Much has been said (and will continue to be) about the impact of automation on the job market. In the short term, many employers have complained about the inability to fill vacancies and retain employees, which has further accelerated the adoption of robots. The long-term impact of these seismic changes on the future job market remains to be seen.
However, one aspect of the conversation that is often overlooked is how human workers perceive their robot colleagues. We have a lot to say about systems that enhance or eliminate more of the heavy lifting in blue-collar jobs. But can this technique also have a negative impact on worker morale? Both can of course happen at the same time.
The Brookings Institute released this week results gathered from several surveys conducted over the past fifteen years to assess the impact of robotics on the "meaning" of work. Here's how the think tank defines this accepted abstraction:
"When exploring what makes work meaningful, we rely on self-determination theory. According to this theory, meeting the three innate psychological needs – competence, autonomy, and relevance – is key to motivating employees and enabling them to experience purpose through work. "
The data comes from a survey of workers in 20 European countries across 14 industries and is cross-contrasted with robot deployment data published by the International Federation of Robotics. The industries surveyed include automotive, chemicals, food and beverage, and metals production, among others. The institute reports that this has a negative impact on workers' perceived levels of meaning and autonomy.
"If the adoption of robots in the food and beverage industry increases to a level comparable to that of the automotive industry, we estimate that the meaning of work will decrease by 6.8 percent and autonomy by 7.5 percent, which is a staggering number," Brookings noted. "
In terms of autonomy, there have been concerns about whether the adoption of robotics in industrial settings will make the role played by humans more robotic as well. Of course, there are also those who often argue that these systems effectively eliminate many of the most repetitive aspects of these roles.
The institute also notes that these impacts are cross-role and demographic. "We found that the negative effects of robotization on the meaning of work were the same, regardless of the worker's level of education, skill level, or work done," the paper states. "
As for how to respond to this shift, the answer is likely not to simply reject automation. As long as bots can have a positive impact on a business's bottom line, their adoption will continue to grow rapidly.
Brookings resident Milena Nikolova offered a deceptively straightforward solution, writing: "Machines can help improve the welfare of workers if companies can put in place mechanisms to ensure that humans and machines work together rather than compete to get things done." "
This is one of the decisive reasons why those automation companies peddle cobot technology instead of replacing workers altogether. The human-robot confrontation will almost certainly be a losing battle.