Organisations that view robots merely as cost-cutting replacements for human workers are sacrificing long-term competitive advantage, according to a new framework published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Researchers from Binghamton University and colleagues argue that the prevailing “substitute view” — in which machines simply replace human labour — is strategically flawed. While replacing a chef with a burger-flipping robot might yield immediate efficiency, the study warns that such gains are easily replicated by competitors, leaving the firm with no lasting edge.
Instead, the authors propose a “Human Capital Robotic Integration” (HCRI) framework, urging leaders to design workflows where robots amplify rather than displace human skill.
The substitution trap
The paper highlights the limitations of the “substitute view”, citing examples such as a Boston restaurant deploying robots to prepare meals in under three minutes, or a hamburger-cooking robot capable of assembling 360 burgers an hour. While these innovations reduce costs, they create “low-knowledge-intensive” environments that are easy to copy.
“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,” says Chou-Yu Tsai, associate professor of entrepreneurship at Binghamton University’s School of Management.
The core of the new framework lies in “social dynamics” — how robots influence the way human teams feel, act, and think. The study identifies three critical “emergent states” that effective human-robot teams develop:
- Affective states: Robots can influence team cohesion. The paper notes research showing that robots that express vulnerability or admit errors can foster trust and reduce conflict among human colleagues.
- Behavioural states: Robots can improve coordination. In hospital pharmacies, for instance, dispensing robots were found to reshape “boundary relations”, improving communication between pharmacists and technicians.
- Cognitive states: Shared mental models allow teams to adapt faster, with robots helping to develop “unit memory” and shared cognition.
The researchers argue that deep collaboration creates “social complexity”, a formidable barrier to entry for competitors. While robotic hardware is a commodity available to anyone, the specific “collaborative dance” between a human team and their robotic tools is unique to the firm.
This phenomenon creates “causal ambiguity”, making it difficult for rivals to decode exactly why a firm is successful, protecting the organisation’s market position in a way that simple automation cannot.
Risks of ‘discomplementarity’
However, the shift to collaboration is not without risk. The authors warn of “discomplementarity,” in which poor integration harms existing team dynamics. They cite reports indicating that injury rates have been higher in Amazon warehouses utilising robots compared to those without, suggesting that an overemphasis on efficiency can overlook human safety.
Privacy also remains a critical hurdle for trust. The study notes that users of food delivery robots were largely unaware that the machines’ camera sensors stored video data for up to 60 days, raising significant ethical questions for widespread deployment.
