Between Automation and Anxiety: A Phenomenological Comparative Study of Human-AI Interaction in the Manufacturing and Banking Sectors of South Sulawesi, Indonesia
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence Adaptation, Phenomenological Study, Technology Acceptance Model, Organizational Adaptation, Human-AI InteractionAbstract
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into workplace systems has transformed how employees perform, interact, and adapt within organizations, making human-AI adaptation an increasingly important issue in organizational studies. Although prior research has widely examined technology acceptance, most studies rely on quantitative approaches and provide limited insight into the lived experiences, emotional responses, and adaptation processes of employees, particularly in emerging-market regions outside major metropolitan areas. This study addresses this gap by exploring how employees in the manufacturing and banking sectors of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, experience and adapt to AI-enabled work environments. Using a qualitative phenomenological approach, this study integrates the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Organizational Adaptation Theory to examine employees’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses toward AI adoption. Data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews with 22 purposively selected informants from the manufacturing and banking industries. The data were analysed using thematic coding to identify recurring patterns of adaptation experiences. The findings reveal five major themes: differential perceptions of AI usefulness and usability, sector-specific human-AI interaction patterns, psychoemotional responses, organizational support, and professional identity reconfiguration. Manufacturing employees experienced AI as a physical and operational disruptor that intensified job-displacement anxiety, while banking employees viewed AI as an analytical enhancement tool that generated competitive professional pressure. Across both sectors, organizational support—including leadership communication, practical training, and psychological safety—emerged as the most significant factor influencing successful adaptation. This study concludes that AI adaptation extends beyond cognitive technology acceptance and involves emotional, social, and identity-related processes shaped by organizational context. The findings highlight the limitations of TAM when used independently and emphasize the importance of integrating organizational adaptation perspectives to better understand human-AI interaction in contemporary workplaces
References
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and employment: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188–2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716
Arianto, B., & Nurhayati, E. (2022). Determinants of artificial intelligence adoption in Indonesian banking: A TAM perspective. Journal of Financial Innovation, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00312-7
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122
BCG. (2025). Harnessing the power of generative AI in Indonesian financial services. Boston Consulting Group.
Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Addison-Wesley.
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments, and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 1–21.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Davenport, T. H., & Kirby, J. (2016). Only humans need apply: Winners and losers in the age of smart machines. Harper Business.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Hanegan, N., & Sargent, R. (2023). Phenomenological approaches to studying human–AI interaction: Theoretical and methodological considerations. AI & Society, 38(2), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01487-6
Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the internet. Routledge.
Eisenberger, R., Rockstuhl, T., Shoss, M. K., Wen, X., & Dulebohn, J. (2020). Is the employee–organization relationship dying or thriving? A temporal meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000421
Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (2021). Managing employee withdrawal during organizational change. Journal of Management, 38(3), 890–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309359945
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281
Hechanova, R. M., & Cementina-Olpoc, R. (2013). Transformational leadership, change management, and commitment to organizational change. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0019-z
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927)
Kemenperin. (2023). Making Indonesia 4.0: Progress report and industrial AI adoption strategy 2023. Kementerian Perindustrian Republik Indonesia.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2023). The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier. McKinsey & Company.
Mordor Intelligence. (2024). Indonesia's digital transformation market forecast to 2031. Mordor Intelligence Research & Advisory.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
OECD. (2023). The impact of AI on the workplace: Evidence from OECD case studies of AI implementation. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/2247ce58-en
OJK. (2024). AI governance framework for Indonesian banking institutions. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.
Peng, G., & Liu, H. (2022). Artificial intelligence in smart manufacturing: A systematic review. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 144(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4052571
Pillai, R., & Sivathanu, B. (2020). Adoption of AI-based chatbots for hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(10), 3199–3226. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0259
Putri, A. D., & Hermawan, R. (2023). Factors influencing AI adoption in Indonesian manufacturing: A TAM extension. Asian Journal of Industrial Engineering, 14(2), 45–62.
Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A. K. (2020). Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 145, 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732
Setiawan, A., Wulandari, D., & Nugraha, F. (2023). Artificial intelligence adoption in Indonesian banking: Employee perspectives and organizational outcomes. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 41(3), 678–699. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-06-2022-0274
Sung, T. K. (2021). Industry 4.0: A Korean perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.005
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2021). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428
Wijaya, S., & Santoso, B. (2022). Digital transformation and AI adoption in Indonesian banking: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 27(4), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-021-00126-3
World Bank. (2023). World development report 2023: Migrants, refugees, and societies. The World Bank.
World Bank. (2024). Indonesia's economic prospects: Fiscal and monetary policy coordination. World Bank Group.
World Bank. (2026). World Development Report 2026: Decoding AI for development the World Bank.
