OB Assignment

coL61557_ch03_058-088.indd 81 10/17/19 02:38 PM

81C H A P T E R 3  Organizational Commitment

Case: Lyft

The move toward driverless cars represents another battlefield for Lyft and Uber. For its part, Lyft has forged relationships with General Motors, MIT, and Maymo—a division of Google’s parent company, Alphabet. Lyft’s plan is to create a suite of hardware and software that allows any car manufacturer to turn their vehicles into driverless cars that work with Lyft’s network of passengers. One of Lyft’s particular priorities is making the experience of being “robo-driven” less anxiety-provoking. Its plan is to show passengers what the vehicle’s sensors are picking up, and to equip vehicles with a voice that explains what is happening and why. So the car won’t be driven by a human, but it will (kind of) act human.

The move does raise questions, however, about the impact of the shift on Lyft’s driv- ers. Assuming it occurs across a decade, how will drivers’ commitment levels be affected? Some data on that question can be taken from a study published in the Journal of Management and Organization. The authors measured employee reactions to what they called STARA—smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms. Employees in 200 organizations in New Zealand were surveyed on a number of variables. One of those was STARA awareness, which was measured on a five-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree) with the following four items:

1. I think my job could be replaced by STARA.

2. I am personally worried that what I do now in my job will be replaced by STARA.

3. I am personally worried about my future in my organization due to STARA replacing employees.

4. I am personally worried about my future in my industry due to STARA replacing employees.

When summing across those four items, the employees in the sample had an average STARA awareness of 7—indicating that they mostly disagreed that they were being replaced. However, STARA awareness was negatively correlated with affective commitment to a moderate degree. The more employees worried that they were in danger of being replaced, the less emotional attachment they felt to the company. When asked about such issues, Lyft’s management notes that the ride-sharing industry will continue to grow dramatically, even as driverless technology progresses. So the number of drivers in its fleet will probably grow in the next five years—not shrink.

3.1 Consider the way that Lyft managers its drivers, compared to Uber. Should the things that Lyft does engender affective commitment, continuance commitment, or normative commitment?

3.2 Lyft’s drivers are technically independent contractors, rather than employees. Are there reasons to expect them to feel less commitment to the company because of that designation? Why?

3.3 Think about the job you seek to hold after graduation from your program. How would you answer the four STARA questions? If your organization began replacing employees with such technology, would that practice alter your commitment levels?

Sources: M. Lev-Ram, “Scandals and Missteps at Uber Have Given Lyft a Chance to Catch Up in the Ride-Ride- Spring Race. Could a Bold Bet on Driverless Cars Help the Pink-Mustache Startup Take the Lead?” Fortune, July 19, 2017; D. Broughham and J. Haar, “Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA): Employees’ Perceptions of Our Future Workplace.” Journal of Management and Organization 24, (2018), pp. 239–57.

Final PDF to printer

coL61557_ch03_058-088.indd 82 10/17/19 02:38 PM

82 C H A P T E R 3  Organizational Commitment

Exercise: Reacting to Negative Events

The purpose of this exercise is to explore how individuals react to three all-too-common scenarios that represent negative workplace events. This exercise uses groups, so your instructor will either assign you to a group or ask you to create your own group. The exercise has the following steps:

3.1 Individually read the following three scenarios: the annoying boss, the boring job, and pay and seniority. For each scenario, write down two specific behaviors in which you would likely engage in response to that scenario. Write down what you would actually do, as opposed to what you wish you would do. For example, you may wish that you would march into your boss’s office and demand a change, but if you would actually do nothing, write down “nothing.”

3.2 In groups, compare and contrast your likely responses to the three scenarios. Come to a consensus on the two most likely responses for the group as a whole. Elect one group mem- ber to write the two likely responses to each of the three scenarios on the board or on a transparency.

3.3 Class discussion (whether in groups or as a class) should center on where the likely responses fit into the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect framework. What personal and situational factors would lead someone to one category of responses over another? Are there any responses that do not fit into the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect framework?

Annoying Boss You’ve been working at your current company for about a year. Over time, your boss has become more and more annoying to you. It’s not that your boss is a bad person, or even necessarily a bad boss. It’s more a per- sonality conflict—the way your boss talks, the way your boss manages every little thing, even the facial expres- sions your boss uses. The more time passes, the more you just can’t stand to be around your boss.

Two likely behaviors:

Boring Job You’ve been working at your current company for about a year. You’ve come to realize that your job is pretty boring. It’s the first real job you’ve ever had, and at first it was nice to have some money and something to do every day. But the “new job” excitement has worn off, and things are actually quite monotonous. Same thing every day. It’s to the point that you check your watch every hour, and Wednesdays feel like they should be Fridays.

Two likely behaviors:

Pay and Seniority You’ve been working at your current company for about a year. The consensus is that you’re doing a great job—you’ve gotten excellent performance evaluations and have emerged as a leader on many projects. As you’ve achieved this high status, how- ever, you’ve come to feel that you’re underpaid. Your company’s pay procedures emphasize seniority much more than job performance. As a result, you look at other members of your project teams and see poor performers making much more than you, just because they’ve been with the company longer.

Two likely behaviors:

Final PDF to printer