of insecurity and a lower affective commitment (Blau, 1964; Meyer & Allen, 1991;
Parzefall & Salin, 2010). On the other hand, when an employee feels a high degree of job insecurity he/she feels more continuance committed to the organization. This means that employees who are insecure about their job, recognize that the costs for leaving the organization would be high and are therefore committed to the organization. (Meyer & Allen, 1996). A reason for this could be that employees mainly feel committed because they have no alternatives than their current job. Employees are insecure about their job, but feel a stronger continuance commitment to their current organization as they have no other options (Meyer & Allen, 1996).
ILOC did not moderate the relationship between STARA awareness and job insecurity. Employees seem to score high on the ILOC scale (M = 4.01), what indicates that employees have a strong belief in their own competence (Lied and Pritchard, 1976). Since ILOC acts as a buffer during stressful events, the problem lies in the fact that STARA is not seen as a stressful event in employee’s life (Mitchell, Smyser, & Weed, 1975; Rotter, 1960). . Implying that ILOC is not a fundamental factor to improve a high level of job insecurity related to employee’s STARA awareness.
Practical implications
Current research has several practical implications for both employees as employers. First, it has to be noted that the low level of STARA awareness among employees could be a problem. Employees could be not aware of the impact of STARA on their career prospects and opportunities. This could mean that they do not have a clear expectation of what influence STARA might have in their job, organization and industry. Employees should research the impact of STARA within their industry. Being more mindful about the implications of STARA within their industry may result in accurate plan to accommodate potential changes (Brougham & Haar, 2016 ). Providing training and education to keep track
of technological advances in the workplace can help. Second, When STARA is replacing employees, it is urgent that employees expand their skillset in order to be employable for multiple jobs. This may lead to a more solid career prospect and a better fit between employees and the new jobs created by STARA: IT developer, big data consultant and app creator (McKinsey, 2017). Third, current research shows that OBSE and job insecurity is associated with organizational commitment. If it appears that STARA have mainly negative influence on the future labour market, employers should focus on creating a work environment to enhance OBSE and reduce job insecurity to develop organizational commitment, which is important to maintain valuable employees in the organization Allen & Meyer, 1991).
Limitations & future research
First of all, the amount of deleted items may have caused distorted results. A few scales were not applicable within current research. It is not certain if the recreated scales are fully addressing the concept. For instance, OBSE is originally measured through ten items, instead of five items. Another limitation is that the normative scale scored quite low on reliability. Meaning that Cronbach alpha did not meet the recommended minimum of level .7 (Nunnally, 1978). Thus, it is not certain if this scale measured what it should be measuring. This could have affected the outcomes. A third limitation is the sample size. However, 121 respondents is sufficient, it is relatively small and this may affect the external validity. The statistical power is low and standards errors might be larger than it should. This means that the accuracy of the regression estimations is less precise. The fourth limitation is the duration of the survey. Most respondents completed the survey in approximately 20 minutes. This is quite long and may have resulted in less concentrated and motivated respondents. In turn this might result in response bias and less reliable answers.
Furthermore, because STARA is making its entrance on the labour market it may be too early to conduct a research regarding this new concept. Apparently, employees are not yet sufficiently aware of technological advances in the workplace. For future research it is recommended to provide examples of STARA. When employees are exposed to more concrete examples, they may form a more accurate picture of STARA implementations. Which can lead to more accurate associations with OBSE, job insecurity and organizational commitment. Finally, for future research it would be interesting to investigate what employees know and how they think about STARA within the workplace. A qualitative interview research may shed light on the perceptions and attitudes regarding STARA. This can contribute to a better understanding how STARA is associated with work-related perceptions.
References
Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management review, 1(1), 61-89.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), 252-276.
Anderson, C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 446.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 803-829.
Birkland, T. A., & Lawrence, R. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1405-1425.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Transaction Publishers.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Theory, research, and practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2017). Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-19.
Brynjolfsson, E., McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming
employment and the economy. Lexington, MA: Digital Frontier Press
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 533-546.
Buddelmeyer, H., & Powdthavee, N. (2016). Can having internal locus of control insure against negative shocks? Psychological evidence from panel data. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 122, 88-109.
Campbell, J. D., & Lavallee, L. F. (1993). Who am I? The role of self-concept confusion in understanding the behavior of people with low self-esteem. Boston, MA: Springer Campbell-Kelly, M. (2009) Origin of computing. Sci. Am. Mag, 301 (3), 62–69.
Gupchup, G. V., & Wolfgang, A. P. (1997). A modified work locus of control scale: Preliminary investigation of reliability and validity in a sample of
pharmacists. Psychological Reports, 81(2), 640-642.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15.
Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J., & Scheck, C.L. (1997). A test of job security’s direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 323 – 349. Deloitte (2014). Mogelijk 2 tot 3 miljoen banen op de tocht. Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/nl/nl/pages/data-analytics/articles/mogelijk-2-3-miljoen-banen-tocht.html
Elst, van der, T., Witte, de, H., Cuyper, de, N. (2013) The job insecurity scale: A
psychometric evaluation across five European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1-17.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280. Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of
personal control in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 164-177. Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy
of Management review, 9(3), 438-448.
Gupchup, G. V., & Wolfgang, A. P. (1997). A modified work locus of control scale: Preliminary investigation of reliability and validity in a sample of
pharmacists. Psychological Reports, 81(2), 640-642.
Harari, Y. N. (2017) Homo deus. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Thomas Rap.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hughes, L. W., & Palmer, D. K. (2007). An investigation of the effects of psychological contract and organization-based self-esteem on organizational commitment in a
sample of permanent and contingent workers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(2), 143-156.
Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2000). Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of Management, 26(2), 215-232.
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 337-357. Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L. L., & Scholl, R. W. (1999). Work motivation: The incorporation
of self-concept-based processes. Human Relations, 52(8), 969-998.
LeRouge, C., Nelson, A., & Blanton, J. E. (2006). The impact of role stress fit and self-esteem on the job attitudes of IT professionals. Information & Management, 43(8), 928-938.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(4), 377-383. Lied, T. R., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Relationships between personality variables and
components of the expectancy-valence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 463.
Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1998). Differentiating antecedents of organizational commitment: A test of March and Simon’s model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 15-28.
Markoff, J. (2011). Armies of expensive lawyers, replaced by cheaper software. The New York Times.
McAllister, D. J., & Bigley, G. A. (2002). Work context and the definition of self: How organizational care influences organization-basei self-esteem. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 894-904.
McDonald, D. J., & Makin, P. J. (2000). The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(2), 84-91.
Mckinsey (2017) Technology, jobs, and the future of work. Retrieved from:
https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-and-growth/technology-jobs-and-the-future-of-work
MGI, 2013. Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. Technical Report. McKinsey Global Institute.
Mitchell, T. R., Smyser, C. M., & Weed, S. E. (1975). Locus of control: Supervision and work satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 623-631.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill NRC (2017). Elke week nieuwe dingen leren. Retrieved from:
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/12/07/elke-week-nieuwe-dingen-leren-a1583958 Parzefall, M. R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying:
A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761-780.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30(5), 591-622.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(3), 60-78.
Pryor, R. G., Amundson, N. E., & Bright, J. E. (2008). Probabilities and possibilities: The strategic counseling implications of the chaos theory of careers. The Career Development Quarterly, 56(4), 309-318.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2006). Effects of psychological contract breach on performance of IT employees: The mediating role of affective
commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 299-306.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.
Rosenblatt, Z., & Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity: The case of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 587 – 605.
Rotter, J. B. (1960). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Measurement, 80, 1-27
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139.
Shore, L. M., & Martin, H. J. (1989). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relation to work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 42(7), 625-638.
Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology, 51, 23– 42. Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 61(4), 335-340. The Economist (2016) Automation and anxiety. Retrieved from:
https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-smarter-machines-cause-mass-unemployment-automation-and-anxiety
VPRO (2017) Robo Sapiens. Retrieved from: https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/robo-sapiens.html
Wu, L. Z., Birtch, T. A., Chiang, F. F., & Zhang, H. (2016). Perceptions of negative
workplace gossip: A self-consistency theory framework. Journal of Management, 1-26.
Appendix I. Survey questions Dear respondent,
With this letter, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam.
The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is ‘Technological Advances in the Workplace’. This survey is for respondents who work fulltime. Fulltime is at least 20 hours per week. The goal of this research is to generate insight into feelings and attitudes among employees, regarding technological advances in the workplace. The survey will take about 15 minutes.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this.
2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
3) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the
procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following
address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate.
Kind regards,
Floor van Ligten
floor.vanligten@student.uva.nl
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Xxxx. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR
secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
o
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study (1)o
Yes (1)o
No (2)o
I work in an organization with at least 30 employees
o
Yes (1)o
No (2) DemographicsPlease answer these questions about your background.
What is your gender?
o
Female (1)o
Male (2)What is your age?
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
o
Primary education (1)o
VMBO (secondary education) (2)o
HAVO/VWO (secondary education) (3)o
Intermediate vocational education (MBO) (4)o
Applied Science (HBO) (5)o
Bachelor University (WO) (6)o
Master University (7)o
Advanced Graduate work or PhD (8) In what industry do you currently work?o
Construction (1)o
Communication/Marketing (2)o
Culture (3)o
Mining (4)o
Financial institution (5)o
Health care (6)o
Trade and commercial services (7)o
Food service industry (8)o
Industry (9)o
Agriculture, forestry and fishing (10)o
Energy (11)o
Public utilities (13)o
Public administration (14)o
Transport (15)o
Business services (16)o
Other: (17) ________________________________________________ How many employees does your organization have?o
1 to 29 employees (1)o
30 to 100 employees (2)o
101 to 250 employees (3)o
251 to 500 employees (4)o
501 to 1000 employees (5)o
1001 to 2500 employees (6)o
2501 to 5000 employees (7)o
5001 or more employees (8) Do you have a management position?o
No (1)o
Yes (2)How many hours do you actually work per week in your current job? How many years have you been working for your current employer? How many years of working experience do you have?
The following statements are about your commitment to your current job. Please indicate your (dis)agreement with the following statements
Strongly disagree (1) Somewhat disagree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (5) I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with my organization (1)
o
o
o
o
o
I really feel as if the problems of this organization are my own (2)o
o
o
o
o
I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization (3)o
o
o
o
o
I do not feel thatI am emotionally attached to my organization (4)
o
o
o
o
o
I do not feel like a part of the family at my organization (5)
o
o
o
o
o
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me (6)o
o
o
o
o
Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire (7)o
o
o
o
o
It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, evenif I wanted to (8)
o
o
o
o
o
Too much of my life would be disturbed if I decide that I want to leave my organization (9)o
o
o
o
o
I feel that I have too few options
to consider leaving this organization (10)
o
o
o
o
o
If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider working elsewhere (11)o
o
o
o
o
One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be scarcity (shortage) of available alternatives (12)
o
o
o
o
o
I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (13)
o
o
o
o
o
Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now (14)o
o
o
o
o
I would feel guilty if I left my organization now (15)o
o
o
o
o
I feel that this organization deserves my loyalty (16)
o
o
o
o
o
I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it (17)o
o
o
o
o
I owe a great deal to my organization
(18)
o
o
o
o
o
The following statements are about technological advances in the workplace. Please indicate your (dis)agreement with the following statements
Strongly disagree (1) Somewhat disagree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (5) My job could be replaced by smart technologies, automation, robotics, and/or artificial intelligence (1)
o
o
o
o
o
What I do now in my job might be replace by smart technologies, automation, robotics, and/or artificial intelligence (2)o
o
o
o
o
My organization might replace employees due to smart technologies, automation, robotics, and/or artificial intelligence in the future (3)o
o
o
o
o
My industry might replace employees due to smart technologies, automation, robotics, and/or artificial intelligence in the future. (4)o
o
o
o
o
The following statements are about your self-esteem regarding your current job. Please indicate your (dis)agreement with the following statements
