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 the inability to fill positions and retain workers, further accelerating the adoption of robotics. The long-term impact these types of radical changes will have on the labor market in the future remains to be seen.
However, one aspect of the conversation that is often overlooked is how human workers feel about their robotic colleagues. There is a lot to be said for systems that augment or eliminate the most grueling aspects of manual work. But could technology also have a negative impact on worker morale? Without a doubt, both things can be true at the same time.
The Brookings Institute published this week results drawn from several surveys conducted over the past decade and a half to assess the impact robotics has on the “meaningfulness” of work. the group of experts thus defines the certainly abstract notion:
“In exploring what makes work meaningful, we draw on self-determination theory. According to this theory, satisfying three innate psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) is key to motivating workers and allowing them to experience purpose through their work.”
The data was obtained from worker surveys conducted in 14 industries in 20 countries in Europe, and cross-referenced with robot deployment data published by the International Federation of Robotics. Industries surveyed included automotive, chemicals, food and beverage, and metal production, among others.
The institute reports a negative impact on workers' perceived levels of significance and autonomy.
“If robot adoption in the food and beverage industry increased to match that of the automotive industry,” Brookings notes, “we estimate a staggering 6.8% decline in job importance and a 7.5% decline in the autonomy”. The autonomy aspect speaks to an ongoing concern about whether the implementation of robotics in industrial settings will make the functions performed by their human counterparts more robotic as well. Of course, it has often been argued that these systems effectively eliminate many of the more repetitive aspects of these roles.
The Institute goes on to suggest that these types of impacts are felt across all roles and demographic groups. “We find that the negative consequences of robotization for the meaningfulness of work are the same, regardless of the level of education, the level of skills, or the tasks that workers perform,” the article notes.
As for how to approach this change, the answer probably won't be to simply say no to automation. As long as robots have a positive impact on a corporation's bottom line, their adoption will continue at an increasing pace.
Brookings resident Milena Nikolova offers a deceptively simple solution: “If companies have mechanisms to ensure that humans and machines cooperate, rather than compete, for tasks, machines can help improve workers' well-being.” “.
This is one of the defining drives behind those automation companies promoting collaborative robotics, rather than direct worker replacement. Pitting humans against their robotic counterparts will almost certainly be a losing battle.
