Carnegie Mellon UniversityResearch Showcase @ CMU

Tepper School of Business

1-1983

The Human Side of Robotics: How Worker's Reactto a RobotLinda ArgoteCarnegie Mellon University, argote@cmu.edu

Paul S. GoodmanCarnegie Mellon University

David SchkadeCarnegie Mellon University

Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.cmu.edu/tepper

Part of the Economic Policy Commons, and the Industrial Organization Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Research Showcase @ CMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tepper School of Businessby an authorized administrator of Research Showcase @ CMU. For more information, please contact research-showcase@andrew.cmu.edu.

Published InSloan Management Review.

To appear in the Spring 183 issue of S loan Management Revie'tv

The Human Side of Robotics: How Wor'ker's React to a Robot

Linda Ar'gote Paul. $ .. Goodman David Schkade

Carnegie-Mellon Univer'sity

September 1982 January 198,

?ar'~ial supper:' !'or this s~udy ',.;as provided by ':,he Gr'aduate 3c!1oo1.. ;Jf ::1dt.,;str'ial A.dnin:'str'ation and the Robotics Instit.ute of Car':1egie-·~e:!.:2.on

:]niJe~'si':,y" 'The :la'S r:ecessar :.1:;

-:oncl:.Jsions r'eached in t.he paper' are l"'ef'lec:t :he '1iews of :'he funding

the sllthor'sl and do institutions" ::"1e

::::~:r:cr's '.."ish to th2nk :nem~er's of the o!"'ganizat:'on t.Je stUGted fef' t~ei:­

::8o~er'a'c,icn and 3ssi3tance. ;.j'e also ' .... ish ':.0 ':.hank ?ober't S" .. \t.ki:1, i;e.nie:!. =erg, Jenr:is E;:;ple, :'~ar'k richMan, Lar's p" 2ansen, :.(atheri:1e Schi:Jpe!'", Lee S. Spr''Jull. ?obe?""': L Sut'tcn, and ?aul K .. ~'ir':':sht ~-'.'J?", {:.el;:;ful comme!":.ts ,~n

~ar'!..:,=!" dr'a£'"t D1' this paper 'das presented 3'S the ~;eetir:gs of :. ... ,e ,l~.e!"i~?r:

?syc~olJgical ~ssGciasion, ~as~i~gton, JC, ~ug~s~ 19R2,

ABSTRACT

Ihis study examines war'kers' reactions to t.he introduction of robots

in a fae tor-y. The study focuses on understanding workers' psychological

reactions to this new technology and to the manner in which it was

intrcd uced. Horkers repor'ted that both advantages (lower fatigue) and

d isadv an tag es (increased downtime) wer e assoc iated wi t h the int rod uc t ion

of the robot" Over time, worker s' beliefs about robots became mar'e

complex and pessimistic, Production oper'ator's' jobs, as well as their

interaction patterns with other pr'oduction and SUPPOT't war'ker's changed

with the introduction of the robot. Consequences of these changes for

increases in job stress are examined. A set of strategies fer int.roducing

robots in the factory is discussed.

Robots are being used in increasing number's in offices and fact-,ories

throughout the world. However, little is known about row robots affect

either individual workers or the structure. functionin~ and effeotiveness

of organizations., This paper focuses on workers' react.ions t.o the

introduction of a robot in a factory. He examine how workers react to the

robot itself. as well as how various strategies for intr'oducing robots

affect these reactions" This knowledge should enable managers to make

better decisions about the use of r'obots in their or'ganizations,

In general robot.s can be thought of as machines that. can sense, think

and act, in r'epeatab1e cycles. However 1 given the current state of

robotic technology the sensing and lear'ning functions are not well

developed .. Thus, we will view robots as (electromechanical) devices '.-lith

multiple task capability and progr'ammability .. The curr'ent funct.ions of

most robots in U.S. factories ar'e to tr'ansfer material and to do certain

processes such as welding.

Curr'ently. industrial r'obots are in limited use -- estimates range

from 3.5001

to 5.0002

in the U. S .. in 1980. There are, however, man y

reasons to believe that the number' of robots used in this country ·"ill

, 3 lncrease. These reasons include high labor costs. the current emphasis

on pr'oductivit.Yt and technological improvements in capabilities and costs

of ccbots.

Increased interest in the social impact of robotics has accomp;:mied

t~e use of robots, Questions have been asked about: ;;0,\.[ the use of r'obots

:.Jill affect employment 1eve1s4

, which jobs can be perfoT'!:1ed by ;'obot.s J,

3!'":.-:::' what types of educational and tr'8:ining pr'ogr'ams ar'e needed for' worker's

t,.;hose jobs are affected by robots. 6

This study differs from other wor'k on the social impact of r'obotics

by examining tow individual workers react to the introduct.l.on of a r'obot

at. their' factory" Our focus is on understanding wor'ker s' psychological

r'eactions (e .g .. their att.itudes and motivations) to t.he r'Obot and to t.he

manner in which the r'Obot. was int.rod uced" The more positive war'kers'

reactions to robots are. the mor'e likely organizations will experience

posi ti 'Ie economic con se quences such as increa sed prod ucti vity through the

use of robots,

While this study appears to be one of the first that examines the

effect.s of introducing a robot in a factory on individual wor'kers, t.here

is literature on the impact of technological change on individuals and

organi zations .. Several themes emerge fran that literature which should

help our' understanding of the effects of r'obots in the work place" One

theme is the need to take into account the compatibility between an

or'ganization's technology, its structure, and its member's,,? Fail ur'8 to

consider these factors often r'esults in unintended negative consequences

including increased absenteeism, higher accident rates, and decreased

productivity.

Another theme fr'om studies of technological change is that changes in

technology often lead to changes in the job activities of individual

workers. Hhyte8 found that automation increased the extent to which jobs

were mentally demanding. Eli zur 9 and Hann and Hoffman 10 found that

wor'ker s in automated organizations r'epor'ted a greater sense of control and

r-esponsibilit.y than their' counterparts in l.ess 8utcmated organizations"

l"'iof'Ker's in automated organizations often report a greate:' sense of'

h ed· 11

pressure t .. an workers in less automat organizatIons"

work ..

3

fechnological change also affects social interaction patter'ns et

Whyte 12 found that increased automation decr'eased the opportunities

I(JOT' kef's had to inter'act with their' coworkers" ~4illiams and n

Hilliams'

noted that new technologies often cr'eate new demands on suppor't per'sonnel

and require mar'e coor'dination activities bet.i.,reen support and production

per' sonnel •

Another theme from the oT'ganizational change literature is t.hat

worker involvement in the design of change affects worker acceptance of

14 15 and commitment to the change. In their classic study, eoch and French

found that worker par'ticipation in the design of change was 3ssociated

with higher productivity, lower turnover and fewer acts of aggression

against the company. Similarly, Griener 16 and Crockett 17 both stress that

change attempts are more likely to be successful if everyone affected by

the change is involved in its design and implementation.

While this T'eview is not meant to be exhaustive, it indicates t.hat

workers can resist technological change and that the oppor'tunity to

par'ticipate in the change may r'educe levels of r'esistance. 1he review

also indicates that technological change can affect social interaction

patterns on the job. Decreases in the opportunity to interact with others

are generally associated with increases in wer'ker alienation, stress, and

absenteeism. Ihe revie',.; also suggests that ne'tI technologies can change

work activities .. If the change decreases feelings of vaf'iety, autonomy

and challenge, or introduces activities that are incompatible Hith the

h"or'ker S' abilities aDd pr'eferences, it is likely that workers' attitudes

'dill become more negative and their motivational levels will fall.

:,"hile robots may be viewed as another advance in autoMation! we

believe ':.hat tvor'ker s may view robots as qualitatively different from other

fonns of autO'lation, Hor'ker's have been ex po sed to r'obots l,.;i t.h g;lori fi ed

capabilities on television and in the movies., In arldition, a r'obot. often

directly takes the place of a worker. He think these factors combine to

make the introduction of a r'obot a very sal ient and possibly threatening

event. for worker's"

Research Site and Methodology

To understand row wor'kers react. to the introduction of a robot, data

were collected at a manufacturing plant that waS installing its first

robot. The plant had been in operation for approximately ten years. The

primar y technological pr'ocesses in the plant involved the forging and

machining of various metal alloys" The work force at the plant numbered

about 1,000, was nonunion and predominantly blue collar'" The work force

was fairly stable., For example, the average length of service of

employees in the department wher'e the robot was introduced was eight

years" Relationships between labor and management appear ed to be good.

No walkouts or other examples of industrial strife had occurred at the

plant in recent years.

The company had used a fairly comprehensive set of str'ategies t.o

introduce the robot into the plant. lhese strategies included an open

house in which the operation of the robot was demonstrated, talks by the

plant manager, discussions with fir'st-line supervisor's, and notices posted

in t.he cafeter'ia" 1he company had informed employees that a robot was

going to be intr'oduced at the plant about a year befor'e t.he i'''obot "vas

actually put into operation.

Ihe r'ooot :,.jas intr'oduced in a depar'tment in Hhich the '::>?sic

oper'ations wer'e the milling and grinding of bar stock. 7h er ~ '..Jer e

5

approximately ten different oper'ations in the department.

persons ',·lOrked acr'oss the depart.ment's t.hree shifts.

physically arrange in a horseshoe-like configuration,

operated one or more of the milling and grinding machines"

A total of 4r)

Machines were

Each per son

The workflow in the depar tment '.as pr'imar'il y sequent ial. War ker s

moved pr'oducts from one operation to another' by hand. Ther'e was some

flexibility in the order in which products went thr'ough the var iou"

operations. The majority of the pr'oducts went through most of the

operations; however, not ever'y pr'oduct went. through every operation.

There were so:ne buffer inventor'ies between operations.

Ihe r'obot was placed at the beginning of the workflow in the

department, Ihe robot loaded and unloaded two milling machines. One

per'son operated the robot on each shift.

We interviewed production '.orkers on each shift in the depar'tment

where the robot was intr'oduced before and after the robot was put on line"

These pr'oduction workers were our primar'y sample" Inter'views were

conducted with them during two separate visits to the plant in 1981, about

2 1/2 months before and 2 1/2 months after the introduction of the roboL

The individuals we interviewed during the second visit wer'e the same as

those interviewed during the first; however. some workers that

par:,icipated were not available at t.he time of the second due to factor's

such as vacations and illness" During the fir st visit, 37 employees fr'om

the depar'tment in which t.he robot was intr'oduced we!"'e interviewed; duri:lg

the second visit, 25 were interviewed.

In add:tion to inter'views with members of our primary sample, ap9r'oxi-

mately 3C supple!':1ental interviews wer'e conducted" These included

interviews Hith fir st and secone:! line super'visors and Managers, inter'views

6

with production Horkers in an adjacent depar'tment., and interviews with

ind i vid ual s fr'om eng ineer ing, mai ntenance, per sonnel reI ation s, and other'

plant staff.. Each interview lasted about 10 minutes and contained both

structured response and open-ended questions concerning the robot and the

circLnnstances sur'rounding it.s introduction. He a1 so obser'ved the wor'K-

force during the intr'oduction of the robot and administered a satisfaction

quest ionnaire to pr'od uet ion wor'ker's"

We examined whether our primary sample of employees (i.e", employees

in the department where the r'obot was introduced) at lime 2 differ'ed from

those we interviewed at Time 1 on character'1.stics such as the length of

time employees had workad at the plant, their job grade, and shift. Our

lime 2 sample was drawn without replacement from the population of

employees we inter'Viewad at Time 1; hence our' rime 2 sample was not

independent of our 1ime population. TherefOre, we used the

hypergeometric distribution to test whether our Time 2 sample was

representative of our 'Iime population" We derived from our Time 2

sample maximum likelihood estimates of the frequencies of individuals in

var'ious categories (e"g., first, second, or third shift) in the population

most likely to have generated our' sample. We then comput ed a / test

statistic which compared the probabil ity of drawing our lime 2 sample from

our' I'ime 1 population to the probability of drawing our lime 2 sample from

the population most likely to have gener'ated it. 18 ;>

fhe x- values were not

lar'ge enough to reject at more than moder'ate levels of significance (p <

,25) the hypotheSiS that our Time 2 sample was a random sample dra,m

without r'eplacement frem the population of employees !,.;e int.ervieHed at

Ii~e 1.. rhus lour' sample at Time 2 appears t.o be representative of OUf'

population at Time 1 on these var'iables.

7

R esul ts

rhe results are organized in terms of the effects the r'obot had on

worker beliefs, activities, and inter'actions. Then we examine the effects

of introducing the robot on pr'operties of the or'!lanization.

Beliefs

About the robot. We were curious about how workers in our sample

think about robots, so we asked the respondents an open-ended question:

How would they describe a r'obot to a friend? Table 1 lists the phrases

used to descr'ibe a robot. The rna jor concepts seem to be: mechanical man,

preprogrammed machine, something that loads machines, increases

pr'oductivit.y or reduces manual work. This list of descY'iptions seems to

fall into three categories: gener'al descriptions (mechanical man),

functions (loads machines), and consequences (r'educes manual work). An

examination of the frequency of concepts used in the dHfer'ent classes

during rime and rime 2 shows no significant changes. 19 That is, the

general types of categories used to describe robots r'emain the same.

However', we found a significant increase in the number of concepts

mentioned by each individual over time, t(24) = 1,,89, p < .10. This is

consistent with the idea that more experience should lead to a more

differentiated view of robots.

As a follow up to the fir'st question, we asked worker's how they

learned about r'cbots" rhe movie Star liars and television shows depicting

humanlike robots were frequently mentioned. These humanlike r'obots in the

r:1edia probably contr'ibuted to the tendency we obser'ved at ~he plant fo['

wor kef s to anthr'opcmof'phize the cobot., Hor'kef's on eac~ shift named the

robot and endowed it with human qualities" This tendency was ev ident j.n

both the inte!"'views and in obser'vations of people in the wor'kp12ce"

8

About the ei'f'ects of r'obats" Table 2 {::resents war'kers' beliefs about

robots in gener al at Time 2, Seven questions Of' stat.ements t.Jere r'ead to

t.he respondent, Ttlho then responded by strongly agreeing I ;:lI?;reeing,

slightly agreeing, slightly disagreeing, disagreeing, or' strongly

disagreeing" Ihe results indicate that worker's in our sample had ~sitive

atti tudes toward r'obots" The worker's felt that r'obots '''ill help the

United States remain competitive" There is some indication that war'kers

believed that robots will displace other' wor'kers but not themselves and he

limited to certain types of jobs" Wor'kers perceived that the use of

robots will mean that workers r'equire additional education and skill

training"

Table 3 focuses on workers' per'ceptions of the effects of the r'obot

in their' depaT'tment rather than their general belief's about robots" The

respondents were presented with an outcome (e.g., the chances of an

accident) and asked at Time 1 whether the robot would incr'ease, decrease,

or have no effEct on that outcome. Respondents were asked at Time 2

'"hether' the robot had actually incr'eased. decreased. or' had no effect on

the outcomes" Table 3 pr'esents the information for lime 1 and Time 2

separately in per centages.

accident outcome in Table 3.

For example. consider the chances for an

Ihe re suI ts pr e sen ted in Iabl e , i nd icate

that 11 percent of our respondents at Time thought the r'obot would

increase the chances of an accident; this number had increased to 29

percent at Time 2. rhe number of respondents who thought the robot would

deer'ease t.he chances of an accident was 41 percent. at. Time 1; ~1 percent

of our -:ime 2 respondents thought the robot had decrea sed t.he chances of

an accident.

9

Ihe tesults of the pr'obit analyses 20 «hich tested \.Jhet~er' there «er'e

significant changes in the number' of f'esponses in the increas~, deer'ease,

or no effect categot'ies ftom Time 1 to lime 2 at'e al so ptesented in Table

3. For' example, the tesul ts of the probit analysis on the chances of an

aeci.dent outcome r'eveal that the coefficient of time in the pr'obit model

fat accidents «as -0.687. This indicates that tespondents wer'e more

likel y at Time 2 than at Time 1 to move in the d ir' ec t ion a f sa yi ng the

chances of' an accident increased. This coefficient was large relative to

its standard errot, t(52) = -2.19, P < .05.

Iable 3 indicates that a majority of the «orkers at lime 2 felt that

robots increased productivity, but did not have much effect on the quality

of output, the amount of downtime, or' the number of people who wor'k in the

depar'tment. The results of the probit analyses indicate that wor'ker's were

significantly more likely at Time 2 than at Time 1 to say that the robot

increased the chances of an accident, incr'eased costs, and lower'ed the

quality of the output. This change in per'ceptions ovet time was highly

significant for the quality of the output, t(52) = 3.39, p < .OOL

Tabl e 4 uses the same format but focuses on a different set of

outcomes. The gener'al trend s at Time 2 seem to be that the r'obot

decr'eased the number of boring jobs and teduced fatigue on the job" A

majority of wor"ker's believed that. robots require war'ker's to learn greater

skills, which is consistent with the information in Table 2.

The results in fables 3 and U suggest that worker's in t.he department

Hhere the robot ioTas intr'oduced became less opti:nist.ic over time about t.he

effects of the r'obot" Exa.mining the coefficients of the time variable for'

the eight outcomes on which we have data for both Time 1 and 'Ii:ne 2

reveal s that ;'es;1ondents ' .... er'e less optimistic about the effects of :'he

10

robot on six of these eight outcomes at Time 2 than they were at Time 1,

Ihe coefficients foF' thr'ee of t.hese outcomes (accidents, costs I and

quality) were significant" I'he only exceptions to this trend toward

greater pessimism are the nonsignificant coefficients for' the number of

people who work in the depar tment and the number of jobs that ar'e highl Y

skilled.

These questions wer'e also asked of pr'oduction workers in a depar'tment

adj acent to the one in which the robot was introduced in order to

understand how per ceptions of workers in other depar'tments in the plant

were affected by the introduction of the robot" Harkers in this adjacent

depar'tment had access to some of the same sources of infor'mation about the

robot (e "g., the demonstration, the plant manager's talk, and the notices

discussed above) as did workers in the department with the robot" '"orkers

in the adj acent department were al so able to watch the r'Obot operate. The

patter'n of results obtained ftom worker s in the ad jacent depar'tment was

similar to that descr'ibed previously for' our primary sample,,21 Ihere was

some evidence that worker's in the adjacent depar'tment were more optimistic

about the effects of the robot at lime 2 than were their counterparts in

the department with the robot. For example, workers in both departments

wer e more li kel y at Time 2 than at lime 1 to say that the chances for' an

3ccident increased and t.hat costs incr'eased; however', workers in the

adjacent unit thought that the chances for an accident and cost.s increased

t.o a smaller extent than did workers in the depar'tment with the robot.

About introducing change. In or'der to understand how workers

actually J.ear~ed about the robot, l,.;e asked the employees at I'ir.1e a

se!' ies of questions about whethe!" t.hey lear'ned about t.he tahot f'r em (3

par'ticuler sour'ce and about the extent to which the source increased their

11

understanding of' the robot" Ihese data, presented in Table S, indicate

that the most frequently mentioned sour'ce of infor'matioo about r'obots Has

the weekly wor'kplace meeting betHeen supervisors and T,-IOr'ker's .. POHever I

these meetings increased workers' understanding of r'obots only to a little

extent" HY'itten communication and the demonstration at the open house

were the most effective sources of information about the robot. HOHever' ,

less than half of our respondents attended the open house and only 16

percent reported that they received a written communication" Thus, t.he

var ious comrnunicat. ion sour'ces do not seem to have been very helpful in

increasing Hor kers' understanding of the robot.

In addition, we asked wor'kers how much influence or involvement they

actually had on decisions about' ( 1) whether the robot would be

introduced in their department, (2) where it would be placed, and (1) who

would run it. Also we asked them how much influence they should have had.

rhe wor'kers reported they had no influence on any of these three

decisions. Ihey said they should have had a little influence on decisions

about whether the robot would be introduced and who should run it"

Harkers did not think they should be involved in decisions about where the

robot was placed.

Activities

Our analysis thus rar has focused on beliefs. ~!o W i.re t.ur n to the

quest,ion of how the robot introduction affected workers' activit.ies. Our

sample now is com~sed of the individual on each shift who operated t.he

r'o bot" Speciel interview schedules were devel·:)ped to !"'1easure the

act::'vities. war k cycle, and interaction patter'ns of the operator's' johs

before ar.d after the tobot was intr'oduced.

12

j'lhen the robot was introduced, a manufacturing cell Ci"e", a set of

interdependent machines oper'ated by a worker) was cr'eated" The robot

provided material handling functions for' two millin~ machines" An

operator was then responsible for' the two milling machines and the r'oboL

The introduction of the robot removed the materials handling activity from

the oper'ator,1 s job and added a new activity, r'cbat oper'ator' ..

Prior to the robot's introduction approximately twelve different

products were passed through both milling machines to begin the work flow

sequence for thi s prod uction depar'tment. The T..Jork cycle for' each machine

included set up activities and then relatively short milling times (1-2

minutes) during a pr'oduct run. Work was done to fine tolerances and it

was possible for the operator to determine, thr'ough sane measur ement

procedures, whether the parts were milled correctl y" The major' quality

control activity, however, was at the end of all the machine operations.

After the change, the number of products remained the same. The two

milling machines were still located at the beginning of the work cycle

where the bar stock went through the first two milling oper'ations. The

other machine operations were unchanged" Quality control activities were

still at the end of all the machine operations.

Ihe major change in aotivities in the new manufacturing cell came in

the material handling activit.ies. In the old system, the operator would

pick up t.he stock, place it on machine one, clamp it in, star't the

:nachine I and then the milling machine would perform it.s wor'k. Then the

operator ''';Quld stop the machine, unclamp the stock, place it on the second

:":12chir:e and t.he cycle would repeat" Each ne1d stock would folloH this

cycle" Uhen we asked the oper'ators about the differences bet'deen their'

jobs beior'e and after' the r'obat intr'oduction, they said:

13

Now it's mainly watching &

sure everything is running., " walking arour.d the m8chines to be

He do mor's activities. machines.

Now you have to set up all three

There are also more functions robot.

. you need to progr am the

So we see a shift from manual to cognitive activites (monitoring).

Al eo, the oper'ators reported that they were doing more activities and that

the total wor k cycl e had incr'eased. The increased wor'K cycle was

attributed by the operator's to more set ups and delays in getting the new

robot operational.

Ihe change in activities was related to a ch~nge in skill

requirements" The operators said:

Ihe job now requires mor'e skills program the robot and run it. comes more responsibility"

. " . You have to learn how to • With more skills of course

Oper'ating the robot requires more skills sophisticated.

. the job is more

If we combine the ideas in these quotations with those in the preceding

ones, it is clear that the new skills appear in the area of observing and

detecting problems in the inter'face between the three machines, and in

progr'amming and operating the robot.

What are some of the consequences for the worker that result from

these changes in activities? The general literature on the relationship

bet1Neen job activities and individual characteristics indicates that

improving the fit between the new job activities and the personal

charseteristies of the war'ker can lead to more positive at.titudes and

higher ::J.otivat ion" Conver'sely, intr'oducing activities that ar'8

incompatible ylith a war'ker" s abilit.ies and preferences is likely to

gener'ate str'ess, negat.ive attitudes. and lower motivat.ion. Given :hat T .. .re

14

are examining the introduct.ion of a single f'obot and are dealing with only

three oper'ators, j,t is difficult to identify statistically si.gnificant

changes in our' study" However', some trends are evident." The oper'ators in

our study ex perienced mar'e str'ess or pressure" Interview comments from

two of the operators were:

Ihere is more stress now" They want the robot to That's hard because it

We have more responsibility., r'un and we have to keep it going;., is still relatively new"

It's nerve r'acking " there are lots of details ., it's an expensive piece of equipment.

This stress stems partly from the new tasks and responsibilities of

the oper'ator's, and par'tly fr'cm oper'ating a net,,, and costly piece of

equi pment . Iher'e was another more subtle source of stress which arose

from worker s' comparing themselves to the robot. There was much

speculation during our fir st visit to the plant about whether an operator

who was par t icularly quick would be able to beat the robot. By our' second

visit, workers seemed r'esigned to the fact that the r'obot would always be

able to outproduce a human worker. The reason was simple: Robots do not

take breaks or' even go to lunch!! Objectively, after the robot

intr'oduction, the operators contr'oUed the robot and the two milling

machines. However operators subjectively viewed the situation as one of

cc:mpetit ion between them and the machine. Operators reported that the

robot could load and unload the two milling machines faster than the

oper'ator's could when they oper'ated the machines manually" Ihi s may be

another source of stress.

:-ne of the robot. oper'ators in our sample mentioned that although r:e

found observing and monitoring more boring than manual act.ivities, he :,.J8S

cU!"Tently satisfied with his job because there were still many of 1YJanual

set-up activities. The oper'ator COmm8!1ted, hOHever that vii thout these

15

set-up activities, the CUYTent job would be more boring; than the previous

job. ~Je think this incompatibility between activities required by the job

and pr eferences of t.he worker was another sour'ce of stress.

Now, the picture we want to dr'gw is not one of an unhappy operator.

All these individuals voluntarily accepted the job of operating the "lanu-

facturing cell. They all received considerable recognition because of the

"newness" of the robot., All operators acknowledged that the prior heavy

and fatiguing wor'k was eliminated by the robot. The r'Obot operators

reported approximately the same degree of satisfaction with most aspects

of their' job before and after the robot was intr'oduced.

At the same time, worker's experienced mar'e stress than they had

experienced in their' pr ior job. We have attempted to identify potential

so Uf'ces of this s tre 55. It would be premature at this point to speculate

whether this increased stress was good or bad for the individual or the

organi zation" Studies have shown that. incr'eased stY'ess is associated with

increased turnover and absenteeism22 and that stress can lead to either'

increments or decr'ements in per'formance. 23

Since the introduction of the robot could affect support personnel

activities as well as operator's, we interviewed people in engineering t

maintenance, quality control, and scheduling" Engineering and maintenance

were responsible for getting the machine up and running. Changes in the

functioning of the machine could affect quality control and scheduling"

Sever a1 themes emerged from our' discussions with suppor't per sonnel '.

F'irst.. some support personnel felt the r'obot had changed their job

activit.ies .. Si nce t.he robot r'e pr e sen ted a new gener at ion of t ec hno j. ogy .

neH knor,.,rledge and new job activities Her'e necessar'y" Second. there wer'€

some feelings of frustration since not all of the suppor't per sonnel Her'e

16

involved in planning the int.roduction of t.he robot, yet t.hey i,Jere expected

to acquire new \<nowledge and skills" Third, there wer'e poslti'.Je feelings

associated with being r'ecognized and per'sonal pride derived fr'an the

successful oper'ation of the robot. And fbur'th. the magnitude of changes

in activities and feelings 1,,[8S T'elatively modest. given that we ar'e

dealing with only one robot installation.

Inter action

Of impor'tance in the wor k place are the formal and informal inter'-

actions that develop around job activities" The introduction of a r'obot

can change these inter'action patterns, which in tUT'n can have

psychological and behavioral consequences. For ex am pIe. if' the new

technology breaks up eXisting social interactions and isolates the worker.

we expect incr'eases i,n alienation and mor'e resistance to the nefti

technology"

Ihe robot operators reported at Time 2 that they had less opportunity

to talk with people on the job than they had before the r'obot was

introd uced . fwo of the operator s said:

I haven't been able to talk as much. I'm too involved with the robot. You really have to concentrate.

I don't have time to talk wi,th anyone. them breaking my concentration"

I don't want I'm isolated now.

The decreased opportunity to inter'act with others seemed to derive mainly

from the increased mental demand s of the job. l,vor'kers had to concentrate

more., They did not have time to talk with coworker's.

Ihe introduction of the robot did not change the work flow in the

department. All the iolorkers, including the r'obot operator', wer e loca+:,ed

in the saMe aT'ea and par'ticipated in the same part of' the \.;or'K f'IOH"

17

Thus, while our' operator's reported less opportunity to inter'act !.-lith

others in the department. the set of people they interacted '-lith within

the depar'tment remained r'oughly the same. Ihi s might have pr ov id ed

buil t-in support mechanisms to buf fer the worker s from some of the effects

of the aha nge .

The major changes in interactions occur'red between support. personnel

from engineer ing and maintenance departments and the oper ator's of the

manufac turing cell. There was more fr'equent contact among engineering,

maintenance. and the robot operator" Perhaps because the robot was new

and repr'esented the first major installation in this factor'y. support

personnel as Hell as the robot oper'ators were highly motivated to get the

robot up and running and cooperated with each other. If there were many

robots being placed on line and the suppor't personnel had great demands on

their time. then we might find more conflict between suppor't per'sonnel and

oper ators.

Organizational Unit

Our discussion thus far has focused exclusively on the effects of the

robot on the individual.

affected the depar tment.

lhe introduction of this new technology a1 so

Spec ificall y. the introd uction of the robot

requir'eG a r'e-evaluation and reclassification of the oper'ator" s job"

Because cer'tain job activities were e;Liminated and other' activities wer'8

added. the quest ion was whether the net change indicated that the job

should retai:1 the same grade or be upgraded. Hanagement did upgrade the

job. out worker's felt that the new grade and associated pay for the

oper'at.or's job were still too low,.

He also examined Itrhether the intr'oduction of the robot affected other'

depar'tment pol ici es, proced ur'8S, or formal coor'dinat ion mechani sms" fhere

was no evidence of any effect other than the changes in the pay system.

Discussion

The purpose of this paper is to focus our attention on the

consequences for' the worker of intr'oducing robots into the factory"

Workers in our sample held positive beliefs about robots in general. When

we asked them about the effect of the r'obot on their department. they

ini tiall y repor ted that the robot would increase productivity. reduce

costs, increase quality, make the job easier and less bor'ing, and increase

skill requirements. As workers acquired mor'e experience with the r'obot

their beliefs about robots became more complex and somewhat more

pessimistic (greater chances for' accidents, cost increases, quality

decr ease s)

We examined how the introduction of the T'Obot changed the production

operators' work activities. The operators' work activities shifted from

primarily manual activites (lifting) to cognitive activites (monitor'inil)"

The operators reported that they "Iere performing more activities and had

more responsibility. The changes in activities were related to feelings

of more stress" Of course I ther'e were offsetting benefits as the most

tiring aspects of' their' jobs had been eliminated and the robot operators

received greater r'ecognit.ion and r'emuneration as the first robot was put

on line"

per sonnel ,

Changes in activities also appeared in the jobs of SUODort

Again, there was some evidence of stress created by the ne\ol

;,mr'k acti."ities,

'9

Interaction patter'ns changed for the robot operators .. Operators

reported that they felt isolated and did not have as much time to interact

t,..;ith cowor'kers in their' depar'tment. Ther e was mor'e fr'equent contact

between individuals fr'om engineering and maintenance and the r'obot

operator's. However, the modal job and social interaction patterns for the

department before and after the robot introduction remained essentially

the same.

Ihe introduction of the robot had an impact at the organizational

unit level, particularly in the area of job evaluation and pay" Ihere was

a widely-held belief on the part of the workers that the robot operator

job had been unfairly evaluated and the pay grade was too low.

The process of introducing technological change was also examined.

Ihe basic finding was that there was a discrepancy between management's

attempt to communicate about r'Obots and the workers' need to learn about

robots" Ihat is, although many communication techniques were used, few

were received by the workers. 1hose communications received by war'kef's

were not seen as particular'ly helpful in increasing their understanding of

the r'obot.

We think this study has several major strengths" Io our knowled~e,

it is the first systematic evaluation of the effect of introducing a robot

on workers" Ihe study used a variety of methods, includinQ; interviews I

questionnaires, and observations. lile collected data before and after the

change to get some baseline to study the effect.s of the intr'oduction over

time" In addition, ',.;e used a broad sample per'spective to identify people

dir'ectly affected by the change as well as those indirectly af'fecte~

(e"g .. , support per'sonnel),

20

Ihe study. of CQUf'Se, has certain limitations" Dat.a -"'ef'e collect.ed

fran only one organization. 1here was only one r'cbat installation and it

was the first T'Obot installation .. 1he change al so teok place in a non-·

union organization where ther'e ~.,ere positive ('elations betHeen labor' and

management. While intervieTd data on the effects of the robot on various

outcomes such as pr'oductivity were collected. company records data on

these outcomes wer'e not collected. F'uture resear'ch involving mul tiple

of'ganizations and including f'ecords or archival data as well as interview

data collected over several points in time (e.g., before. shor'tly after,

and a year or so after' the robot introduction) is needed.

What can we learn from this study that will help in new installations

of f'obotics in factories? Despite the small sample size and the

difficulty of systematically testing certain r'elationships, a number of

findings have emerged from this study. These findings combined with

f'lndings from other studies of increased automation suggest some possible

recommendations for manager's introducing new technologies ..

1) Prior to any intr'octuction some questions need to be r'esolved.

Questions concerning job security and pay are likely to be uppermost in

the minds of the work force. Failure to resolve these questions prior to

the introduction of the robot is likely to reduce the effectiveness of the

introd uction .

2) Diagnosis of the organization prior to introducin~ change is

critical" h'hat effects 'Nill the technological change have on activit.ies,

interactions, and belief's of 'Nor'kef's? Pr'oblems caused by the change need

to be anticipated--sane will be obvious (in cases of job loss) Hhile

other's ~ill be subtle (in cases of new job activities)

2 1

3) A. strategy for' war'ker' involvement in introducin!S this new

technology needs to be delineated" There ar'8 a wide var'iety of possible

strategies" Management in our study pr'ovided virtually no oppor'tunities

for' Hor'ker involvement in this technological change. 1he Hor'kers wanted

some levels of involvement for' cer tain decisions but not other's" ,Some

levels of involvement are likely to increase understanding about the r'obot

and per haps lead to greater commitment to the change pr'ocess.

4) Certain communication techniques seem more effective than others

in intr'oducing robots. Demonstrations that illustrate the operations of a

robot seen to be powerful techniques"

5) Some feedback mechanism to monitor' communicat.ion effectiveness is

necessary in introducing this technology. Our study showed a di screpancy

between what management was trying to communicate to workers and what the

workers received"

6) It is vital that fir'st line supervisors be given information about

the robot and support from upper management in dealing with Harkers'

reactions to the r'obot. In times of change workers are likely to go to

their' supervisors mor'e frequently for information and advice. The

attitudes and behaviors of supervisors are likely to have a big effect on

the success of the robot introduction"

n The robot will create neH job activities. It is very important to

do a car e ful anal ysis of the new job and max imi ze the fit between job

char'3cteristics and personal characteristics. The literature on

job-per son fit indicates that a lack of congruency may have dysfunctional

effects on the person and organization. Ihe quest ion is not ~.mether the

worker" ca!'] do the !'leW activities but whether' the worker can do and pr'efers

22

these activities" If ther'e is lack of congr'uency, one must consirler

alternatives in job r'edesign or in selection procedures,

8) If the change is frem "doing" to "observing" activities, the

worker s may ex perience more boredom in the job. If t.his occurs, some

mechanism to alleviate boredom, such as job rotation, may be helpfuL The

job rotation would increase task variety and build up a backlo~ of skills

for' future expansion of r'obotics.

9) Training backup operators for the robot is impor'tant. In our

study only one per son per shift was initially trained to operate the

robot, Ihis l~d to disr'uptions in the 1,olor'k pr'ocess when one of t.he

operators was absent.. Training backup oper'atoT's would pr'ovide the

organization with more flexibility, and individual workers with more job

variety.

10) The introd uction of tobots can affect the nature of social

interaction patterns at work. Prior' resear'ch shows that attempts to

change these patter'ns can gener'ate r'esistance to change .. If diagnosis

indicates that the change will break up eXisting social relationships,

some a1 ter'native strategies need to be conceived. For' example, involving

the worker in this par't of the change may generate new work arrangements

that wi] 1 facil Hate the acceptance of change.

11) A successful introduction of robots requires the cooper'ation of

the support personnel. Our study showed that not all of the support

personnel He!"8 involved in planning t.he intr'oduction of the robot, and

SOMe stress \Vas c?"eatect as a r'8sult of the lack of part.icipat.ion.

::::1volvement of the suppor't per'sonnel and oper'ator's early in the changA

process should facilit.ate the introduction process ..

23

1 able 1

',VORKERS' DESCRIPTTONS OF ROR01S

Mechanical Man

Hydraulic Arm

Comput.er

Pr epr ogrammed Machine

I.. V. Image

Hoves Material

Loads Machine

Better Productivity

Reduces Manual Work

'darks Cant inuousl y

Percent of Total Mentions

Time 1 Time 2

1S% 9%

2% 9%

6% i)«,

15% 1M

10% 7'1,

4% Q,%

12% 14<>1,

15% 5%

15% 2~%

6% A%

100% 100~

24

lable 2

HaRKERS' BELIEFS ABOUI ROBOTS IN GENERAL TH'E THO

Robo ts will:

Make the U"S. more competitive

Be ca pable of doing my job

Percent Worker's Agreeing/ Strongly Agreeing

29%

Be capable of doing clerical jobs

Be capable of doing management jobs 17~

Displace wor ker' s SO%

Create less desirable jobs 21~

Require mor e job r'etr'aining

Table ~

PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECT OF A ROllOT IN A PROOIICTTON OEPARTMENT

a Percent of Responnents Who Replied That the Robot Had a Certain Effect on:

Prodllctlvlty ACCIdents Costs QuaU ty Oowntlme ~nher:-".~~!eople

Effed: Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 TIme 1 Time? Time 11> Time? Time 1 Time:.? ------Increa!1e 81 6'7 11 29 10 33 ')1 11 iA I) o

No Effect 8 12 12 ~6 7 II 10 ')11 ')11 1111 Al

Decrease 3 12 111 21 55 ~2 1 21 A 'III 17

Coefficient of Time VarIable UI Pr'obi,t t10del

c 0.607 -0.687 -0.760 1. 1/)7 -0.'>i1

Standard Error of l'lme Coefficient 0.392 0.31'1 o .~O'I o . i'III (). "1?')

T-~)tatlsti.c 1.5118 -2. lila -1.879 3.19'1 -1./)3~

~)j grll fi.canee 0.128 o. 03~l 0.06A 0.001 0.ln1

a The fX!fCent of re!lPondents who replied. "Don'L Know," 15 not included in Uns table; hence, percent,Flges for sorne (liltcomes will sum to less than 100.

b R(!~p0l'ldents Here not asi(ed about thIS outcome at Time 1.

e A posiLlve eoefficlent Indi.cates that respondents were more likely at Time 2 than at Time 1 to move in the dlree­LtOIi of :JaYlng the particular outcome decreased; a negative coefficient. indicates that respondents were more likely ,It Tillie? than at 1'11' 1 to m~v' in the directton of saying the outcome increased.

Table II

PERCEPTIONS OF HIE EFFECT OF A ROBOT TN A PRODIICTION DEPARTMENT - -

a Percent of Respondents Who Replied That the Robot Ilad a Certain Effect on:

Skill Chances for a !!.~ring Jobs Requirements Better Job Fatigue Morale Absenteeism

E ffecl; Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time lb Time ;> b

Time 1 Time;> T " h 1'" Ime 1 Ime? -----

Trlerease 16 20 511 6~ 21 17 II 2S 12

No Effect 19 16 3~ 36 59 75 R 7"> C) II

Decrease 59 60 0 0 9 R 19 o 12

Coefficlent of Time Variable HI Pr'obiL Modele -0.052 -0.012 O. lOR

Standard Error of Time CoefficIent 0.321 o. 311~ 0.326

T-StC.ltistic -0.163 -0.208 0.313

Signlfieance 0.871 0.816 0.141

-"------"-~-----

a Tile p{:rcent of respondents who replied, UDonlt Know," IS not 1ncluderl In this table: hence. percentaR~S for some outeomes wi 11 StUO to less than 100 ..

b Hesl)ondenLs were not asked about this outcome at Time 1.

C A positIve coefficient Indicates that respondents were more like] y at Time 2 than at Time 1 to move in the (Hr'ec­tlOIl of 5aylng the partIcular outcome decreased; a negative coefficient indicates that respondents \WI~e more likely at Tillie 2 than at Time 1 to move 10 the direction of saying the outcome increAsed.

27

lable 5

EFFECIIVENESS OF CO~'~'lJNICATION

Communi,cation Sour ce

lt1r'itten communication

Hor kplace meetings

Communicat.ion fr om super-v isor

Movies or audio-visual presentations

Demonstr ations

Informal sources including the grapevine

ABOU1 THE ROBOT:

rIME ONE

% Workers Reporting that Ihey

Received Communiction

16%

89%

46%

13%

42%

37%

Average Extent Communication Increased Horkers'

Under' stand i ng*

2.6

4

4. 1

2.7

4

• Ihe response alternatives were: (1) to a very great extent, (2) to a great extent, (3) to a fair extent, (4) to a little extent, COi) not at all.

28

REFERENCES

1 See "Robots Join the Labor' Force ,II B1Jsiness Heek, 9 June 1C)RO.

2See A .. Salpukas, "Manufacturing Using Robots," The New York limes, ~~ October 1980 ..

3J .. Engelberger, Robotics in Pr'actice, (New yor'1<: Amacom, 19An).

4 R .. U. Ayres, "Ihe Futur'e of Robotics: A Meta Review," Prepar'ed for The UNESCO/ll ASA Symposium on Scientific For'ecasting and Human Needs: Methods Tr'ends and Message, Ibilisi, USSR, December 1981.

5R. U. Ayres and S. M .. Miller, "Preparing for the Growth of Industrial Robots ," Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie-Nellon University, 1981..

6Eikonix Corporation, "Technology Assessment: The Impac t of Robotics," Iechnical Report EC/2405801 - FR-l, Eikonix Cor por'ation , 1979,

7F • E. Emery and E, l. Trist, "Socio-technical Systems," In F. Baker to Complex (Ed .. ), Organizational Systems: General Systems Approaches

Organizations (Homewood, II: Richard D .. Irwin, 1973).

8W• F, Whyte, Men at Work (Homewood, Ii: Richard D. Irwin, 1961).

9D • Elizur, Adapting to Innovation (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1970 ),

10 F , C. Mann Holt, 1960),

and L. R. Hoffman, Automation and the "arker

ll E• Mumford and D. Banks, The Computer and the Clerk (London: and Kegan Paul, 1967).

(New Yor'k:

Routledge

12". F. Whyte, Nen at Work (Homewood, TL: Richard D. Ir win, 191) 1).

13L., K. Williams and C. B. Hilli""s, "The Impact of Numerically Contt'olled EqUipment on Factor'y Organization ," Califor'nia Management Review, ltlinter' 1964, pp" 25-34.

14tL Beer, Or'ganization Change and Development (Santa ~'lonica, CA: Good year, 1980).

15 L. each and J. R .. p" French, "Overcoming Resistance to Change," Human Relations, Vol. 1, August 1948, pp. 512-532.

16 L £" Griener. "Patterns of Organization Change," P'aT'var'd Business Review, Vol" 45, No.3, May-June 1967. pp. 119-128.,

1\;. Crockett, !1Introducing Change to a Government ftgency," Tn P. H" Hirvis ~nd D. N. Berg (Eds.) I Failures in Organization Development and Change (NeT"'; YOf'k: tiiley, '1977).

29

18Details on the use of this analytic procedure as well as the r'esult.s of these and subsequent analyses are available on request from the first author', Thanks are due Dennis Epple and Lars Hansen for calli,TIg; our' attention to these issues.

19 To test T..mether the f'r'eqeuncy of mentions in various categoT'ies changed from lime 1 to Time 2, we used a similar pr'ocedure to that outlined earlier for testing whether our sample of employees differed from lime 1

to TIme 2 on key characteristics" In part.icular, we pooled the freqeuncy of mentions in each category at Time 1 and Time 2 to arrive at the frequency of mentions in the population. USing the hypergeometric distribution, we then tested whether the distribution of mentions at Times 1 and 2 were randcrn samples drawn without replacement from our population. Ihere was no evidence for r'ejecting the hypothesis thjlt our' Time 1 distribution was a randan sample fran the population, x-(2) = 1.04, p < .75, or for r'ejecting the hypothesis ttpt our Time 2 distribution was a randan sample fran the population, x-CO) = 0.82, p < .75.

20rhe N-Chotor.lOUS probit model requires independence of t.he error t.erms. This requirement might be violated if, for example t observations for the same individual at different points in time were correlated" In using theprobit model, we have assumed that this dependence, if it exists, is weak.

21 Ihe pr'obit analyses on the outcomes discussed above were r'un separately for each department with time (Time 1 vs .. Time 2) as the predictor' of the outcomes. lhe probit analyses were also performed on the data from both departments combined, with both time and department (department with the robot, adjacent depar'tment) as predictors of the outcomes.. A similar pattern of results was obtained fr'an the differ'ent analyses.

22L W. Por ter and R. factor's in employee 1973, 80 151-176.

M. Steer's, turnover and

"Or'ganizational, work, and per'sonal absenteeism, If Psychological Bulletin t

23~-l. E .. Scott, lfActivation theor'y and task design ,11 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 111-128.