IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v72y2026i1p575-593.html

Behavioral Externalities of Process Automation

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth Beer

    (Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, New York 10010)

  • Anyan Qi

    (Naveen Jindal School of Management, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

  • Ignacio Rios

    (Naveen Jindal School of Management, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

Abstract

We study the behavioral effects of process automation on human workers interacting with automated tasks. We introduce a stylized normative model with two workers who complete their tasks sequentially, working toward a joint project to obtain a fixed payment plus a variable bonus that depends on how early the project is completed. The normative model prescribes that, if workers are fully rational, they will complete their tasks as soon as possible if the early completion bonus is high enough. However, following the literature, we hypothesize that workers will suboptimally delay project completion. Following the insights from a behavioral model, we further predict that automation will alleviate this problem by reducing strategic uncertainty, resulting in an indirect behavioral benefit of a higher worker productivity, in addition to the direct benefit of a higher project completion rate and a shorter project duration. To test these predictions, we conduct an experiment replicating the theoretical model, varying (i) whether a worker collaborates with a coworker or a robot, and (ii) in the case of collaborating with a robot, whether the upstream or downstream task is the one automated. First, we find that workers largely deviate from the optimal policy, as they take longer than what the normative theory prescribes to complete their tasks or do not complete the project. Second, we show that process automation increases the project completion rate and reduces the project completion time, confirming the benefits of process automation. Interestingly, workers who collaborate with robots take longer to complete their tasks, contradicting our initial hypothesis that process automation has a positive effect on the productivity of human workers. In addition, we find that upstream automation is more beneficial than downstream automation. We also show that social preferences are an important driver of these results because prosocial subjects tend to be more productive when collaborating with a human coworker than with a robot. Finally, we show that our findings remain robust in a continuous processing setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth Beer & Anyan Qi & Ignacio Rios, 2026. "Behavioral Externalities of Process Automation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(1), pages 575-593, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:72:y:2026:i:1:p:575-593
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2024.05408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05408
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05408?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asa B. Palley & Mirko Kremer, 2014. "Sequential Search and Learning from Rank Feedback: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(10), pages 2525-2542, October.
    2. Mirko Kremer & Laurens Debo, 2016. "Inferring Quality from Wait Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 3023-3038, October.
    3. Kohei Kawaguchi, 2021. "When Will Workers Follow an Algorithm? A Field Experiment with a Retail Business," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1670-1695, March.
    4. Chengfan Hou & Mengshi Lu & Tianhu Deng & Zuo-Jun Max Shen, 2021. "Coordinating Project Outsourcing Through Bilateral Contract Negotiations," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1543-1561, November.
    5. Pascale Crama & Fabian J. Sting & Yaozhong Wu, 2019. "Encouraging Help Across Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1408-1429, March.
    6. Karel H. van Donselaar & Vishal Gaur & Tom van Woensel & Rob A. C. M. Broekmeulen & Jan C. Fransoo, 2010. "Ordering Behavior in Retail Stores and Implications for Automated Replenishment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 766-784, May.
    7. Duch, Matthias L. & Grossmann, Max R.P. & Lauer, Thomas, 2020. "z-Tree unleashed: A novel client-integrating architecture for conducting z-Tree experiments over the Internet," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    8. Sreekumar R. Bhaskaran & V. Krishnan, 2009. "Effort, Revenue, and Cost Sharing Mechanisms for Collaborative New Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1152-1169, July.
    9. Bing Bai & Hengchen Dai & Dennis J. Zhang & Fuqiang Zhang & Haoyuan Hu, 2022. "The Impacts of Algorithmic Work Assignment on Fairness Perceptions and Productivity: Evidence from Field Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 3060-3078, November.
    10. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    11. Shi Chen & Ted Klastorin & Michael R. Wagner, 2021. "Designing practical coordinating contracts in decentralized projects," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 183-198, March.
    12. James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312.
    13. Manel Baucells & Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Woonam Hwang, 2024. "Managerial Mental Accounting and Downstream Project Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(12), pages 8612-8630, December.
    14. Kenneth L. Schultz & David C. Juran & John W. Boudreau & John O. McClain & L. Joseph Thomas, 1998. "Modeling and Worker Motivation in JIT Production Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-1), pages 1595-1607, December.
    15. David A. Wuttke & Karen Donohue & Enno Siemsen, 2018. "Initiating Supplier New Product Development Projects: A Behavioral Investigation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 27(1), pages 80-99, January.
    16. Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg, 2004. "A theory of sequential reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 268-298, May.
    17. Milind Dawande & Ganesh Janakiraman & Anyan Qi & Qi Wu, 2019. "Optimal Incentive Contracts in Project Management," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(6), pages 1431-1445, June.
    18. Morvarid Rahmani & Guillaume Roels & Uday S. Karmarkar, 2017. "Collaborative Work Dynamics in Projects with Co‐Production," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 686-703, April.
    19. Ruyi Ge & Zhiqiang (Eric) Zheng & Xuan Tian & Li Liao, 2021. "Human–Robot Interaction: When Investors Adjust the Usage of Robo-Advisors in Peer-to-Peer Lending," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 774-785, September.
    20. Yaozhong Wu & Karthik Ramachandran & Vish Krishnan, 2014. "Managing Cost Salience and Procrastination in Projects: Compensation and Team Composition," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(8), pages 1299-1311, August.
    21. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    22. Ignacio Rios & Pramit Ghosh, 2024. "Competition in Optimal Stopping: Behavioral Insights," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 2256-2273, November.
    23. Sarah Lebovitz & Hila Lifshitz-Assaf & Natalia Levina, 2022. "To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 126-148, January.
    24. Jiankun Sun & Dennis J. Zhang & Haoyuan Hu & Jan A. Van Mieghem, 2022. "Predicting Human Discretion to Adjust Algorithmic Prescription: A Large-Scale Field Experiment in Warehouse Operations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 846-865, February.
    25. Chen, Bo & Hall, Nicholas G., 2021. "Incentive schemes for resolving Parkinson’s Law in project management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 666-681.
    26. Xiaoyang Long & Javad Nasiry & Yaozhong Wu, 2020. "A Behavioral Study on Abandonment Decisions in Multistage Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(5), pages 1999-2016, May.
    27. Andrew M. Davis & Rihuan Huang & Douglas J. Thomas, 2022. "Retailer Inventory Sharing in Two-Tier Supply Chains: An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8773-8790, December.
    28. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    29. Song-Hee Kim & Jordan Tong & Carol Peden, 2020. "Admission Control Biases in Hospital Unit Capacity Management: How Occupancy Information Hurdles and Decision Noise Impact Utilization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5151-5170, November.
    30. Duffy, John & Li, Yue, 2019. "Lifecycle consumption under different income profiles: Evidence and theory," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 74-94.
    31. Jiawei Li & Stephen Leider & Damian Beil & Izak Duenyas, 2021. "Running online experiments using web-conferencing software," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 167-183, December.
    32. Ruth Beer & Ignacio Rios & Daniela Saban, 2021. "Increased Transparency in Procurement: The Role of Peer Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7511-7534, December.
    33. Juanjuan Zhang, 2016. "Deadlines in Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3310-3326, November.
    34. Ruth Beer & Hyun-Soo Ahn & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Can Trustworthiness in a Supply Chain Be Signaled?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 3974-3994, September.
    35. Tony Haitao Cui & Jagmohan S. Raju & Z. John Zhang, 2007. "Fairness and Channel Coordination," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1303-1314, August.
    36. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    37. H. Dharma Kwon & Steven A. Lippman & Kevin F. McCardle & Christopher S. Tang, 2010. "Project Management Contracts with Delayed Payments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 692-707, October.
    38. Saravanan Kesavan & Tarun Kushwaha, 2020. "Field Experiment on the Profit Implications of Merchants’ Discretionary Power to Override Data-Driven Decision-Making Tools," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5182-5190, November.
    39. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    40. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    41. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    42. Käki, Anssi & Kemppainen, Katariina & Liesiö, Juuso, 2019. "What to do when decision-makers deviate from model recommendations? Empirical evidence from hydropower industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 869-882.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruth Beer & Anyan Qi, 2024. "To Communicate or Not? Interfirm Communication in Collaborative Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(5), pages 3225-3244, May.
    2. Clare Snyder & Samantha Keppler & Stephen Leider, 2026. "Algorithm Reliance: Fast and Slow," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(1), pages 368-385, January.
    3. Ruth Beer & Hyun-Soo Ahn & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Can Trustworthiness in a Supply Chain Be Signaled?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 3974-3994, September.
    4. Quoc-Anh Do & Stephen Leider & Markus M. Mobius & Tanya Rosenblat, 2007. "How much is a friend worth?: directed altruism and enforced reciprocity in social networks," Working Papers 07-11, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    5. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2012. "Distributive and reciprocal fairness: What can we learn from the heterogeneity of social preferences?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 538-553.
    6. Ashraf, Nava & Bohnet, Iris & Piankov, Nikita, 2003. "Is Trust a Bad Investment?," Working Paper Series rwp03-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2015. "The geometry of distributional preferences and a non-parametric identification approach: The Equality Equivalence Test," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 85-103.
    8. Felipe Caro & Jean-Edouard Colliard & Elena Katok & Axel Ockenfels & Nicolas Stier-Moses & Catherine Tucker & D. J. Wu, 2026. "Introduction to the Special Issue on the Human-Algorithm Connection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(1), pages 1-13, January.
    9. Rudolf Kerschbamer, 2013. "The Geometry of Distributional Preferences and a Non-Parametric Identification Approach," Working Papers 2013-25, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    10. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    11. Sabrina Teyssier, 2012. "Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 91-119, April.
    12. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    13. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    14. Cox, James C. & Friedman, Daniel & Gjerstad, Steven, 2007. "A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 17-45, April.
    15. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    16. Klaus M. Schmidt & Martin Spann & Robert Zeithammer, 2015. "Pay What You Want as a Marketing Strategy in Monopolistic and Competitive Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1217-1236, June.
    17. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    18. Kovarik, Jaromir, 2009. "Social Preferences - Literature Survey," IKERLANAK 2009-36, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    19. Kranz, Sebastian, 2010. "Moral norms in a partly compliant society," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 255-274, January.
    20. Weiwei Tasch & Daniel Houser, 2018. "Social Preferences and Social Curiosity," Working Papers 1067, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:72:y:2026:i:1:p:575-593. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.