Much has been written (and will continue to be written) about the impact of automation on the labor market. In the short term, many employers have complained about an inability to fill roles and retain employees, further accelerating the adoption of robotics. The long-term impact these kinds of sweeping changes will have on the labor market going forward remains to be seen.
One aspect of the discussion that is often neglected, however, is how people work touch for their robotic colleagues. There’s a lot to be said for systems that increase or remove the more nerve-wracking aspects of collar work. But could technology be having a negative impact on employee morale? Both things can certainly be true at the same time.
The Brookings Institution issued this week Results emerged from various research conducted over the past decade and a half to assess the impact robotics has on the “meaning” of work. The think tank thus defines the admittedly abstract concept:
To explore what makes work meaningful, we draw on self-determination theory. According to this theory, the satisfaction of three intrinsic psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—is key to motivating employees and enabling them to experience purpose through their work.
The data was collected from employee surveys conducted in 14 industries in 20 countries in Europe, cross-referenced with robot development data published by the International Federation of Robotics. Industries surveyed included automotive, chemicals, food and beverage, and metal manufacturing, among others.
The institute reports a negative impact on the levels of meaning and autonomy perceived by employees.
“If the adoption of robots in the food and beverage industry increases to match that of the automotive industry,” Brookings notes, “we estimate a staggering 6.8 percent decline in job meaningfulness and a 7.5 percent decline in autonomy.” The autonomy aspect speaks to an ongoing concern about whether the application of robotics in industrial settings will make roles performed by their human counterparts more robotic as well. Of course, it has often been countered that these systems effectively remove many of the more repetitive aspects of these roles.
The institute goes on to suggest that these kinds of effects are felt across roles and demographics. “We find that the negative consequences of robotization for job importance are the same regardless of workers’ education level, skill level, or the tasks they perform,” the paper notes.
As for how to deal with this change, the answer likely won’t be simply saying no to automation. As long as robots have a positive impact on a company’s bottom line, adoption will continue at an exponentially increasing rate.
Brookings resident Milena Nikolova offers a seemingly simple solution, writing: “If companies have mechanisms in place to ensure that humans and machines cooperate, rather than compete, for tasks, machines can help improve the well-being of employees”.
This is one of the driving forces behind these automation companies touting collaborative robotics, rather than full replacement of workers. Pitting humans against their robotic counterparts will almost certainly be a losing battle.
