Extending the Conceptualization of Performability with Cultural Sustainability: The Case of Social Robotics

Digital transformation, for better or worse: a critical multi‐level research agenda

“…The first one focuses on employees or top management teams (TMTs) and point out that the determinants of success or failure in DT lie in an organization’s ability to configure the right mix of talent (Karimi and Walter, 2015; Davenport and Redman, 2020) or in the skills, abilities, and orientations of employees and managers (e.g., Ritala et al, 2021). The second one offers a complementary view with an in‐depth discussion of the co‐existence and interdependence of humans and digital technologies (such as robots and artificial intelligence [AI]), along with considerations of their emotional, social, and moral implications (Pagani and Pardo, 2017; Amabile, 2019; Wang and Siau, 2019; Baptista et al, 2020; Solberg et al, 2020; Ulhøi and Nørskov, 2020).…”

“…This is known as the “non‐replacement maxim” (Seibt et al, 2018, p. 37), which argues that the process of research, development, and design of robotics should include value‐sensitive social interactions (Friedman, 1996). These novel interactions will alter work processes, practices, occupations, and challenge the psycho‐social contingencies in the workplace (Faraj et al, 2018; Beane, 2019; Ulhøi and Nørskov, 2020). For instance, new research is emerging on how AI‐related algorithms are used in decision‐making (Lindebaum et al, 2020), how it augments individual and team creativity (Amabile, 2019), or how DTs affect employees’ well‐being and performance in the digital workplace environment (Marsh et al, 2021).…”

“…The impact of designing and using digital technologies to stimulate certain desired human behaviors – with expectations of enhanced human creativity, engagement, problem‐solving, and other performance goals – puts humans at risk of being treated merely as instruments that can be “tweaked” and “tuned” according to the needs of organizations (Kellogg et al, 2020; Nørskov, 2021). A substantial managerial (and research) task thus awaits not only in determining how to design facilitative digital technologies but also in how to use them in culturally sustainable ways by ensuring that those technologies transform or disrupt work practices, values, and norms “in a way that leads to moral, social, and emotional upskilling or reskilling rather than deskilling” of employees (Ulhøi and Nørskov, 2020, p. 96). How such a responsible approach can be designed, what criteria it should be built upon, and how it should enable socially and ethically robust organizational decision‐making are all issues that require much more investigation.…”

Reimagining the sustainable social development of AI for the service sector: the role of startups

“…Sharpley (2020) states that sustainable development is associated with the notion of humans’ well-being, which implies having the capabilities to fulfill their potential as individuals and members of society. Thus, in this paper, sustainable social development (SSD) in the service sector is envisioned as an ongoing process that secures decent work and well-being in the labor force by ensuring that any novel technology that might change their current situation does so in a way that enhances their moral, social and emotional conditions, instead of diminishing them (Ulhøi and Nørskov, 2021). In this regard, it is important to highlight the relevance of decent work in the service sector, which is often diminished by labor intensity (Winchenbach et al , 2019) and inadequate employment practices such as low wages or mentally and physically demanding tasks (Tuomi et al , 2020b), e.g.…”