The emergence of social robots: Adding physicality and agency to technology

Abstract

This Perspective Paper discusses a special case of digitalization, namely social robots. Adding sociophysical and agentic properties to robots is likely to trigger new organizational and work dynamics. Despite high market expectations and increasing interest in robotics-related and broader interdisciplinary outlets, robotic technologies have attracted surprisingly little attention in the leading management outlets, thus leaving a gap in the existing high-impact management literature. This paper tries to fill in some of this void by discussing the commercial relevance of robotics and by identifying three main roles that social robots fulfill in real-life organizations. These roles set the directions for future and rigorous studies. Practical and policy implications identify some concerns relevant for decision-makers who seek to shape and steer robotics development and implementation.

Full text

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
0923-4748/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
The emergence of social robots: Adding physicality and agency
to technology
John P. Ulhøi
a
, Sladjana Nørskov
b
,
*
a
Department of Management, Aarhus University, Denmark
b
Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University, Denmark
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Social robots
Agency
Work
Collaboration
Robot roles
ABSTRACT
This Perspective Paper discusses a special case of digitalization, namely social robots. Adding
sociophysical and agentic properties to robots is likely to trigger new organizational and work
dynamics. Despite high market expectations and increasing interest in robotics-related and
broader interdisciplinary outlets, robotic technologies have attracted surprisingly little attention
in the leading management outlets, thus leaving a gap in existing high-impact management
literature. This paper tries to ll in some of this void by discussing the commercial relevance of
robotics and by identifying three main roles that social robots fulll in real-life organizations.
These roles set the directions for future and rigorous studies. Practical and policy implications
identify some concerns relevant for decision-makers who seek to shape and steer robotics
development and implementation.
1. Introduction
Digitalization alters the sociotechnical structures that are mediated by digitized artifacts and relationships, affecting the boundaries
between the physical and digitalized materiality (Orlikowski, 2007; Yoo et al., 2012). The emergence of robots in the domains of
human and social interactions pushes these boundaries even further. However, the managerial dimension of robotics engineering and
technology is, regrettably, underdeveloped, lacking both attention by management scholars and empirical underpinnings. To thor-
oughly advise managers and policy-makers, attention should be givennot only to what is technologically feasible but also to what is
socially desirable and culturally sustainable, including addressing the possible side-effects of this technology (Ulhøi and Nørskov,
2020).
From the technology side of the technology-society equation, it is unlikely that ethical, social and/or cultural aspects will attract
much attention (ˇ
Sabanovic, 2010, Seibt, 2016). Leaving out such important facets of organizational life may prevent or inhibit the
development of new regulations to remedy adverse effects. What makes the introduction of robots in a human and social context
particularly interesting is that these physically present and socially situated machines evoke a human tendency to treat them socially,
the way humans treat other humans (Reeves and Nass, 1996). The three-dimensional character and presence of social robots combined
with their social and interactional affordances may elicit profoundly different human perceptions, reactions and interactions compared
with other virtual agents (Dumouchel and Damiano, 2017). Robots appear in both work and everyday contexts (Jung and Hinds,
2018), and people increasingly “interact with robots in the role of designers, users, observers, assistants, collaborators, competitors,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jpu@mgmt.au.dk (J.P. Ulhøi), norskov@btech.au.dk (S. Nørskov).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jengtecman
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2022.101703
Received 11 April 2019; Received in revised form 12 August 2022; Accepted 14 August 2022

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
2
customers, patients or friends” (Dautenhahn, 2007, p. 684).
This Perspective Paper discusses social robots and their implications for teams and organizations and is structured as follows. To
indicate some of the economic signicance of robotics technology in general, the next section briey sketches out some market ex-
pectations. We then show that until now, this topic seems to have stayed ‘under the radar’ of leading management journals, suggesting
that the topic has yet to be embraced by the scholarly management community. Relevant research avenues and potential implications
associated with emerging robotic innovations for organizational and management research are identied and discussed. Before
concluding, outlook and policy concerns are briey addressed.
2. Robotics – an overlooked topic in the top-tier management literature
According to ISO,
1
industrial robots are automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulative and programmable
in three or more axes, which can be either xed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications. Service robots perform
useful tasks for humans or equipment excluding industrial automation applications (ISO 8373:2012) and they include personal and
professional service robots
2
(usually operated by a human operator). Intelligent robots refer to robots “capable of performing tasks by
sensing its environment and/or interacting with external sources and adapting its behavior” (ibid.). Social robots are designed to
interact with humans and operate in human environments with people (Breazeal et al., 2008). It thus follows that a robot cannot
qualify as a social robot if it fails to interact with humans in a natural way (Mohammad and Nishida, 2009). Fong et al. (2003a)
introduced the term “socially interactive robots” and expected them to “express and/or perceive emotions, communicate with
high-level dialog, learn/recognize models of other agents, establish/maintain social relationships, use natural cues (gaze, gestures,
etc.), exhibit distinctive personality and character, [and] may learn/develop social competencies” (p. 145).
After six years of global growth, in 2019, there was a drop of 12% in industrial robot installations. This development was enabled
by: (i) trade conicts between China and the U.S., and (ii) automotive and electrical/electronics industries’ difcult economic situation
(IFR, 2020a). Although the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to further affect industrial robot sales in the short run, IFR (2020a)
predicts excellent perspectives in the medium and long run. In a recent assessment from Statista (2020), the demand for advanced
robotics in the manufacturing industry is expected to have an annual growth rate of 46% over the next four years, while service robots
are expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of approximately 16% (Fortune Business Insight, 2020). Statistics on service
robots, including social robots, categorize robots according to application area rather than type of robot. Global sales of service robots
for professional use rose by 32% in 2019 and are expected to continue growing by over 30% yearly to reach 537,000 units in 2023
despite of the COVID-19 pandemic (IFR, 2020b). In fact, the pandemic has increased the demand for service robots (ibid.).
Service robots are increasingly spreading to different urban, social and assistive domains (Torres, 2016), from health care (Nejat
et al., 2009) to education (Reicht-Stiebert and Eyssel, 2015). While the market potential looks attractive, investments in robotics
start-ups appear to be a high-risk business investment area. The development of robots has typically been characterized by ‘solutions
looking for problems’, or put differently, a development pushed by technology rather than pulled by the market. A white paper
identied ve central challenges that are associated with the high failure rate of robotics start-ups: (i) lack of business essentials, (ii)
poor market t and timing, (iii) bad user experiences and integration, (iv) misaligned investors and partners, and (v) focus on the
wrong problem (Fresh Consulting, 2020, p. 4). This suggests that the speed of development may be hampered unless more attention is
given to a sufcient ‘business priming’ of new social robotics ventures as well as the social and cultural desirability and sustainability of
the technologies they develop.
Despite a clear practical interest, robots have not yet attracted much scholarly interest in the leading management journals. For a
“new” or recently emerged topic of academic relevance, being published in the top-tier journals of the discipline in question signies
that the topic has been accepted as important and relevant (apart from measuring up with high academic quality standards).
Consequently, a focused search for journal articles using the keywords “robot” and “robotics” in leading management journals was
conducted. We completed a scoped literature search up to January 2021. We used what is termed a scoping review technique (Grant
and Booth, 2009) to assess the scope of available research. It aims at identifying the nature and extent of research evidence (within
specied constraints) and shares generic characteristics of a systematic review with regard to systematics, transparency and repli-
cability (ibid., p. 101). We included studies where robot technology is physically collocated and has a physical embodiment, which are
the essential traits of social robots.
More specically, our search included the following management journals (all included in the Financial Times Top 50): Academy of
Management Review (AMR), Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ), Journal of Man-
agement (JOM), Journal of Management Studies (JMS), Management Science (MS), Organization Science (OrgSci), Organization
Studies (OS), Research Policy (RP), Human Relations (HR), Human Resource Management Journal (HRMJ), and Strategic Manage-
ment Journal (SMJ). The search resulted in the identication of surprisingly few studies, which are listed in Table 1.
Overall, the few available studies in top-tier management journals (Table 1) have focused on how rms develop robotic tech-
nologies, investigating how the robotics industry has developed over time, how new products are developed in the industry, how
knowledge is acquired and how innovativeness is promoted. Only very recently has an interest in the use of robotic technology in the
workplace and how it affects work-related processes and outcomes begun to emerge. Of great importance are the contexts in which
robots are used, and here we encounter only a few studies investigating the effects of robots on individual, team and organizational
1
ISO 8373 (2012). Robots and robot devices – vocabulary, https://www.iso.org/standard/55890.html (accessed October 10, 2017).
2
Include mobile servant robots, physical assistant robots and person carrier robots (ISO 13482:2014).
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
3
Table 1
Published articles in leading management journals addressing robotics.
Topic Author Journal Methodology Key ndings
Futuristic visions of
organizations
Ericson (1972) AMJ Conceptual The article envisions and discusses cybernetic
organizations. A key task of management is to
create an emerging organization that is capable
of responding naturally to system dynamics, thus
emancipating employees.
Programmable automation
and process innovation
Collins et al.
(1988)
AMJ A longitudinal study of 54 manufacturing
establishments during the period 1973–1981
Organizations with technologically advanced
production systems are less likely to adopt
programmable automation technologies than
organizations with less advanced production
systems.
The innovation system of
Japanese robotics
Kumaresan and
Miyazaki (1999)
RP The U.S. patent DB; Compendex Engineering
database (scientic publications);
International trade data from International
Federation of Robotics; Annual data of Japan
Robotic Association
The analysis of the three poles of Science,
Technology and Market (STM) shows that the
Japanese robotics innovation system has
maintained a strong position in the M and T
poles since the 1970 s, and that it has maintained
a positive development trend in all three poles
compared to Europe and the U.S.. The industrial
robots have reached a declining stage in their life
cycle in the S and T poles, and fewer new robots
are introduced in the M pole. Mobile and micro-
robots exhibit a positive trend in the S and T
poles and a growing market potential.
Knowledge and its effect on
innovativeness in
industrial robotics rms
Katila (2002) AMJ A longitudinal study of 131 robotics rms
(1985–1997). Data: the U.S. patent database,
annual reports, databases, Predicasts F&S
Index, and industry studies.
Old intraindustry knowledge has a negative
impact on a rm’s innovativeness, while old
extraindustry knowledge has a positive effect on
innovativeness. The quantity of extraindustry
knowledge search intensies the positive effect
that was found.
Industrial robotics rms’
search and problems in
relation to creating new
products
Katila and Ahuja
(2002)
AMJ 124 rms (78 Japanese, 27 American, 19
European). Data: the U.S. patent database,
annual reports, Predicasts F&S Index, trade
journals and industry reports
Search is a two-dimensional construct consisting
of search scope and search depth. A combination
of search scope and search depth increases the
likelihood of creating new, unique products.
Managing innovation through exploitation
(search depth) not only entails renement and
efciency but also new knowledge creation.
Robotic innovations and
boundary dynamics of
three occupational
groups
Barret et al.
(2012)
OrgSci Two hospital pharmacies in the UK. Data: 20
days of observations, 41 interviews, ve
project meetings, documents such as health
care policies, robot instruction manuals, and
pharmacy procedural documentation
Boundary relations among three occupational
groups (pharmacists, technicians and assistants)
were recongured with the introduction and
implementation of a dispensing robot in their
daily work practices. This resulted in changes
related to the workers’ jurisdictions, skills,
visibility and status.
The diffusion of robotic
surgery
Compagni
(2015)
AMJ Italian health care system between
1999–2000. Data: 191 interviews and
archival data
An important motivational driver of peripheral
adopters of new robotic technologies was
claiming mastery of the technology to improve
social status by promoting the diffusion of
innovations with uncertain benets. By engaging
in practices of discursive persuasion and skills
reproduction these adopters positioned
themselves as “exemplary users” to obtain social
gains.
The driving forces behind
the service robot
industry in Japan
Lechevalier
et al. (2015)
RP 15,043 patents applied between 1993–2004
in the eld of robot technologies in Japan; 21
interviews with rms, research institutes,
business associations, ministries and public
institutes; sectoral reports
The formation of the service robot industry in
Japan was driven by large incumbents (rather
than by entrants), challenging the traditional
assumption regarding the role of established
rms in relation to innovation and the
emergence of new industry.
Robotic telepresence in
intensive care
Beane and
Orlikowski
(2015)
OrgSci A 14-month eld study. Data: observations,
34 formal and 46 informal interviews
Introducing six telepresence robots in a teaching
hospital showed that doing night rounds through
robotic telepresence affected coordination
outcomes in both positive and negative ways.
The researchers found that such differences in
intensication relied upon whether preparatory
work was more or less distanced from the
bedside.
Moral implications of using
‘warrior robots’ for the
Bloomeld and
Vurdubakis
(2015)
OS Conceptual An autonomous warrior robot is a moral actor
and a material expression of the moral conicts,
which is used to carry out organized destruction.
(continued on next page)
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
4
practices, processes, performance and effectiveness.
We, therefore, focus on those of the identied studies that are the most central to the purpose of this Perspective Paper, namely,
those that address robotics in the workplace. At the organizational level, early research emphasized that programmable automation
tends to seriously alter the relationship between technology and structure, suggesting that the existing or previous structure may prove
inappropriate to adequately utilize programmable automation (Collins et al., 1988). In the words of Barrett et al. (2012), “the con-
ditions and consequences of integrating such digital innovations [robotics] into the workplace are important areas of inquiry” (p.
1448). This work examined how a pharmaceutical-dispensing robot affected work, interests and relations of three occupational groups
within two UK hospital pharmacies. They found it particularly useful to focus on different but nonetheless interdependent forms of
materiality—digital and mechanical—to come to grips with what constitutes robotic innovations. Their study showed that the use of
robots had an effect on the workow, workspaces, roles and tasks performed by technicians, assistants and pharmacists, leading to
shifts in skills, autonomy, authority, control and social structures. All of this resulted in a new set of boundary relations between the
occupational groups. Contrary to the pharmacist and technicians, who experienced more time for research (pharmacist) and more
importance (technicians), the assistants reported a loss of authority and control.
Beane and Orlikowski’s (2015) examination of six telepresence robots introduced to assist in the performance of a hospital adds to
this line of inquiry. The study showed that performing night rounds through robotic telepresence affected coordination outcomes in
both positive and negative ways. The researchers found that such differences in intensication relied upon whether preparatory work
was more or less distanced from the bedside. Beane (2019) further revealed that the introduction of robotic surgical practice reduced
learning opportunities, which led trainees to engage in ‘shadow learning’ and resulted in their hyperspecialization. Finally, Sergeeva
et al. (2020) showed how a surgical robot affected the key relational and dialogical practices of surgical teams, which led to new role
congurations and work coordination. Their study suggests an analytical approach that goes beyond the robot’s materiality to expose
how engagement with a robot alters the embodied performance of work and role congurations.
In contrast to Beane’s (2019) study on the consequences of robotic surgical practice within a community of urological surgeons and
medical residents (physicians vs. trainees) and Barrett et al.’s (2012) pharmaceutical-dispensing robot study, where those with the
least specialization and lower-status tended to experience the most negative consequences from the introduction of robots, a study by
Sergeeva et al. (2020) showed that lower-status occupational groups (nurses and residents) could actually shape the new, emerging
circumstances to promote their skills, e.g., instead of accepting being demoted to a support function at the operating table, residents
demanded to be present by the surgeon’s console to learn how to operate the robot. This may indicate that the effect of new tech-
nologies on work roles and work coordination may also be inuenced by cultural differences (U.S. vs. the Netherlands) and their
different approaches to authority. Together, these studies show that employing social robots in organizations may lead to (i) unex-
pected transformation of work and organizing, (ii) unintentional limiting of employees’ exposure to work environments and practices
that enhance learning rather than suppress it, (iii) changing role congurations, and (iv) shifting status hierarchies. Such effects may,
in turn, have unintended consequences for employee performance, well-being, creativity and organizational innovation, which we
further reect upon and elaborate on in the discussion section.
Table 1 (continued )
Topic Author Journal Methodology Key ndings
management of human
conict
More attention by organizational scholars is
necessary to account for how such sociotechnical
rearrangements of human conict work and with
what consequences with particular focus on
ethics and embodiment.
Internal knowledge and
technological shift in the
robotics industry
(Roy and Sarkar,
2015)
SMJ 141 manufacturers from the U.S., Europe
and Japan. Data: the U.S. patent data, trade
magazines, annual reports, Industrial Robots
- A Survey, Specications and Applications
of Industrial Robots in Japan, Robotics
Industry Directory etc.
In the inceptive years of a radical technological
change, having internal access to both upstream
component knowledge and downstream market
linkages makes rms better positioned to
identify what novel products they could develop
and how those could be developed with a radical
new technology.
Learning new skills in the
context of robotic
surgical practice
Beane (2019) ASQ A two-year ethnographic study at ve
hospitals. Data: observations (478 h), 62
interviews, and archival data
Using robots in surgery led to “shadow learning”
and hyperspecialization of residents, meaning
that residents did not develop the broader set of
skills that would typically be required in their
future jobs.
Robots and the future of jobs Raisch and
Krakowski
(2021)
OS Conceptual Develops the concept of ‘bounded automation’
to explain why low-skilled jobs might be likely to
proliferate, while the ‘good’ jobs will likely be
more difcult to obtain.
Embodiment and surgical
robots
Sergeeva et al.
(2020)
OrgSci A 25-month eld study in the surgical unit of
a Dutch hospital
Understanding how the embodied performance
is augmented or reduced by the introduction of a
surgical robot, and how these effects change
work coordination and role conguration.
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
5
2.1. Some examples of social robotics applications – taking over important functions in the workspace
Below, we focus our discussion on two important sectors that have adopted robots in the workplace – health care and education.
More specically, this choice is based on the following premises: (i) the selected sectors have experimented with and adopted robots
and (ii) the research community has been eager to examine these developments. The rapid aging of the world’s population has placed
increased pressure on elderly care facilities and health care services (Broadbent et al., 2010). In response to this development, socially
assistive robots have been introduced to help elderly citizens with, for instance, various cognitive and physical impairments (Pollack,
2005, Graf et al., 2009). These robots, however, are “not designed to (…) give assistance through social interaction to achieve progress
in, for example, convalescence, rehabilitation, and learning” (Bemelmans et al., 2012, p. 115). In a longitudinal study of Paro, a
seal-like robot, in a health service facility it was revealed that Paro improved the mood of the elderly and reduced their stress level and
depression (Wada et al., 2005). A follow-up study found that Paro strengthened the social ties and communication frequency among
the elderly in a care home (Wada et al., 2006), thus acting as a facilitator of social interaction and as a proxy for human contact that
many elderly people may lack. The latter use is intended to provide companionship and enrich older people’s quality of life (Mordoch
et al., 2013). Hebesberger et al.’s (2017) longitudinal study of a SCITOS robot placed in a permanent care hospital found, for example,
that the attitudes of elderly residents and staff toward robots differed. During the day, the residents showed an interest in the robot
and/or spoke to it. However, a signicant share of the staff expressed that they would not like to share their work with a robot. Both
groups seemed to agree that robots should not take over caregiving tasks. Although studies report mainly positive effects of socially
assistive robots on the health and psychological well-being of elderly individuals, several reviews note that there is a need for more
robust studies to prove the effect and effectiveness of socially assistive robots (Abdi et al., 2018, Bemelmans et al., 2012, Broekens
et al., 2009).
Socially assistive robots have also been applied in autism treatment where they have been documented to have a positive effect on
children diagnosed with autism. Robots have been found to act as facilitators that are able to elicit prosocial behavior in children, i.e.,
establish and maintain a child’s social engagement with others (Feil-Seifer and Mataric, 2009). Robots in this study function as fa-
cilitators to improve the interaction between a child and its peers, siblings, parents, teachers, etc., and are able to inuence both a
child’s behavior and the social environment. Another important role that robots seem to play in autism treatment is the role of a proxy
for autistic children, helping them express certain emotions or desires (Scassellati et al., 2012). Similarly, robots have been designed
and tested for the purpose of enhancing patient-doctor communications. In one such study, an android robot dressed as a nurse was
placed as a bystander who nods and smiles at patients during their medical consultation with a doctor (Yoshikawa et al., 2011).
Approximately eight of ten patients either preferred the android’s presence or did not mind its presence. Using androids as bystanders
mimicking the behavior of patients has been found to harmonize human-human communication (Takano et al., 2008). In such ap-
plications, robots act as facilitators capable of enhancing communication but also as proxies for medical staff that may help create
psychological support and safety.
Another interesting area of application is the adoption of educational robotics in elementary, middle and high schools (Barreto and
Benitti, 2012). The variety of robot-related applications in education is remarkable, ranging from engaging users in simple robot
construction toolkits such as Lego bricks (Rosenblatt and Choset, 2000) to assistive social robots (Lee et al. 2011). In a review of the
research on social robots for learning, van den Berghe et al. (2018) found that children prefer robot-assisted learning to learning with a
human teacher or other types of technologies (e.g., tablets). In fact, robot-assisted learning was found to increase learning-related
emotions (learning motivation) across different types of learning, e.g., language, programming, drawing and interpreting graphs
(ibid.). An educational robot is typically designed as a collaboration partner rather than a “tool”. Breazeal et al. (2004) describe it as “a
social and collaborative process” (p. 1028). A student and a robot thus act as partners that perform a task to achieve a common goal
(learning). However, educational robots may also act as proxies for lecturers. For instance, a study on large-room teaching investigated
the teleoperated android Geminoid-DK in the role of a lecturer of 150 university students (Abildgaard and Sch¨
arfe, 2012). The robot
was rated high on performance but showed that male and female students seemed to express different expectations toward, for
instance, the consistency between the geminoid’s verbal and nonverbal communication.
A recent review of social robots for education looked into cognitive and affective outcomes when using robots in education
(Belpaeme et al., 2018). Their meta-analysis showed that “almost any […] social behavior of the robot aimed at increasing learning
outcomes has a positive effect” on both cognitive and affective outcomes (p. 5). Robots that personalize content during interaction with
users improved the users’ learning gains. In addition, robots that exhibit empathy, displaying congruent gaze and nonverbal imme-
diacy, showed a positive effect on both learning and affective outcomes (ibid.). With respect to cognitive outcomes, the review found
that social robots are able to perform nearly as well as human teachers and show great potential in teaching restricted topics.
Therefore, Belpaeme et al. (2018) concluded that “the benets of physical embodiment may lift robots above competing learning
technologies” (p. 7). Kanda et al. (2004) also suggested that social robots “should be designed to have attributes and knowledge in
common with their users” to maintain the necessary level of interaction between the students and the robot (ibid., p. 79). Thus, the
social and agentic nature of robots seems to be the key to promoting learning (Belpaeme et al., 2018).
3. Discussion and avenues for future research
An important disclaimer must be made. This Perspective paper has deliberately been based on a narrower focus on top-tier
management journals. This implies that if a broader focus had instead been chosen (e.g., based on a systematic literature review),
thus allowing for the inclusion of robotics-specializing journals and/or interdisciplinary journals, the picture would have changed as
‘more voices could be heard’. However, we have documented that among the ‘dominant’ voices in the eld of management, social
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
6
robotics do not seem to ‘exist’. Considering the readership of these top management outlets, their potential inuences in shaping and
determining what is (and is not regarded as) important can hardly be doubted.
Therefore, contrary to a systematic literature review, the completeness of a scoping review is determined by constraints. In this
case, the scope has been limited to FT Top 50-ranked management journals. Moreover, contrary to systematic literature reviews, where
quality assessment typically determines inclusion/exclusion, there are no similar quality assessment requirements for scoping reviews
(Grant and Booth, 2009). In our case, however, we have included studies where robot technology is physically collocated and has a
physical embodiment, which are the essential traits of social robots.
The examples from the previous section suggest that social robots serve different functions in their roles as (i) proxies, (ii) col-
laborators, and (iii) facilitators. As the impact of robots clearly extends beyond the individual who the robot interacts with, it is
necessary to expand the analysis to the levels of group and organization. Below, we discuss the three roles in the context of teams and
organizations and suggest some relevant questions for future research.
Robots as proxies: A key property of humanness is individual actions and social interactions. The theory of social cognition (Ban-
dura, 2001) refers to direct personal agency, collective or group agency based on people’s shared belief in their collective power to
deliver the desired results and proxy agency that relies on the acceptance of others to act on one’s behalf to secure the desired outcome.
This theory posits that agency encompasses the ability, belief systems, self-regulatory capacity and distributed arrangements that allow
for exercising personal inuence and/or interest. The personal mode refers to the employee as an individual (and how individuals
safeguard their own interests during the negotiation). The collective mode, on the other hand, refers to the collective (e.g., the team),
of which the individual is a part. The proxy mode is, however, a socially mediated form of agency, where the individual employee
accepts having other agents (e.g., union representatives) who they believe and/or accept are better at serving their interests (e.g.,
salary negotiation).
While human agents thus accept the use of proxy agency, it has only recently been considered whetherthe use of robots as proxies
may affect the perceived fairness of decision-related communications, e.g., in job interviews (Seibt and Vestergaard, 2018, Nørskov
et al., 2020) and conict negotiations (Druckman et al., 2021). Nørskov et al. (2022), for instance, nd that robots as proxies can act to
create awareness of biases in applicant selection and may thus, over time, positively impact organizational practices in which
discrimination is entrenched. This new idea of robots as fair proxies raises a number of questions, such as how a robotic proxy can best
be designed; how to ensure that the robotic proxy appears visually neutral, so that it does not cause any unintentional bias through its
functionality and physical appearance; whether the proxy should (primarily) be used to represent the ‘weak’ party that is at risk of
being treated less fairly or most likely to be exposed to discrimination (e.g., job applicant), or whether both communication parties (e.
g., the recruiter and the applicant) should be represented by a proxy; and how relevant stakeholders perceive organizations that
employ social robots in decision-making processes.
Furthermore, as remote working becomes more widespread, remote employees are likely to experience challenges related to how to
remain visible and relevant in their organizations. Research shows that employees working from home are more productive but less
likely to get promoted than their in-ofce coworkers (Bloom et al., 2015). Future research could examine whether robotic proxies
could improve this downside of remote work as well as whether a robotic proxy could increase employees’ visibility and signal a
greater commitment to the organization to ensure equal opportunity with respect to career advancement; when and where being
present via a robotic proxy could lead to better work and social interactions with managers and coworkers; and whether being present
via a robotic proxy could improve one’s chances of being assigned the most desirable tasks and projects. In general, using robots as
proxies in workplaces raises questions regarding what types of proxy roles could be valuable; which of these roles would be ethically
sound and psychologically, socially and economically benecial; and under what conditions employees will work most effectively
when the process involves robotic proxies.
Robots as collaborators (human-robot teams): As robots are now being used in various work contexts (Jung and Hinds, 2018), a
relevant avenue for management and organizational research is teams in which humans and robots work together. Similar to other
digital innovations, robots are capable of reconguring work roles and relations and triggering change with respect to occupational
boundaries, control and coordination of work (Barrett et al. 2012, Faraj et al., 2018). There is, however, a lack of insight into the
dynamics of human-robot work teams and a lack of understanding of the effects of social robots on team composition (e.g., member
characteristics and resources), team processes (e.g., trust, leadership behavior, decision-making, communication, cooperation, con-
ict, and social identity) and outcomes (e.g., effectiveness/performance, creativity, innovativeness). More insight into such issues can
help organizations understand under which conditions such teams are desirable and when they are best avoided.
Humanoid robots have been found to be more suitable than machine-like robots for situations that require people to delegate
responsibility because people are more likely to share responsibility with humanoid robots than with machine-like robots (Hinds et al.,
2004). Research anticipates that humanoid robots will be more applicable for carrying out complex and risky tasks because employees
may be more willing to delegate responsibility for such tasks to them (ibid.). However, as rightly pointed out by Robert (2018), the
speed of technological development and social applications far outpace theorizing with regard to how this development alters re-
lationships between humans and robots. We suggest that important questions remain to be answered, including whether, when and
why human-robot teams are desirable; what tasks human-robot teams would be appropriate for solving; what roles robot and human
team members should be assigned; and how to ensure a meaningful and motivating role for human members in such teams. Teams play
a crucial role in the performance and well-being of organizations and their members (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996), but how this can come
into effect in human-robot teams is still an open question that awaits investigation. Furthermore, while robot design tends to be based
on the designer’s preferences, a robot’s future role and interactional functionality tend to be rooted in the practices of the organization
in question (Rehm et al., 2018), pointing toward a lack of knowledge with regard to if and how robots integrate into existing practices
and with what implications.
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
7
Fong et al. (Fong et al., 2003a,b), for instance, propose human-robot collaboration in which humans act as a resource for robots by
providing assistance during cognition and perception. From an innovation management perspective, envisioning humans as resources
to technology may, for example, inhibit team creativity and innovation. If human team members are expected to compensate for
limitations associated with the autonomy offered by robots, as Fong et al. (Fong et al., 2003a) propose, the robot’s improvement in the
ability to reason about the relevant context and tasks will be limited to the extent and quality of input from the human collaborator.
Consequently, there is a need to submit such speculations to empirical tests.
Research suggests that robots should be able to establish a common ground with their users if the interaction between the two
parties is to be maintained (Kanda et al., 2004) and if their communication is to be effective (Kiesler, 2005). To establish a common
ground between people and robots, the robot should, via social cues, lead people to automatically estimate its knowledge and function
domains (ibid.). However, the high autonomy of robots may, for example, act as an obstacle to creating a common ground because the
lack of transparency regarding the robot’s decision-making decreases the efciency of human-robot teams (Stubbs et al., 2007). This
raises the question of how the level of autonomy of a robot teammate affects internal team processes, such as workow interde-
pendence and internal coupling. Kanda et al. (2004) expect that common ground can be established if the robot reects attributes and
knowledge in common with its user. By selecting those that are similar to them, people reduce uncertainty. However, there is a risk of
creating too much homogeneity, which is detrimental to creativity. Therefore, future research needs to examine what attributes and
what particular knowledge are necessary to align to create common ground in human-robot teams while leaving enough space for
creativity and innovation.
Group social processes are typically studied in terms of shared cognition and shared emotions (Barsade, 2002). Research on
human-robot group dynamics shows that robots are able to affect the moods, emotions and behaviors of groups (Correia et al., 2018). A
recent review nds that even minor changes in robots’ nonverbal behavior may affect group behavior and interpersonal interactions
(Sebo et al., 2020), which calls for further empirical investigation of such changes and their effects on group processes and outcomes.
In human-robot teams, the human members’ emotional attachment to the team’s robotic member has been shown to have a positive
effect on team performance (You and Robert Jr., 2018). While robots may thus be able to promote performance, they may also affect
the extent to which human team members are able to form and develop relationships among themselves, thus putting them at risk of
social and emotional deskilling (Turkle, 2006, 2007, 2011). The exchange relationships between humans and robots in workplaces are
also likely to inuence the practical and social identities of humans and robots, as well as norms that are attached to those identities
(Nørskov and Nørskov, 2020). Future research should, therefore, examine whether and how a team’s collaboration with social robots
affects the opportunity for employees to engage in and benet from the socioemotional aspects of work, which are known to positively
affect work performance, the perceived meaningfulness of work and team members’ well-being.
Robots as facilitators: Employing social robots in organizations is likely to affect both process- and product-level innovation by, for
instance, inuencing the nature of practices and tasks that employees are expected to execute and the expertise required in that regard.
Faraj et al. (2018) suggest that intelligent technologies are likely to narrow the expertise domains of employees. Beane (2019), for
example, refers to hyperspecialization as a consequence of robot-based practices, such as robotic surgery. Such specialization arises
when technologies, such as surgical robotics, allow experts to reduce the involvement of trainees, which hampers the trainees’
learning, thus resulting in a declining supply of experts relative to demand. In Beane’s (2019) study, this situation forced residents to
nd alternative ways of acquiring robotic surgery skills, which resulted in the phenomenon of “shadow learning,” which is “an
interconnected set of norm- and policy-challenging practices enacted extensively, opportunistically, and in relative isolation that
allowed only a minority of robotic surgical trainees to come to competence” (ibid., p. 87). Consequently, those residents who ended up
with a highly specialized skillset did so at the expense of developing a broader skillset that was a likely requirement in their future jobs.
Thus, robotic technologies may act as facilitators or catalysts for the development and/or suppression of skills and expertise.
Beane’s (2019) study convincingly illustrates some of the key challenges of introducing novel, robotic-based practices in organizations.
Such practices generate the need for adjusting to the new working conditions while ensuring a sufcient supply of employees capable
of performing the work that the changing circumstances demand. To accomplish this, managers need to be aware of how learning
actually occurs in their organizations (Beane, 2019), and they need to ensure that the required skills (current and new ones) can
develop under new circumstances. How this is best done, however, requires further investigation and once again points to the urgency
of studying robots in their intended environments.
Recent research in human-robot interaction shows that robots, through verbal and nonverbal behaviors, are able to inuence and
shape group affective states (Utami and Bickmore, 2019, Alemi et al., 2016), which have been found to inuence team performance
and creativity (Collins et al., 2013, To et al., 2017). Robots have also been shown to inuence conversational group dynamics (Traeger
et al., 2020), group engagement and problem-solving performance (Tennent et al., 2019), and group identication and trust (Correia
et al., 2018), demonstrating the potential of robots as facilitators of desired states, processes and outcomes in teams. This potential,
however, must be understood in the complex workplace environment and with human well-being in mind to avoid the risk of treating
employees merely as instruments that are modulated and submitted to the needs of organizations in the name of technological
optimization (Nørskov, 2021). This raises questions related to which states, processes and outcomes are ethically acceptable and
socially desirable to facilitate during teamwork. Using robots as facilitators may, for instance, intensify the focus on team performance
for better or worse. Future research should therefore examine how a robot can facilitate desirable effects without trading off on
employees’ psychological and social needs and well-being. Depending on how facilitative robots are designed, they may increase
control over teamwork while decreasing the need for team managers. Research is required to understand the benets and drawbacks of
such potential effects.
Furthermore, to work successfully, teams need to learn how to deal with different types of action, and interpersonal and psy-
chological processes to maximize team-level outputs, such as task performance and creativity (Tang and Wang, 2017). On the one
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
8
hand, a robot could help a team navigate and facilitate such processes successfully. On the other hand, robotic facilitation may ‘rob’ the
team of important learning opportunities by making these processes much smoother than they typically would be, leaving the team
with less space to practice its conict management, interpersonal communication and collaboration skills. Hence, while the concept of
facilitative social robotics may possess the potential to live up to the “nonreplacement maxim”, i.e., using robots in line with the
collaboration principle rather than the replacement (of humans) principle (Seibt et al., 2018, p. 37), future research is yet to examine
how to ensure that robots as facilitators do not end up maximizing team performance at the expense of human team members’ social
and psychological needs and their development of relevant skillsets.
Future research addressing the above questions will not only develop and deepen our understanding of how to organize human-
robot teams but also how to design social robots depending on the context of which they are expected to be a part. Indeed, as Bar-
rett et al. (2012) have argued, it is crucial to understand “the multiplicity and variability of robot materialities, as these are entangled
with the multiple occupational groups found in contemporary workplaces” (p. 1463). Therefore, there is a need for ‘out-of-the-lab’
studies that examine robots in real-life settings to reveal how individuals in real-life organizations react to robots and how these
reactions will change social dynamics with the complexity it entails (Jung and Hinds, 2018).
4. Outlook, policy concerns and concluding remarks
At this point in time, there are very few eld studies from top-tier management journals that address how social robots may alter
human behavior, norms, and values as well as the regulatory regimes of societies. This, in turn, may lead to overlooking useful op-
portunities and/or experiencing unexpected side effects. In terms of technological research, contemporary research on human-robot
interaction does not automatically ensure that all relevant implications are addressed. In particular, the sociocultural and policy-
related implications tend to be forgotten in the quest for technological advances. The technocentric approach to robotics holds a
strong dominance within social robot design and development (ˇ
Sabanovic 2010, 2014). Robotics engineers involved in developing
social robots represent a relatively narrow portfolio of techno-engineering interests and expertise.
Therefore, there is a need for more work that integrates research on social robotics with research on management, innovation and
organizational behavior on the one hand and sociocultural, ethical, value-based and regulative issues on the other to prevent negative
implications of a completely unregulated social robotics development. If theory and methods from humanities and business research
remain outside the main scope of human-robot interaction research, the future development of this technology will continue to
overlook the important potential for innovation and possibilities for preventive adjustments (legal or ethical) of unintended conse-
quences of the technology.
In terms of practical implications, there is a need to better understand how social robots positively and/or negatively affect the
perceived meaningfulness of introducing social robots in organizations and other social settings to examine the associated effects on
social and moral commitments and responsibilities. The development of social robots, like many other technologies, seems to be ahead
of governmental regulation and control. World Economic Forum’s White Paper (2016) recommends that the best way to increase the
chances for positive outcomes of such technology development is to work with clear values and with basic human principles (e.g.,
human dignity, justice) and a focus on the common good. In this Perspective Paper, we have considered.
how future research could help ensure human well-being by considering nonreplacement of humans (Seibt et al., 2018) as a
foundation for the application of robots in work settings.
From a policy perspective, additional questions arise. Can and should social robots, for example, handle nonrational motifs such as
“politics” and “power struggles” between individuals and/or intangible issues such as leadership, vision, mission, needs and moti-
vations of employees equally well as human actors? While industrial robotics have already reduced labor demand (Acemoglu and
Restrepo, 2020, Acemoglu et al., 2020), similar effects are expected in relation to other types of robots (Ford, 2015). However, robotics
is not only a job destroyer; it is also a job creator (OECD, 2019). Such developments raise the question of how policy-makers may
prepare policies that address an increasingly redundant workforce and the need for reskilling and upskilling. The development of social
robotics challenges government agencies and other public institutions, pointing toward a growing need for reconsidering and renewing
existing laws, regulations, and policies related to issues, such as responsibility, privacy and security, and employee rights. As argued by
Seibt (2016), “currently we rst ask what social robots can do, and then what they should do – at a time when regulation may already
be too late.” As the increasing autonomy of articial agents proceeds, designers have no control of their collective behavior; this
responsibility gap suggests that the answer is to be found in moral practice and legislation (Matthias, 2004, p. 183) that need to be
addressed from an interdisciplinary perspective.
This Perspective Paper concludes that the technological advances behind social robotics have reached a stage where it is not so
much the technology itself that limits wider dissemination, but rather a lack of insight into and knowledge about how the introduction
of social robotics into the workplace affects employees, the nature of work, collaboration and organizational processes and structures,
managerial roles, employee well-being, career advancement, etc. From the point of view of organizations that adopt robots, man-
agement scholars can help by examining and clarifying how the development and implementation of robotics in workplaces should be
approached from organizational, managerial and strategic perspectives to help organizations and employees with this challenging
digital transition and transformation. Moreover, apart from securing the right time to market and t with existing business models,
increasing management research may also provide evidence that will be of use to the various key stakeholders in the labor market (e.g.,
employer and employee associations), so they can also bring their services in tighter alignment with the digital reality. From the point
of view of society, not all of the ‘darker sides’ of robotics can be handled by governmental regulation and control in a timely manner
but require more visible digital ethics that can help (i) expose unintended side effects and, thus, (ii) inform the market and subsequent
digital regulation and governance.
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
9
References
Abdi, J., Al-Hindawi, A., Ng, T., Vizcaychipi, M.P., 2018. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open 8 (2), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815.
Abildgaard, J.R., Sch¨
arfe, H., 2012. A geminoid as lecturer. In: Ge, S.S., Khatib, O., Cabibihan, J.J., Simmons, R., Williams, M.A. (Eds.), Social Robotics. ICSR 2012.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7621. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_41.
Acemoglu, D., Lelarge, C. and Restrepo, P., 2020. Competing with Robots: Firm-Level Evidence from France. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 110: 383–388.
Acemoglu, D., Restrepo, P., 2020. Robots and jobs: evidence from US labor markets. J. Political Econ. 128 (6), 2188–2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716.
Alemi, M., Ghanbarzadeh, A., Meghdari, A., Moghadam, L.J., 2016. Clinical application of a humanoid robot in pediatric cancer interventions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8 (5),
743–759.
Bandura, A., 2001. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
Barrett, M., Oborn, E., Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., 2012. Reconguring boundary relations: robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organ. Sci. 23 (5), 1448–1466.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.06399.
Barreto, F., Benitti, V., 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 58 (3), 978–988. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006.
Barsade, S.G., 2002. The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its inuence on group behavior. Adm. Sci. Q. 47 (4), 644–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912.
Beane, M., 2019. Shadow learning: Building robotic surgical skill when approved means fail. Adm. Sci. Q. 64 (1), 87–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0001839217751692.
Beane, M., Orlikowski, W., 2015. What difference does a robot make? the material enactment of distributed coordination. Organ. Sci. 26 (6), 1553–1573. https://doi.
org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1004.
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., Tanaka, F., 2018. Social robots for education: a review. Sci. Robot. 3 (21), 1–9. 〈http://hdl.handle.net/
1854/LU-8571588〉.
Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G.J., Jonker, P., de Witte, L., 2012. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J. Am. Med.
Dir. Assoc. 13 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002.
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., Ying, Z.J., 2015. Does working from home work? evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q. J. Econ. 130 (1), 165–218. https://doi.org/
10.1093/qje/qju032.
Bloomeld, B.P., Vurdubakis, T., 2015. Mors ex machina: technology, embodiment and the organization of destruction. Organ. Stud. 36 (5), 621–641. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0170840614556922.
Breazeal, C., Hoffman, G. and Lockerd, A., 2004. Teaching and working with robots as a collaboration. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on
Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), New York, NY. Vol. 3, 1028–1035. Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on
Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004.
Broekens, J., Heerink, M., Rosendal, H., 2009. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8 (2), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.4017/
gt.2009.08.02.002.00.
Breazeal, Cynthia, Takanishi, Atsuo, Kobayashi, Tetsunori, 2008. Social Robots that Interact with People. In: Siciliano, Bruno, Khatib, Oussama (Eds.), Springer
Handbook of Robotics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_59.
Broadbent, E., Kuo, I.H., Lee, Y.I., Rabindran, J., Kerse, N., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.A., 2010. Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. Telemed. e-Health 16
(5), 608–613. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2009.0171.
Collins, P.D., Hage, J., Hull, F.M., 1988. Organizational and technological predictors of change in automaticity. Acad. Manag. J. 31 (3), 512–543. 〈https://www.jstor.
org/stable/256458〉.
Collins, A.L., Lawrence, S.A., Troth, A.C., Jordan, P.J., 2013. Group affective tone: a review and future research directions. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 43–62. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.1887.
Correia, F., Mascarenhas, S., Prada, R., Melo, F.S. and Paiva, A., 2018. Group-based Emotions in Teams of Humans and Robots. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Chicago, IL, USA). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261–269. 〈https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171252〉.
Dumouchel, P., Damiano, L., 2017. Living With Robots. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674982840.
Dautenhahn, K., 2007. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 362 (1480), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2006.2004.
Druckman, D., Adrian, L., Damholdt, M.F., Filzmoser, M., Koszegi, S.T., Seibt, J., Vestergaard, C., 2021. Who is best at mediating a social conict? comparing robots,
screens and humans. Group Decis. Negot. 30 (2), 395–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09716-9.
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., Sayegh, K., 2018. Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Inf. Organ. 28, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2018.02.005.
Feil-Seifer, D., Mataric, M.J., 2009. Toward socially assistive robotics for augmenting interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. In: Khatib, O.,
Kumar, V., Pappas, G.J. (Eds.), Experimental Robotics. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Vol 54. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 201–210 https://link.
springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-00196-3_24.
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., Dautenhahn, K., 2003a. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42 (3–4), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890
(02)00372-X.
Fong, T., Thorpe, C., Baur, C., 2003b. Robot, asker of questions. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42 (3–4), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00378-0.
Ford, M., 2015. Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. Basic Books, New York, NY.
Fortune Business Insight, 2020. Service Robotics Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Type (Professional, Personal), By Application (Domestic,
Industrial/Commercial), and Regional Forecast, 2020–2027. 〈https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/service-robotics-market-101805〉
(accessed 26 January 2021).
Fresh Consulting, 2020. Why robotics companies fail. 〈https://www.freshconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Why-Robotics-Fail_Fresh-Consulting.pdf?
utm_medium=email&_hsmi=89398002&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_vCIIvx4alM9n-er_0OZ5wvRmkxJPONFK7c_E5H3VD5ZXWIVIjIXmW7bYP9PZ1LE_
CxM8r0prz4gplm7ipu8kJzGQhzg&utm_content=89398002&utm_source=hs_email〉(accessed 26 January 2021).
Graf, B., Reiser, U., Hagele, M., Mauz, K., Klein, P., 2009. Robotic home assistant Care-O-bot® 3-product vision and innovation platform. IEEE Workshop Adv. Robot. its
Soc. Impacts (ARSO) 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2009.5587059.
Grant, M.J., Booth, A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26, 91–108. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
Guzzo, R., Dickson, M., 1996. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 47, 307–338 https://www-
annualreviews-org.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:12048/doi/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307.
Hebesberger, D., Koertner, T., Gisinger, C., Prip, J., 2017. A long-term autonomous robot at a care hospital: a mixed methods study on social acceptance and
experiences of staff and older adults. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9 (3), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0391-6.
Jung, M., Hinds, P., 2018. Robots in the wild: a time for more robust theories of human-robot interaction. ACM Trans. Hum. -Robot Interact. 7 (1), 1–5. 〈https://
riglab.infosci.cornell.edu/assets/papers/wild.pdf〉.
Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., Ishiguro, H., 2004. Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a eld trial. Hum. -Comput. Interact. 19 (1),
61–84. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_4.
Kiesler, S., 2005. Fostering Common Ground in Human-Robot Interaction. Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Workshop Robots and Human Interactive
Communication (ROMAN 05), IEEE Press, 729–734. DOI:〈10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513866〉.
Kumaresan, N., Miyazaki, K., 1999. An integrated network approach to systems of innovation –the case of robotics in Japan. Res. Policy 28 (6), 563–585. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00128-0.
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 65 (2022) 101703
10
Lee, S., Noh, H., Lee, K., Lee, G., Sagong, S., Kim, M., 2011. On the effectiveness of robot-assisted language learning. ReCALL 23 (1), 25–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0958344010000273.
Matthias, A., 2004. The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf. Technol. 6 (3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10676-004-3422-1.
Mohammad, Y., Nishida, T., 2009. Toward combining autonomy and interactivity for social robots. AI Soc. 24 (1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0196-
3.
Mordoch, E., Osterreicher, A., Guse, L., Roger, K., Thompson, G., 2013. Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature
review. Maturitas 74 (1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.10.015.
Nejat, G., Sun, Y., Nies, M., 2009. Assistive robots in health care settings. Home Health Care Manag. Pract. 21 (3), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1084822308325695.
Nørskov, S., Damholdt, M.F., Ulhøi, J.P., Jensen, M.B., Ess, C.M., Seibt, J., 2020. Applicant fairness perceptions of a robot-mediated interview: a video-vignette-based
experimental survey. Front. Robot. AI 7, 586263. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.586263.
Nørskov, S., Damholdt, M.F., Ulhøi, J.P., Jensen, M.B., Mathiasen, M.K., Ess, C.M., Seibt, J., 2022. Employers’ and applicants’ fairness perceptions in job interviews:
Using a teleoperated robot as a fair proxy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 179, 121641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121641.
Nørskov, M., 2021. Robotication and ethical cleansing. AI Soc. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01203-2.
Nørskov, M., Nørskov, S., 2020. Social Robots and Recognition. Philos. Technol. 33, 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00353-y.
OECD, 2019. Going Digital: Shaping Policies, Improving Lives. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264312012-e.
Orlikowski, W.J., 2007. Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organ. Stud. 28 (9), 1435–1448 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840607081138.
Pollack, M., 2005. Intelligent technology for an aging population: the use of AI to assist elders with cognitive impairment. AI Mag. 26, 9–24. 〈http://citeseerx.ist.psu.
edu/viewdoc/citations?doi=10.1.1.100.6204〉.
Rehm, M., Rodil, K, Krummheuer, A.L., 2018. Developing a new brand of culturally-aware personal robots based on local cultural practices in the Danish health care
system. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Madrid, Spain, 2002–2008. DOI:〈10.1109/IROS.2018.
8594478〉.
Reicht-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F., 2015. Learning with educational companion robots? toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application
potentials for education robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7 (5), 875–888 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9.
Reeves, B., Nass, C., 1996. The media equation – how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press,,
Cambridge, UK.
Robert, L.P., 2018. Motivational theory of human robot teamwork. Int. Robot. Autom. J. 4 (4), 248–251.
Rosenblatt, M., Choset, H., 2000. Designing and implementing hands-on robotics labs. IEEE Intell. Syst. 15 (6), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.895856.
Roy, R., Sarkar, M.B., 2015. Knowledge, rm boundaries, and innovation: mitigating the incumbent’s course during radical technological change. Strateg. Manag. J.
37 (5), 835–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2357.
Sebo, S., Stoll, B., Scassellati, B., Jung, M.F., 2020. Robots in Groups and Teams: A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction,
Vol. 4, No. CSCW2, Article 176. 〈https://doi.org/10.1145/3415247〉.
ˇ
Sabanovic, S, 2010. Robots in society, society in robots: mutual shaping of society and technology as a framework for social robot design. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2 (4),
439–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0066-7.
Sabanovic, S, 2014. Inventing Japan’s “robotics culture”: The repeated assembly of science, technology, and culture in social robotics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 44 (3), 342–367.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713509704.
Scassellati, B., Admoni, H., Mataric, M., 2012. Robots for use in autism research. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 14, 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-
071811-150036.
Seibt, J., 2016. Integrative Social Robotics: A New Method Paradigm to Solve the Description and the Regulation Problem? In: J. Seibt, M. Nørskov and S.S. Andersen
(Eds), What Social Robots Can and Should Do: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2016/TRANSOR 2016. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Frontiers in Articial Intelligence
and Applications, Vol. 290, 104–115. International Research Conference Robophilosophy 2016 / Transor 2016. Aarhus, Denmark, Oct 17, 2016. 〈https://doi.org/
10.3233/978–1-61499–708-5–104〉.
Seibt, J., Vestergaard, C., 2018. Fair proxy communication: using social robots to modify the mechanisms of implicit social cognition. Res. Ideas Outcomes 4, e31827.
〈https://riojournal.com/article/31827/〉.
Seibt, J., Damholdt, M.F.. Vestergaard, C., 2018. Five Principles of Integrative Social Robotics. In: M. Coeckelberg, J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt and M. Nørskov (Eds.),
Envisioning Robots in Society – Power, Politics, and Public Space: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018 (pp. 28–42). IOS Press. Frontiers in Articial Intelligence
and Applications, Vol. 311.
Statista, 2020. Advanced robots in manufacturing – projected global demand 2018-2021. 〈https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034558/advanced-robotics-in-
manufacturing-projected-global-demand/〉. Accessed 26 January 2021.
Stubbs, K., Hinds, P.J., Wettergreen, D., 2007. Autonomy and common ground in human-robot interaction: a eld study. IEEE Intell. Syst. 22 (2), 42–50. https://doi.
org/10.1109/MIS.2007.21.
Takano, E., Matsumoto,Y., Nakamura, Y., Ishiguro, H., Sugamoto, K., 2008. The psychological effects of an android bystander on human-human communication. The
8th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids 2008), 25–34. DOI: 〈10.1109/ICHR.2008.4756018〉.
Tang, N. and Wang, Y., 2017. Cross-Cultural Teams. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes, 219–242.
Tennent, H., Shen, S., Jung, M., 2019. Micbot: A Peripheral Robotic Object to Shape Conversational Dynamics and Team Performance. In Proceedings of the 14th
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’19). IEEE Press, Daegu, South Korea, 133–142. DOI: 〈10.1109/HRI.2019.8673013〉.
To, M.L., Ashkanasy, N.M., Fisher, C.D., 2017. Affect and Creativity in Work Teams. In: E. Salas, R. Rico, and J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the
Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes, 441–457.
Traeger, M.L., Strohkorb Sebo, S., Jung, M., Scassellati, B., Christakis, N.A., 2020. Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human-
robot team. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (12), 6370–6375. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1910402117.
Torres, C., 2016. Service robots for citizens of the future. Eur. Rev. 24 (1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798715000393.
Utami, D. and Bickmore, T., 2019. Collaborative User Responses in Multiparty Interaction with a Couples Counselor Robot. Paper presented at the 14th ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 294–303. DOI: 〈10.1109/HRI.2019.8673177〉.
Ulhøi, John, Nørskov, Sladjana, 2020. Extending the Conceptualization of Performability with Cultural Sustainability: The Case of Social Robotics. In: Misra, Krishna
(Ed.), Handbook of Advanced Performability Engineering. Springer, pp. 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55732-4_4.
van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., van der Ven, S., Leseman, P., 2018. Social robots for language learning: a review. Rev. Educ. Res. 89 (2),
259–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286.
Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., Sakamoto, K., Tanie, K., 2005. Psychological and social effects of one year robot assisted activity on elderly people at a health service
facility for the aged. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Barcelona, Spain. DOI:〈10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570535〉.
Wada, K. and Shibata, T., 2006. Living with seal robots in a care house – valuations of social and physiological inuences. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems. Beijing, China. 〈https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4059203〉.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., 2012. Organizing for innovation in a digitized world. Organ. Sci. 23 (5), 1398–1408. 〈https://www.jstor.org/stable/
23252314〉.
You, S., Robert Jr., 2018. Emotional attachment, performance, and viability in teams collaborating with embodied physical action (EPA) robots. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19
(5), 377–407.
Yoshikawa, M., Matsumoto, Y., Sumitani, M., Ishiguro, H., 2011. Development of an android robot for psychological support in medical and welfare elds.
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, 2378–2383. 〈https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:12048/stamp/
stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6181654〉.
J.P. Ulhøi and S. Nørskov