Technology has given the market an opportunity to look at itself from a new perspective, which resulted in the need to manifest a new approach. Langley et al. (2021, p. 853) states that “over the past five years, common day-to-day objects have evolved to embed new capabilities through technologies”. Still, there are many consequences to the digital revolution in business, and not all of them are positive.
One of the most obvious issues the digitalization brings out is the possibility of technologies replacing humans. Lee et al. (2019, p. 52) supplies that “advances in AI technology and data analytics will continue to create opportunities and challenge delivery systems”. This calls for measures that would reassure companies’ employees that they would not lose their jobs soon. Seeing as transactional leader clarifies the roles of subordinates and tries to satisfy their social needs, it is only logical to use this kind of leadership in the current situation. Hussain et al. (2017, p. 4) claim that “the monetary rewards and recognitions from transactional leadership encourage knowledge sharing in organization”. Amazon is, essentially, a heavily digitalized business, therefore, Bezos’ decision to employ transactional approach is justified by his need to maintain his human resources in order to successfully use them.
Technology allows businesses to automate numerous processes, which increases workers’ productivity. Wilburn and Wilburn (2018, p. 23) add that “costs can be cut as automation and robots replace humans who need wages and benefits”. There will be a high demand for employees with enhanced soft skills – and the companies’ leaders will have to act as examples to ensure the proper communication inside their organizations. Delegach et al. (2017, p. 737) claims that “a transformational leadership style can enhance followers’ promotion motivation and in turn can contribute to employees’ affective commitment in general”. Moreover, leaders would strongly require a developed emotional intelligence to manage arising conflicts or difficult situations, which, if not resolved, would undoubtedly affect their employees.
Amazon’s leadership approach to creating and fostering disruptive technological change might seem justified, as the company relies heavily on digital means in its business course. The company’s need for new technologies becomes slightly aggressive from time to time. On that course, employees might be mostly viewed as maintenance service for new technologies. Contrary to them, Linux maintains a much more open and creative course towards technologies – the company willingly grants access to codes, data and tools for everyone to use. Luftman et al. (2017, p. 31) claims that “given the dynamic business and technical environments that continuously confront organizations, knowledge sharing is paramount”. This leadership approach allows the company’s employees to stay creative, and provides support for community work.
The speed at which technology is evolving and adapting is exponential to the point that the tide is sweeping across all levels of market, whether they are ready for it or not. Al-Surmi et al. (2020, p. 48) suggest that “misalignment between business, IT and marketing strategies will exhibit lower levels of organizational performance”. There are several challenges these rapid changes brings for workers around the world. For example, as the workplaces are becoming more and more digitalized, some people might experience difficulties with fitting into the new working culture. Pagani and Pardo (2017, p. 191) suggest that “managers in charge of the digital transformation of their company are in a position to make employees much more familiar with and supportive of this transformation”. Another issue is the time management – employees need time to master new technologies, while simultaneously having a job to do. It is up to the leader to ensure their time is distributed efficiently and seek out opportunities to educate their employees.
Nowadays, the world is teetering at the edge of a qualitatively new stage, based on the new technological paradigm. Betz et al. (2019, p. 146) found that “the combination of medical, biomedical, and biotech advances with developments in artificial intelligence will have the greatest impact on business and society in the next 35 years”. The implementation of these technological means remains the question that causes the most discussion up to this day.
Reference List
Al-Surmi, A., Cao, G. & Duan, Y., 2020. The impact of aligning business, IT, and marketing strategies on firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, pp.39–49. Web.
Betz, U.A.K. et al., 2019. Surveying the future of science, technology and business – A 35 year perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, pp.137–147. Web.
Delegach, M. et al., 2017. A focus on commitment: the roles of transformational and transactional leadership and self-regulatory focus in fostering organizational and safety commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), pp.724–740. Web.
Hussain, S.T. et al., 2017. Transactional leadership and organizational creativity: Examining the mediating role of knowledge sharing behavior. Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), p.1361663. Web.
Langley, D.J. et al., 2021. The Internet of Everything: Smart things and their impact on business models. Journal of Business Research, 122, pp.853–863. Web.
Lee, J. et al., 2019. Emerging Technology and Business Model Innovation: The Case of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), p.44. Web.
Luftman, J., Lyytinen, K. & Zvi, T.ben, 2017. Enhancing the measurement of information technology (IT) business alignment and its influence on company performance. Journal of Information Technology, 32(1), pp.26–46. Web.
Pagani, M. & Pardo, C., 2017. The impact of digital technology on relationships in a business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, pp.185–192. Web.
Wilburn, K.M. & Wilburn, H.R., 2018. The Impact of Technology on Business and Society. Global Journal of Business Research, 12(1), pp.23–39.