ACarneadesStructuredDebateonTechnologyintheWorkplace

Running head: A CARNEADES-STRUCTURED DEBATE ON COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IN 1
A Carneades-Structured Debate on Communications Technology in the Workplace
Lynn Allan Holland
Grand Canyon University
MGT
805
Dr. Luckett
July 07, 2015

A CARNEADES-STRUCTURED DEBATE ON COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IN THE 2
A Carneades-Structured Debate on Communications Technology in the Workplace
Frequently, in academic writing on the subject of technological innovation, Moore’s Law
is referenced because of its historical accuracy when predicting the progress of technological
innovation (Farmer & Lafond, 2015). Moore’s Law states that computer processing speed
doubles every two years (Farmer & Lafond, 2015). Another way of thinking about Moore’s Law
is that the generalized costs of technology tend to drop exponentially over time (Farmer &
Lafond, 2015). Specifically, cheaper and more powerful communications technology empowers
managers with the ability to establish virtual work teams (Sadri & Condia, 2012). Sadri and
Condia define virtual work teams as follows: a group of geographically disperse people with
“complementary skills who are committed to a common mission, set of common goals, and task
approach for which they hold each other mutually accountable”(2012, p. 21). In 2010, a survey
of employees at 600 companies found that 80% of respondents worked in one or more virtual
teams (Sadri & Condia, 2012). Despite growing popularity, the increased use of emerging
communications technology in the workplace has its detractors. Opponents point out that new
communications technologies are disruptive and can be counterproductive (Dalpiaz, Giorgini, &
Mylopoulous, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to present a Carneades-structured debate on
communications technology in the workplace. A Carneades-structured debate presents two
diametrically opposing views on a subject with corresponding refutations (Watson, 2013). The
goal of the debate, and this paper, is to submit a coalescing theory on communications
technologies in the workplace, an approach that balances the two arguments with one
agreeable solution.

First Perspective: The Argument Against Communications Technology in the
Workplace
Emerging communications technologies in the workplace are disruptive and
counterproductive for three reasons. First, virtual work teams fail to satisfy the social needs of
its constituent parts (Mayo, 1933). The so-called Generation Y or Millenials, people born after
1980, are quickly becoming a majority of the workforce (Behrens, 2009). Millennials expect
senior managers to interact with them in inclusive, two-way dialogs that nurture their skills and
provide guidance in the workplace (Korzynski, 2013). Second, communications technology puts
more distance between an organization and its customers (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Bergiel, 2014). No
longer can customers reach a real person when they have a suggestion or complaint; instead,
customers are relegated to sending e-mails to generic mailboxes that often go unanswered.
Third, researchers have found that as organizations introduce new technologies to improve
financial performance, one way of doing that is to redesign jobs to make them narrowly
focused on specific tasks (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgenson, 2007). Although the
introduction of communications technology reduces costs and simplifies tasks, emerging
technologies also create job simplification (Lewis, Lagomarsino, & Schweitzer, 2012). Research
shows that job simplification leads to lower worker performance ratings and worker
satisfaction (Humphrey et al., 2007), increased employee turnover (Humphrey et al., 2007), and
higher feelings of employee exhaustion and tedium (Daft, 2013). For these reasons, the
adoption of communications technology in the workplace disrupts the efficient operations of
organizations that employ its use.

Refutation of the First Perspective
In response to the argument against the use of communication technology in the
workplace, Carneades-structured debate requires more than simple rebuttals of the arguments;
contra-commitments are refutted in the pursuit of truth (Watson, 2013). First, communications
technology in the workplace satisfies the social needs of virtual team constituents. Recent
research on employee motivation shows that employee engagement is the most important
factor that influences employee morale (Korzynski, 2013). For Millennials, engagement happens
in the virtual world of the internet (Behrens, 2009). Millennials, for all of their lives, have been
connected to their computers and mobile devices, receiving real-time updates on their friends’
lives and world events (Behrens, 2009). Also, having led highly structured lives, Millennials
“expect not to be told what to do but when to do it” (Behrens, 2009, p. 20). Communications
technologies in the workplace allow real-time, two-way dialogs between members of virtual
teams. Synchronized, shareable calendars empower supervisors and influences how supervisors
assign tasks, prioritize subordinate work, and set deadlines. Communications technology in the
workplace is a necessary part of incorporating the skills and demands of Millennial workers
(Behrens, 2009).
Second, communications technology does not increase the distance between an
organization and its customers; in fact, communication technology reduces the distance and
allows customers to be co-producers of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube provide popular communication venues where customers can express complaints
regarding product quality (Lepak, Smith, & Taylor, 2007), suggest improvements to products
(Loane & Webster, 2014), or share support for specific products (Lepak et al., 2007). Customers

use real-time, web-based communication technology to influence the goods and services that
they need and want (Gao, Yang, Ryabov, & Liu, 2013). At not other time in the history of
commerce have customers been more directly connected to the production of goods and
services (Loane & Webster, 2014).
Third, consider the fallacious argument that job simplification only results in lower
worker performance ratings and worker satisfaction (Humphrey et al., 2007), increased
employee turnover (Humphrey et al., 2007), and higher feelings of employee exhaustion and
tedium (Daft, 2013). Specifically, this argument demonstrates the reductio ad absurdum fallacy,
a logical contradiction where the exact same premises of an argument both support and negate
a commitment (Watson, 2013). As an example, consider the premise that technological
innovation simplifies tasks by removing complexity and redundancy of effort (Humphrey et al.,
2007). Equally as prominent in the research studies, employees find the removal of redundant
tasks invigorating (Maruping & Magni, 2015). Also, the argument obfuscates correlation and
causation. Job simplification might be correlated with deleterious effects, but job elimination
does not cause these effects. Research shows that the effects are caused by employee inertia in
response to change (Wasko, Teigland, Leidner, & Jarvenpaa, 2011), managers failure to
incorporate new communications technologies into their work habits (Maruping & Magni,
2015), and inadequate employee training programs during the initial adoption of new
technologies (Maruping & Magni, 2015). In summary, communications technology in the
workplace (and the resultant impact on job design) does not clearly indicate either a positive or
negative impact on worker productivity and morale. Quite simply stated: It depends.

Second Perspective: The Argument for Communications Technology in the Workplace
Emerging communications technologies in the workplace are both manageable and
efficient based on three strong premises. First, communication technology increases
collaboration among virtual team members (Maruping & Magni, 2015). Intra-company forums
promote communication between workers, teams of workers, and subject-matter experts
throughout an organizational structure (Sadri & Condia, 2012). The physical location of workers
is no longer a boundary condition in the optimal use of human resources (Sadri & Condia,
2012). Because virtual teams can draw from diverse groups of employees, “often they are
powerful means of fueling creativity and originality” (Sadri & Condia, 2012, p. 22). Virtual teams
are strategically selected based on the specific demands of a work project; likewise, managers
choose team members based upon complementary skills, leadership dimensions, and work
ethic (Sadri & Condia, 2012). Communication technology replaces the limited dimensionality of
physical location with the unlimited attributes of the virtual world.
Second, technological innovation in the workplace attracts sophisticated workers
(Behrens, 2009). Millennials grew up playing video games, chatting on Skype, instant messaging
a cadre of friends, Tweeting near constant updates on their lives, and googling questions to find
answers to those questions on Wikipedia. Therefore, Millennial workers expect to find a high
degree of communications technology in the workplace (Behrens, 2009). Organizations that
provide out-of-date communication technologies quickly lose employees and their
transformative contributions (Korzynski, 2013).
Third, admittedly the weakest of the premises in support of communications technology
in the workplace, is the argument that increased financial performance is created because of

the reduction in expenses (Daft, 2013). The chain-of-reasoning is that, generally speaking,
technological innovation either replaces with computers or reduces the time workers spend on
tasks (Daft, 2013). Also, communications technology propagates virtual work teams which
reduce travel and relocation expenses, and the fixed costs of bricks-and-mortar office space
(Sadri & Condia, 2012). In summary, Moore’s law proves that the cost of technology falls
exponentially over time; the result is a reduction in labor costs, as businesses substitute
comparatively expensive labor with relatively inexpensive technology (Farmer & Lafond, 2015).
Refutation of the Second Perspective
Refutation of the second perspective, the argument that communications technology in
the workplace is manageable and efficient, is expressed in three propositions. First, the
authoritative evidence presented in both perspectives is contradictory. Authoritative sources
are unclear as to whether communications technology always provides sufficient social stimulus
for effective team collaboration. At best, research on the subject is contextual and dependent
upon the several factors including management style (Sadri & Condia, 2012) and the relative
proportion of Millennials versus older, more traditional employees in the workplace (Behrens,
2009). Carneades-structured debates require that a new proposition be offered in this situation
(Watson, 2013). The new proposition is as follows: Because of the compound nature of virtual
workplaces, communications technology may or may not increase efficiency depending on
several endogenous organizational factors.
Second, there no authoritative sources that disagree with the premise that Millennials
expect to find communications technology in their workplaces. The refutation, at best, is one
that states, despite the declining number of individuals, traditional workers are resistant to

technological innovations and when in positions of authority disrupt adoption of new
technologies (Sadri & Condia, 2012). As found in the first refutation statement, evidence again
supports a new proposition that is characterized as contextually dependent. The new
proposition is as follows: Communications technology is a strong motivating factor in
Millennials’ decision on where to work; on the other hand, these same technologies may or
may not be used by traditional workers who are resistant to change. Therefore, technological
innovations in the workplace are only situationally appropriate (Dalpiaz et al., 2013).
Third, communications technology likely reduces labor costs as complex and redundant
work is eliminated because of changes in job design. However, if workers do not use the new
technology, then the organization bears all of the costs of the technology and only a portion of
the benefits (Daft, 2013). Again, the only cogent proposition is one that allows room for
contextual variables. The proposition might be summarized as: Generally speaking,
communications technology in workplaces reduces labor expenses but only when workers use
the technology.
Conclusion
The increased use of emerging communications technology in the workplace has its
detractors. Opponents point out that new communications technologies are disruptive and can
be counterproductive (Dalpiaz, Giorgini, & Mylopoulous, 2013). The purpose of this paper was
to present a Carneades-structured debate on communications technology in the workplace.
The debate presented two opposed views on the subject. First, the proposition that
communication technology in the workplace is disruptive and counterproductive; and second,
the proposition that communication technology in the workplace is manageable and efficient.

In summary, only one argument withstood critical inquiry, that argument was that Millennials
expect to find familiar communication technology in the workplace (Behrens, 2009). All of the
other propositions were moot, and the resulting understanding was that communication
technology in the workplace is dependent on contextual variables. The goal of the debate was
to present a coalescing theory on communications technologies in the workplace, an approach
that balances the two arguments with one agreeable solution. Based on this discussion, the
most accurate coalescing theory is one that encourages managers to analyze thoroughly
contextual variables before investing in communications technology.

References
Banerjee, A., & Chaudhury, S. (2010, Jan - Jun). Statistics without tears: Populations and
samples. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 19(1), 60-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-
6748.77642
Behrens, W. (2009, Spring). Managing millennials. Marketing Health Services, 29(1), 18-21.
Retrieved from
http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr
ue&db=bth&AN=36517983&site=eds-live&scope=site
Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, B. J., & Bergiel, E. B. (2014). Are you listening to the people that count?
Competition Forum, 12(2), 29-33. Retrieved from
ue&db=s3h&AN=100093984&site=eds-live&scope=site
Blacksmith, N., & Poeppelman, T. (2013). Application of modern technology and social media in
the workplace. TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51(1), 69-73. Retrieved
from
ue&db=a9h&AN=91533596&site=eds-live&scope=site
Daft, R. L. (2013). Organizational theory and design (11th Ed.). Mason, OH: Southwestern-
Cengage Learning.
Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulous, J. (2013). Adaptive socio-technical systems: A
requirements-based approach. Requirements Engineering, 18(1), 1-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0132-1

Farmer, J. D., & Lafond, F. (2015). How predictable is technological progress? Manuscript in
preparation. Retrieved from
ue&db=edsarx&AN=1502.05274&site=eds-live&scope=site
Gao, Y., Yang, X., Ryabov, Y., & Liu, W. (2013). An empirical research on influencing factors of
microblogging marketing effectiveness. International Journal of U- and E-Service,
Science, & Technology, 6(4), 91-106. Retrieved from
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgenson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social,
and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical
extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-
1356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in virtual teams.
Organizational Science, 10(6), 791-815. Retrieved from
ue&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.2640242&site=eds-live&scope=site
Korzynski, P. (2013). Employee motivation in new working environment. International Journal
of Academic Research, 5(5), 184-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-
5/B.28
Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation and capture: A multilevel
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 180-194.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.23464011

Lewis, S. T., Lagomarsino, G., & Schweitzer, J. (2012). E-health in low- and middle- income
countries: Findings from the center for health market innovations. Bulletin of the World
Health Organization, 90(5), 332-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.11.099820
Loane, S. S., & Webster, C. M. (2014). Consumer-to-consumer value within social networks.
The Marketing Review, 14(4), 447-462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/146934714X14185702841442
Maruping, L. M., & Magni, M. (2015). Motivating employees to explore collaboration
technology in team contexts. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 1-A8. Retrieved from
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY: McMillian.
Sadri, G., & Condia, J. (2012). Managing the virtual world. Journal of Industrial Management,
54(1), 21-25. Retrieved from
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004, January). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68, 1-17. Retrieved from
Wasko, M., Teigland, R., Leidner, D., & Jarvenpaa, S. (2011). Stepping into the internet: New
ventures in virtual worlds. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 645-652. Retrieved from
Watson, D. (2013). Methods of Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

ACarneadesStructuredDebateonTechnologyintheWorkplace

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to ACarneadesStructuredDebateonTechnologyintheWorkplace

Similar to ACarneadesStructuredDebateonTechnologyintheWorkplace (20)

ACarneadesStructuredDebateonTechnologyintheWorkplace