Human–technology dichotomy in shaping management history

Abstract

Purpose The paper aims to enrich current debate about human–technology dichotomy in socio-economic settings by decoding and systematizing the main phases through which it has been approached in managerial and social studies. Design/methodology/approach A multi-interpretative framework is built thanks to the adoption of a qualitative approach inspired by the inductive logic, and for analyzing the historical evolution of the approach to human–technology dichotomy and for explaining them through an innovative conceptual model. Findings An innovative conceptual model is proposed for depicting connections and evolutions among the main four phases in the evolution of the approaches to human–technology dichotomy. Research limitations/implications Reflections and conceptual model herein can support researchers in rereading the multiple theoretical and practical contributions provided with reference to human and technology relations in socio-economic settings. Practical implications The paper can support managers and entrepreneurs in defining and evaluating managerial approaches for efficiently enhancing human–technology interaction. Originality/value The paper proposes an innovative conceptual model based on a multi-interpretative framework for decoding the historical evolution of the approaches to human–technology dichotomy in business settings. New variables are added to the current debate about the topic for building an original interpretive viewpoint.

Editorial: The evolution of human-machine interaction, from Taylorism to human-centered approach

“…The common perspectives of the following works rely on Taylorism management history and the digital transformation which moves from a traditional managerial approach to an innovative and collaborative one in the field of education, health and automotive among others. Caputo et al (2023) conceptually explore "human-technology dichotomy in shaping management history" which provides a multi-interpretative model to explain such dichotomy. This dichotomy consists of four phases:…”

“…Caputo et al (2023) conceptually explore “human–technology dichotomy in shaping management history” which provides a multi-interpretative model to explain such dichotomy. This dichotomy consists of four phases: the structural-based approach; the collaborative and inclusive approach; the technology-oriented approach; and the human–technology contamination approach which is positioned considering human technologization and technology humanization. …”