Response to #1
In “Applying artificial intelligence: implications for recruitment,” Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay and Komal Khandelwal provide an overview of the ways artificial intelligence (AI) is being used in the hiring process and discuss the advantages for firms as well as job candidates. The authors are associate professors in strategic management at universities in India and have recently co-authored a book, AI Revolution in HRM: The New Scorecard, which provides an in-depth look at this rapidly evolving field. In their article, they highlight the many advantages of AI for HR, including helping recruiters process enormous volumes of data, screening social media to make sure a candidate’s values align with the organization, and matching personality types to certain positions. AI saves time on routine processes and allows HR staff to focus on high value work. The authors are clear that AI is good at identifying talent but many activities such as rapport-building and salary negotiation still need to be done by humans. The authors also highlight benefits for candidates, such as quicker rejections so job hunters can move on and functions that can direct candidates to other positions that might be a better fit. The authors also point out that AI can be intelligently programmed to avoid unconscious bias, and that AI technology, like other technologies, will get better over time.
This article will be useful to my project because it concisely describes the allure of AI for HR in practical terms. I am building a case to support the idea of slowing down AI implementation in HR and imposing legal restrictions because diversity and inclusion efforts will be harmed, so I need a source or two that advocate for the implementation of AI and that discuss the benefits. Human resource departments are overwhelmed with data to review, candidates to screen, and endless routine interactions and tasks. In some ways, firms are racing against each other to find the right employees, so the firms with the better technology and faster processes may win. This does not mean that AI is or will be perfect in the near term, especially when it comes to issues like diversity and inclusion. However, the authors make a solid argument for implementing these systems and express optimism about the future. In this way, they provide a good counterpoint to my argument.
Upadhyay, A. K., & Khandelwal, K. (2018). Applying artificial intelligence: implications for recruitment. Strategic HR Review, Vol. 17, No. 5: 255-258. DOI:10.1108/SHR-07-2018-0051. https://www-proquest-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/docview/2133758924?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14214.
Response to #3
The readers who responded to Katharine Schwab’s article on open offices understandably have a right to feel offended when a coworker harasses them, even in a subtle way. Many of the situations the women described sounded not only uncomfortable but creepy, and I can see why many of them wanted to leave their jobs. But when looking for the real causes of the problem, I think it’s important to separate the environment (which doesn’t have a mind of its own and doesn’t act) from the people in the environment (who do). In other words, I don’t think the environment creates the organizational culture, the people do and if you want to change the culture you have to work on the people.
It saddened me to read that many of the women made changes to their appearance and behavior. In a world that is increasingly aware of sexism and sexual harassment because of movements like “Me Too,” I think an open office might be the perfect environment to bring a subject like sexism in the workplace out in the open. With everything literally out in the open, what is holding companies back from educating all employees about the negative impact of sexism? Policies can be set and explained to curb behavior that makes people uncomfortable and to encourage more people to report sexist behavior when they see it happening. Extending this idea further, I would say that women do not have to fight this battle alone. There are many men who are willing to fight it with them, and men who aren’t doing enough can be encouraged to do more. “How Men Can Confront Other Men About Sexist Behavior” by W. Brad Johnson and David G. Smith shows them how they can get started.
Hi Dylan,
Though I do understand your viewpoint on how we must separate the physical environment from those employees working within the environment, I do not fully agree with it. I understand that people themselves are the problem, but the physical layout of the office space will either encourage, or discourage the issue at hand. That issue is whether or not women feel comfortable. When you have an office with a door and blinds to separate yourself from the rest of your coworkers, you have a sense of privacy. You can feel free of judgement because no one can see you. However, surround yourself in an open office space where people are sitting around you 360 degrees, well, that is a different story. Some of those people are bound to be obnoxious, and harass you. Those people wouldn’t be able to harass you from the comfort of their desk if it was a different layout. I don’t know if this makes sense, but it’s just my opinion.
I don’t like sitting around other people because I have really bad social anxiety. I think if someone made me sit down at a desk, surrounded by people and work on schoolwork then I would be failing college right now. Having my own space and feeling comfortable doing work without people around me makes me much more successful, compared to the previous scenario.
If companies are educating their employees on sexism and sexual harassment and attempting to curb the rate at which it occurs, then they can go one step further. Create an office space where women feel safe. This can happen by including women in the room when creating the blueprints/layout of the office space and embracing/valuing their opinions. There are so many awesome men out there who advocate and push for change, so I’m glad you also brought this up.
You raise an interesting point, Julia, that built environments can enable or discourage certain kinds of behaviors. That doesn’t mean the built environment on its own *does* anything, nor does it mean that those behaviors are impossible to achieve even if the environment makes it more difficult. Rather, the design of spaces can facilitate or discourage things. Here it’s probably helpful to remember that built environments don’t just spring into being–they’re human-created, and so those human designers are making decisions about what they want to happen in those spaces and how.
Dylan–both of your responses point in a similar direction, looking at the interactions between humans and technologies (both AI and architecture). On their own technologies aren’t inherently good or evil, to be sure, but we would do well to always think about the human choices that factor in. That seems to be the point you’re stressing in your annotation (well done there, by the way), and perhaps the same applies in your second response regarding the reading. On their own, open office plans don’t endeavor to do anything. They’re inert. But the humans who occupy those spaces can use them in particular ways, for good or ill intent.