A new study argues that companies chasing full automation may be missing the real competitive advantage: people and robots working together. Researchers say collaborative approaches can boost performance, innovation and employee loyalty.
A new study led by researchers from Binghamton University’s School of Management argues that the real power of automation lies not in swapping humans for robots, but in pairing them. The researchers say organizations can create more value, stronger teams and more loyal employees when they design work so that people and robots complement each other.
The study, published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, comes as major employers rapidly expand automation. Amazon has publicly discussed ambitious robotics goals, and at Hyundai’s auto plant in Georgia, more than 1,000 robots already work alongside about 1,500 people.
The research team set out to understand what that kind of human-robot interface means for organizations. They ultimately focused on how robots change the way people work together and how that affects performance and competitive advantage.
In the paper, the authors write, “Simply put, deploying robots in a collaborative manner with humans can alter social dynamics in ways that encourage unit members to feel, act and think together,” and, “By leveraging these resources through the deployment of robots in collaborative settings, organizations can not only generate additional economic value from their human capital but also improve their ability to capture a greater share of that value in the competitive market.”
In other words, when robots are used as partners and tools that extend human abilities, they can strengthen teamwork and make it harder for competitors to copy what a company does well. When robots are used mainly to cut labor costs, rivals can often imitate that strategy quickly.
The team initially wanted to look at how robots affect leadership, according to corresponding author Chou-Yu (Joey) Tsai, the Osterhout Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship in Binghamton’s School of Management. They soon realized the bigger story was how robots reshape the organization as a whole.
The researchers describe two broad ways companies tend to think about robots. One is a substitute view: robots are installed to take over tasks or entire roles once done by people. The other is a complementary view: robots are introduced to work with people, helping them do their jobs better, faster or more safely.
Both approaches can improve efficiency and productivity, the study notes. But organizations that lean into the complementary view are more likely to build a stronger sense of commitment among employees. Workers are more inclined to stay and engage when they see technology as support, not as a threat.
Tsai argues that this is also a smarter long-term strategy.
“The most successful organizations will find a way to extract the best value from these technologies to achieve their unique goals,” he said in a news release. “If you’re focused on going up against other companies by introducing robots to replace some key roles traditionally carried out by human employees, that’s not always the best strategic thinking because your competitors could easily do the same thing.”
The study emphasizes that how robots are integrated into daily work matters as much as whether they are adopted at all. On-the-job learning remains critical, the authors say, because managers and teams often need time and experimentation to figure out which tasks are best suited for automation and which are central to human growth and motivation.
Delegating tasks that provide meaning, autonomy or chances to build mastery entirely to machines can backfire. According to the researchers, that move can undermine employees’ mental health and erode the very performance gains companies hope to achieve with automation.
Co-author Rory Eckardt, an associate dean for faculty research in Binghamton’s School of Management, noted that the public conversation about automation has been too narrow.
“Discussion of AI and robots often centers on adoption speed, workplace disruption and job displacement,” he said in the news release. “Our paper shifts attention to complementary integration by considering when these technologies strengthen teamwork and coordination, improve the work environment, and support value creation and competitive advantage.”
To illustrate what complementary integration looks like, the study points to examples where robots enhance, rather than replace, expert human work.
In one scenario, a research and development team uses robotic systems to analyze complex data sets. The machines handle massive volumes of information and pattern recognition, while human researchers focus on framing questions, interpreting results and deciding what to try next. The combination makes the team more effective and helps members coordinate their efforts.
In another example, hospital staff use surgical robots to gain high-definition 3D views and perform extremely delicate procedures that go beyond the natural limits of the human hand. Surgeons still plan and guide the operation, but the robot extends what they can safely do. This kind of partnership can improve patient outcomes while reinforcing the value of skilled medical professionals.
The study suggests that when employees see robots as tools that help them succeed and grow, their loyalty to the organization can increase. They are more likely to feel that the company is investing in them, not just in machines.
Co-author Shelley Dionne, the dean of Binghamton’s School of Management, noted that the rise of robotics has transformed her own field.
“When I began my research career in leadership and organization science, I could have never predicted that technology would advance to the point where we’re researching the impact of robots on leadership development and organization effectiveness,” she said. “But now it informs how we think about the future of workforce development and employee performance, no matter what type of organization we consider.”
The research team also included scholars from Creighton University, Cornell University, National Chengchi University in Taiwan and South Dakota State University.
While the study does not offer a one-size-fits-all formula, its message is clear: the future of work is not a simple choice between humans or robots. For organizations hoping to stand out rather than just keep up, the real opportunity lies in designing workplaces where people and machines bring out the best in each other.
Source: Binghamton University