Report links tech such as AI, wearables, biometrics, robots to lower quality of life
Whenever new tech promises to revolutionize the workplace, much attention or concern is devoted to the potential impact on job loss. Whether it was the printing press back in the 1500s or the personal computer in the 1980s, automation and digitization can be considered a threat to employment.
The same is true with the arrival of artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI, as massive job losses have been predicted worldwide, along with a huge demand for upskilling and new skills to adapt to the new tech.
But what about the impact on employees’ quality of life?
A new study out of the U.K. finds that the same technology can have both positive and negative impacts, such as improving flexibility while also increasing surveillance.
As a result, a 'one-size-fits all' view of workplace technologies is insufficient, says the report, based on the results of a survey with over 6,000 participants, along with focus groups from people in different sectors in the UK.
On the other hand, a future of “good automation” is possible, with new technologies improving job quality, life quality and wellbeing — but this will take concerted action and alignment across different departments and domains.
“It’s not in the interest of all employers to prioritize productivity and assume wellbeing goals are kind of a tradeoff — it doesn't need to be like that,” says Magdalena Soffia, postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for the Future of Work in Cambridge, U.K. and lead author of the report.
“We know that wellbeing goals can advance hand in hand with productivity goals. And there's actually more recent research proving the… links between having happier and less stressed employees and firm productivity and performance outcomes.”
Five dimensions to measuring wellbeing
The measure of wellbeing used in Briefing Paper: What impact does exposure to workplace technologies have on workers’ quality of life? covers five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression.
To measure technology exposure, participants were asked about their interaction with four types of technologies in the context of work, on a five-point scale from “never” to “always.” These included:
- Digital information or communications tech (ICTs) such as laptops, tablets, smartphones and real-time messaging
- Wearable and remote-sensing technologies, such as CCTV cameras, proximity cards, smartwatches and GPS devices
- Software tech using AI and machine learning (MI) such as text mining, speech recognition, biometrics and data analysis and programming software
- Automated tools, equipment, machines and robotic tech such as autonomous robots, self-driving vehicles, drones, handheld monitors, 3D printers and smart whiteboards.
Over 60% of respondents said they interact with digital ICTs, while about 25% interact with newer types of tech: 20% of wearables, 21% with AI software and 24% with robotics.
And overall, frequents users of digital ICTs reported a higher quality of life than no users.
But frequent users of wearables, AI software or robotics reported a lower quality of life than no users, found the U.K. survey.
The findings are consistent with research that connects ICT tools to enhanced work efficiency, motivation, communication with co-workers and higher job satisfaction, say the researchers.
These tools “broadly enhance and improve communication and access to information, and improve learning opportunities as well,” says Soffia.
“And they allow us to work more flexibly and… bring more agency in our work, like applying our own ideas, liberating time for being a bit more creative and being involved in more decision making.”
All of that improves our sense of efficiency and achievement with work, she says, and the feeling that our work is being useful.
Newness of tech creates fear, lack of control
That could be one of the big reasons why certain tech can cast a negative light on quality of life, says Soffia. The newness of the tools, meaning they are not yet well-established or widespread in the workforce, can lead to an emotional response.
“There might be a very important element of fear. And it's that basically humans don't like change and it takes time and effort to get used to new processes and new tools. And that process may be stressful… and [give you] the sense that you're no longer in control, that it's the machine that’s in control and that all your efficiency, your productivity targets are now determined by a machine.”
That sense of fear and stress can be exacerbated when the systems fail or there are technical errors that employees don’t know how to fix, she says.
Also of concern? While new technologies like AI can improve the work process, they can also make workers feel like their productivity goals and targets “are now decided by the machines, and that intensifies the work,” says Soffia.
In many cases, although the newer technology may lead to greater efficiency, that extra time may be used to increase workload, she says.
“That ends up adding up to... less blurred boundaries between your free time and working time, which makes working life much more intensified. And, of course, it fits into your levels of stress and anxiety [and] your physical health as well.”
Increased monitoring decreases wellbeing
There's also, of course, concerns about privacy and increased monitoring, which may feed on anxiety levels, says Soffia.
“[That] compounds as well with more impersonal communications and interactions, which end up eroding the social climate at work and that climate of trust and camaraderie in the workplace — and all of that we think is probably impacting on workers’ quality of life.”
Research has shown that when you monitor employees and attempt to manage their productivity, it actually backfires, says Tara Behrend, John Richard Butler II endowed professor at the School of Human Resources and Labor Relations at Michigan State University.
“And not only does it not help productivity, but it increases stress and causes people to act in ways that are counterproductive in an attempt to circumvent what's being monitored,” she says.
“Monitoring can be used for good — I mean, it can be used to improve safety or to improve the development and training — but you can't collect data and monitor people for safety purposes, and then turn around and use that information to punish them for doing something wrong, or it won't have the safety benefit that it could have.”
Fears of job loss ‘a real thing’
The risk or perceived risk of job loss is also a huge factor in depressing people’s quality of life, says Soffia.
“An accountant, for instance, is very aware of how workers in their industry are being directly replaced and displaced by new technologies — but also by proxy. So you might be working at a completely different role, but you're seeing that that one of your peers… is being displaced by a new AI tool.
“So that element about job insecurity and fears of job loss is a real thing. And may be driving lots of the negative impacts that we're seeing.”
Most jobs are not replaceable by AI, but they will be transformed by AI, says Behrend.
“There's no job that is fully replaceable. Software developers who think that they can create AI tools to replace workers don't have full understandings of what those jobs involve,” she says, citing the example of self-driving trucks,” she says.
“The truck drivers don't just drive in a straight line on a highway; they also unload cargo, they manage relationships with vendors, they navigate low visibility and bad weather and unexpected delays and traffic — the AI can't do any of those things.
“And if you attempt to take the human out of that equation, now you're in a really tough spot of managing all those other things that the human does.”
Fundamentals of management haven’t changed
The punch line here is that the fundamentals of management in organizations haven't changed because there are new technologies, says Behrend.
“Treating workers with respect, understanding what they do, designing work thoughtfully to best take advantage of human capabilities and technological capabilities, communicating clearly with people, continuing to develop them and provide them with leadership that is not toxic — none of those things are new concepts.
“But the importance of them, I think, is receiving the attention because we're seeing these new harms and new consequences of the new technologies.”
That was seen, for example, during the pandemic when a lot of people started working remotely for the first time, and managers who didn't know how to manage remote workers “panicked: and started using lots of surveillance and monitoring to try to figure out what they were doing, she says.
“That's not a good way of managing people. And it didn't become a good way of managing people just because there was a pandemic, so trusting people to do good work, evaluating them on the quality of their work, instead of micromanaging every little thing they do — this has always been known to be the better way.”
Why ‘good automation’ makes sense
The U.K. researchers say that a future of “good automation” is possible, with new technologies improving job quality, life quality and wellbeing, “but this will take concerted action and alignment across different departments and domains.”
That means automation processes and technological innovation processes that are human-centred, says Soffia.
“Basically, it’s being aware that all these processes and the impact that technology can have on wellbeing can be positive — so it can be human-centred, it can be deployed, designed, and developed in a way that puts individuals and workers at the forefront, and their wellbeing.”
Their data is also showing strong correlations and positive associations between institutional factors, like whether you have a human resource philosophy that is more wellbeing-centred than efficiency centred, “that is significantly associated with the chances of getting more positive changes in the nature of work,” she says.
“The same technology could be adopted to exert more surveillance and monitoring over your employees but it could also be adopted to improve your employees’ sense of agency and efficiency or flexibilities. So, it really depends on where you put your priority, the employer, and what value you want to create from that technological system.”
