Personality factors are best defense against losing your job to a robot
Personality factors are best defense against losing your job to a robot
If you’ve ever fantasized about having a robot for a boss instead of your demanding human manager, new research suggests you might want to reconsider. While you’d likely feel less pressure to obey a mechanical superior, your performance might actually suffer under their synthetic supervision.
In a first-of-its-kind study published January 6 in Cognition, Technology & Work, Polish researchers have uncovered surprising insights into how humans respond to robot authority figures in workplace settings. The findings reveal that although people do demonstrate significant obedience to humanoid robots in positions of power, they’re less compliant and considerably less productive than when supervised by humans.
“We have shown that people demonstrate a significant level of obedience towards humanoid robots acting as authority figures, although it is slightly lower than towards people (63% vs. 75%),” explains Konrad Maj, PhD, from SWPS University, a psychologist and head of the HumanTech Center for Social and Technological Innovation.
This 12-percentage point gap in obedience levels might seem modest, but the impact on productivity was dramatic. “As the experiment has shown, people may exhibit a decrease in motivation towards machines that supervise their work – in our studies, participants performed their assigned tasks more slowly and less effectively under the supervision of a robot,” Maj notes.
The research comes at a pivotal moment as robots increasingly move into positions traditionally held by human authority figures across various sectors, including education, healthcare, and law enforcement. For organizations eyeing automation as a path to greater efficiency, these findings present a sobering reality check.
“This means that automation does not necessarily increase efficiency if it is not properly planned from a psychological point of view,” Maj cautions.
The laboratory study, conducted at SWPS University by Maj alongside colleagues Tomasz Grzyb, PhD, Professor Dariusz Doliński, and Magda Franjo, involved a straightforward but tedious computer task. Participants were randomly assigned to work under either human supervision or the watchful gaze of a Pepper humanoid robot.
The task itself was simple but monotonous – changing file extensions on a computer. When participants showed signs of reluctance to continue, such as pausing for more than 10 seconds, either the robot or human experimenter would verbally encourage them to persist.
The performance difference was striking. Under human supervision, participants changed extensions in an average of 23 seconds per file, completing about 355 files on average. When supervised by the robot, the same task took nearly four times longer – 82 seconds per file – with participants completing only 224 files on average, a productivity drop of nearly 37 percent.
These results highlight the complex psychological dynamics at play in human-robot interactions. While robots are often implemented with expectations of increased efficiency, the research suggests that the human element remains crucial, especially when authority and motivation are involved.
The researchers note that a robot’s appearance significantly influences how people respond to it. “Robots that are more human-like are perceived as more competent and trustworthy,” the study found. However, this relationship isn’t linear – robots that appear too human-like without achieving perfect similarity can trigger what’s known as the “uncanny valley” effect, actually decreasing trust and comfort.
Maj offers several possible explanations for this phenomenon: “If a machine has clear human features, but still exhibits various imperfections, this causes a cognitive conflict – we are at a loss as to how to treat it, we do not know how to behave towards something like that. But we can also talk about a conflict of emotions: fascination and admiration mixed with disappointment and fear.”
There’s also an evolutionary perspective. “Supporters of the evolutionary explanation claim that humans are programmed to avoid various pathogens and threats, and a robot that pretends to be a human, but is still not perfect at it, may appear to be a threat. Why? Because it looks like someone sick, disturbed or imbalanced.”
The implications extend beyond workplace efficiency into broader social territories. As robots become more integrated into daily life, questions about human-machine relationships grow increasingly complex.
“A robot that looks like a human and communicates like a human simply becomes easy for us to use,” Maj acknowledges. “But there is also a dark side to this – if we create robots that are very similar to humans, we will stop seeing boundaries. People will start to befriend them, demand granting them various rights, and perhaps even get married to them in the future.”
This blurring of boundaries could have unexpected social consequences. “In the long run, humanoid robots may create a rift between people. There will also be more misunderstandings and aversion – and this is because robots owned at home will be personalised, always available, empathetic in communication, and understanding. People are not so well-matched,” Maj points out.
For employers and HR departments, the takeaway is clear: implementing robots in supervisory roles requires careful consideration of psychological factors, including perception as authority figures, trust-building, and potential resistance to following orders.
As organizations navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of workplace automation, this research suggests that the most effective approach may be one that leverages the strengths of both human and robotic leadership, rather than viewing automation as a complete replacement for human supervision.
Did this article help you?
If you found this piece useful, please consider supporting our work with a small, one-time or monthly donation. Your contribution enables us to continue bringing you accurate, thought-provoking science and medical news that you can trust. Independent reporting takes time, effort, and resources, and your support makes it possible for us to keep exploring the stories that matter to you. Together, we can ensure that important discoveries and developments reach the people who need them most.