The growing use of collaborative robots in the workplace may pose significant psychosocial risks to workers’ mental health and their job security, but there are ways for organizations to smooth the transition, according to research from the Monash University Business School.

Once confined to science fiction, collaborative robots, or cobots, are rapidly reshaping the Australian workplace, handling everything from heavy machinery to delicate surgical tasks.

Automation, including cobots, is predicted to increase annual productivity growth in Australia by 50% to 150%. These technologies have the potential to add a further $170–600 billion per year to GDP by 2030, according to the National Robotics Strategy.

While cobots are often portrayed as increasing efficiency and speed, and providing a safe and reliable means to reduce physical workplace risk, less is known about the hidden psychosocial risks employees may be facing.

Monash Business School Professor Herman Tse and his research team found psychosocial hazards, such as job insecurity and role ambiguity, are common issues that affect workers as part of the growing use of collaborative workspace technologies, such as cobots.

“Workers often perceive cobots as potential threats to their job stability, especially when collaboration between humans and machines is minimal; lower collaboration may be perceived as a strategy to automate work and replace operators with machines. This perception can lead to increased stress and decreased trust in new technologies,” Professor Tse said.

To support a smooth transition of cobots in the workplace, and reducing these risks, the study emphasizes the urgent need for organizations to consider employees’ perception of collaborative robots and the stresses that arise from their growing use. It is hoped this would lead to a broader organizational understanding about the importance of involving workers in the implementation process of cobots.

The research team found engaging employees through participatory change management and consultation can significantly reduce psychosocial hazards and improve overall acceptance of new technologies.

Recommendations for Organizations:

• Engage workers: Involve employees from various units in the planning and implementation stages to address concerns and gather feedback.
• Enhance consultation: Provide clear communication about how cobots will impact job roles and responsibilities, and include workers in decision-making processes.
• Conduct risk assessments: Develop comprehensive risk assessments to identify and address potential psychosocial hazards associated with cobots.

The global cobot market is booming, reaching a staggering US $50 billion since 2018.

“This growth is being driven by increasing automation needs in sectors like manufacturing, automotive, electronics, health care, and food and beverages,” said Professor Tse.

“Cobots enhance productivity and address labor shortages, making them attractive for both large and small businesses, and advancements in cobot technology will further boost their adoption in Australian workplaces.”

The team’s findings underscore that while cobots offer significant benefits, including reducing physical strain and enhancing productivity, their introduction must be handled with care to avoid unintended psychosocial consequences.

By prioritizing worker engagement and consultation, organizations can ensure a smoother transition to collaborative robotics and safeguard employee well-being.

Celebrity chief executive officers (CEOs) do not necessarily take more business risks than other CEOs in the restaurant industry, but restaurants with celebrity CEOs can take more risks when celebrity status is combined with other factors, according to findings from researchers in the Penn State School of Hospitality Management.

The team found that restaurants with celebrity CEOs may exhibit more risk-taking behavior—in this case, the risks are financial and related to a restaurant’s investments—when these CEOs are hired from outside the company or if the business is increasingly active in franchising. Led by Seoki Lee, professor of hospitality management at Penn State, the researchers published their findings in Tourism Economics.

In context of this research, a celebrity CEO is not necessarily a movie star or someone with international recognition, but rather someone who acquires a lot of media attention in tandem with their restaurant. The researchers determined celebrity CEO status by the number of media mentions that included both a CEO’s and their company’s name.

“This has been an underexplored topic in hospitality and restaurant management,” Lee said. “When we think about the restaurant industry, we believe that this issue is more pronounced because CEOs in this industry exert more managerial discretion and have greater influence on strategic decisions and overall performance than CEOs in other industries.”

To learn the impact of celebrity CEO status on risk-taking behavior in the restaurant industry, the researchers gathered data from FACTIVA, a business information and research platform, that included 51 unique publicly traded restaurant companies and 108 distinct CEOs within the United States.

The researchers then examined the effects of celebrity status on risk-taking behavior via generalized estimating equations (GEE) modeling, a way to computationally analyze correlated data. The research team also investigated whether risk taking was associated with hiring celebrity CEOs from outside the company and expanding franchises of the restaurant chain.

The researchers used capital investment, research and development, and acquisition metrics to measure risk-taking behavior.

“CEOs are making a bet when it comes to dollars spent toward capital investment, research and development, and acquisition—not all that investment money will turn out to be beneficial to the business,” Lee said, explaining that the higher the capital investment, research and development spending, or acquisition levels, the higher the potential risk to the company.

When the researchers separated the sample into two groups—CEOs hired from outside of a company and CEOs promoted from within a company—they found that celebrity status aggravated risk-taking behavior for companies who externally hired CEOs.

Franchising also produced a significant moderating effect between celebrity status and risk-taking behavior. Restaurants typically franchise to help reduce risk, as this provides multiple income streams and reduces agency costs, according to Lee. Accordingly, increased franchising likely helps companies to absorb more risk-taking behavior from a CEO.

“If investors want to take more risks, they can use this franchising, outside hire status and celebrity CEO information to develop their own investment portfolio or modify their current investment portfolio.” Lee said. “They can gain insight into which restaurants may act with more risk than others.”

Lee said companies should consider their strategies and how risk averse they want to be in the hiring process for CEOs. For example, if a company wants to potentially lessen risk-taking behavior from its CEO, it could look to hire internally rather than externally.

“Shareholders, a board of directors or the hiring committee should have their own process and preference regarding risk-taking behavior when hiring for a CEO position,” Lee said. “When companies hire a CEO, especially one from outside of the company, then they should look at candidates’ celebrity status to make sure it matches their preferred risk-taking behavior.”