Much has been (and will continue to be) written about the impact of automation on the job market. In the short term, many employers have complained about their inability to fill positions and retain workers, further accelerating the adoption of robotics. It remains to be seen what long-term impact these radical changes will have on the labor market.
However, one aspect of the conversation that is often overlooked is how human workers feel about their robotic colleagues. There is much to be said about systems that augment or eliminate the more back-breaking aspects of blue-collar work. But could technology also have a negative impact on worker morale? Both things can certainly be true at once.
The Brookings Institute this week published the results of several surveys conducted over the past fifteen years to assess the impact of robotics on the “meaning” of work. The think tank defines the admittedly abstract notion as follows:
“To explore what gives meaning to work, we rely on self-determination theory. According to this theory, satisfying three innate psychological needs – competence, autonomy and relatedness – is essential for motivating workers and allowing them to find purpose in their work.
The data was extracted from worker surveys conducted in 14 industries in 20 countries in Europe, cross-referenced with data on robot deployment 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 meaning and autonomy.
“If robot adoption in the food industry were to increase to match that of the automobile industry,” notes Brookings, “we estimate a staggering 6.8 percent decrease in the meaningfulness of work and a decrease of 7. 5% of autonomy. » The autonomy aspect speaks to an ongoing concern about whether the implementation of robotics in industrial environments will also make the roles played by their human counterparts more robotic. Of course, it has often been argued that these systems effectively remove many of the more repetitive aspects of these roles.
The Institute goes on to suggest that these types of impacts are felt across roles and demographics. “We find that the negative consequences of robotization on the meaning of work are the same, regardless of education level, skill level, or the tasks they perform,” the paper notes.
As for how to approach 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, their adoption will continue at a rapidly increasing rate.
Brookings resident Milena Nikolova offers a seemingly simple solution: “If companies have mechanisms in place to ensure that humans and machines cooperate rather than compete for tasks, machines can help improve worker well-being. »
This is a key motivation for automation companies touting collaborative robotics rather than outright worker replacement. Pitting humans against their robotic counterparts will almost certainly be a losing battle.
techcrunch
