Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Taylorism on steroids or enabling autonomy? A systematic review of algorithmic management

Noponen, Niilo, Feshchenko, Polina, Auvinen, Tommi, Luoma-aho, Vilma, Abrahamsson, Pekka·2024·Management Review Quarterly
DOI 10.1007/s11301-023-00345-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The use of algorithmic management systems is rapidly changing organizational models and practices, as millions of workers in multiple sectors worldwide are managed by computer software. Despite receiving increasing academic interest, little summarizing literature exist on the ways algorithmic systems are used in management. This article aims to fill this gap by systematically reviewing and qualitatively analyzing 172 articles on the topic. Our research contributes to the existent algorithmic management literature in three ways. First, we provide a descriptive overview of algorithmic management as a field of research. Second, we identify and synthesize the discussion on the key concepts of the topic, namely how algorithmic management: (1) simultaneously restrains and enables workers’ autonomy—yet income dependency and other factors force inflexible work practices; (2) creates a complex, digital version of Taylorism; and (3) creates new and changes existing organizational power structures. Third, as our main theoretical contribution, we create the framework of Algorithmic Management Grid that demonstrates the ways in which organizations use algorithmic systems in management. The Algorithmic Management Grid illustrates how, in both novel and traditional organizational models, algorithmic management may be used with emphasis either on controlling or enabling workers. Based on the reviewed literature, we claim that so far, companies have mostly utilized algorithmic systems in a controlling manner, neglecting the technology’s enabling potential in organizing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11301-023-00345-5

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Agarwal N, Steinmetz R (2019) Sharing economy: a systematic literature review. Int J Innov Technol Manage 16. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019300027 · DOI
  2. Aloisi A, De Stefano V (2022) Essential jobs, remote work and digital surveillance: addressing the COVID-19 pandemic panopticon. Int Labour Rev 161:289–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/ILR.12219 · DOI
  3. Altenried M (2019) On the last mile: logistical urbanism and the transformation of labour. Work Organisation. Labour & Globalisation 13:114–129. https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.13.1.0114 · DOI
  4. Anwar IA, Pal J, Hui J (2021) Watched, but moving: platformization of Beauty Work and its gendered mechanisms of control. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 4:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432949 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Autor DH, Mindell DA, Reynolds EB (2020) The work of the future: building better jobs in an age of intelligent machines. MIT Industrial Performance Centre, Cambridge, Massachusetts
  6. Bai B, Dai H, Zhang D et al (2020) The impacts of algorithmic work assignment on Fairness perceptions and Productivity: evidence from Field experiments. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550887. SSRN Electronic Journal · DOI
  7. Barati M, Ansari B (2022) Effects of algorithmic control on power asymmetry and inequality within organizations. J Manage Control 33:525–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00187-022-00347-6 · DOI
  8. Basukie J, Wang Y, Li S (2020) Big data governance and algorithmic management in sharing economy platforms: a case of ridesharing in emerging markets. Technol Forecast Soc Change 161:120310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120310 · DOI
  9. Braesemann F, Stephany F, Teutloff O et al (2022) The global polarisation of remote work. PLoS ONE 17. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0274630 · DOI
  10. Braverman H (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: the degradation of work in the Twentieth Century. Monthly Review Press, New York · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bucher EL, Schou PK, Waldkirch M (2021) Pacifying the algorithm – Anticipatory compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the gig economy. Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420961531 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cameron L, Lamers L, Leicht-Deobald U et al (2023) Algorithmic Management: its implications for Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 52 · DOI
  13. Chan NK, Humphreys L (2018) Mediatization of social space and the case of uber drivers. Media Commun 6:29–38. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i2.1316 · DOI
  14. Cheng M (2016) Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int J Hosp Manag 57:60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Dekker R, Koot P, Birbil SI et al (2022) Co-designing algorithms for governance: Ensuring responsible and accountable algorithmic management of refugee camp supplies. Big Data Soc 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221087855 · DOI
  16. Duggan J, Sherman U, Carbery R, McDonnell A (2020) Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: a research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Hum Resource Manage J 30:114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Edgell S, Gottfried H, Granter E (2016) The SAGE handbook of the sociology of work and employment. SAGE Publications Ltd, London; Thousand Oaks, California
  18. Gagné M, Parent-Rocheleau X, Bujold A et al (2022) How algorithmic management influences worker motivation: a self-determination theory perspective. Can Psychol 63:247–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/CAP0000324 · DOI
  19. Galière S (2020) When food-delivery platform workers consent to algorithmic management: a foucauldian perspective. New Technol Work Employ 35:357–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12177 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Gandini A (2019) Labour process theory and the gig economy. Hum Relat 72:1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Giermindl LM, Strich F, Christ O et al (2021) The dark sides of people analytics: reviewing the perils for organisations and employees. https://doi.org/101080/0960085X20211927213
  22. Gómez-Zará D, Das A, Pawlow B, Contractor N (2022) In search of diverse and connected teams: a computational approach to assemble diverse teams based on members’ social networks. PLoS ONE 17:e0276061. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0276061 · DOI
  23. Görög G (2018) The definitions of sharing economy: a systematic literature review. Management 175–189. https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.13.175-189 · DOI
  24. Grint K (2011) A history of leadership. In: Bryman A, Collinson D, Grint K et al (eds) The SAGE handbook of leadership, 14th edn. SAGE, pp 3–14
  25. Heinrich K, Minh Anh V, Vysochyna A (2022) Algorithms as a Manager: A Critical Literature Review of Algorithm Management. ICIS 2022 Proceedings
  26. Huws U (2016) Logged labour: a new paradigm of work organisation? Work Organisation. Labour and Globalisation 10:7–26
  27. Jabagi N, Croteau AM, Audebrand LK, Marsan J (2019) Gig-workers’ motivation: thinking beyond carrots and sticks. J Managerial Psychol 34:192–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2018-0255 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Jarrahi MH (2019) In the age of the smart artificial intelligence: AI’s dual capacities for automating and informating work. Bus Inform Rev 36:178–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382119883999 · DOI
  29. Jarrahi MH, Sutherland W (2019) Algorithmic Management and Algorithmic Competencies: understanding and appropriating algorithms in gig work. Lecture notes in Computer Science (including subseries lecture notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Springer Verlag, pp 578–589 · DOI
  30. Jarrahi MH, Sutherland W, Nelson SB, Sawyer S (2020) Platformic Management, Boundary Resources for Gig Work, and worker autonomy. Comput Support Coop Work 29:153–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09368-7 · DOI
  31. Kaine S, Josserand E (2019) The organisation and experience of work in the gig economy. J Industrial Relations 61:479–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185619865480 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Kässi O, Lehdonvirta V, Stephany F (2021) How many online workers are there in the World? A Data-Driven Assessment. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3810843. SSRN Electronic Journal · DOI
  33. Kusk K, Bossen C (2022) Working with Wolt. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3492823 · DOI
  34. Lee MK, Kusbit D, Metsky E, Dabbish L (2015) Working with Machines. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1603–1612. ACM Press, New York · DOI · Paper page
  35. Ma NF, Hanrahan B (2019) Part-time ride-sharing: recognizing the context in which drivers ride-share and its impact on platform use. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 3:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3361128 · DOI
  36. Meijerink J, Bondarouk T (2021) The duality of algorithmic management: toward a research agenda on HRM algorithms, autonomy and value creation. Hum Resource Manage Rev 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HRMR.2021.100876 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Mengay A (2020) Digitalization of work and heteronomy. Capital & Class 44:273–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816820904032 · DOI
  38. Möhlmann M, Zalmanson L (2017) Hands on the Wheel: Navigating Algorithmic Management and Drivers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2017), December 10–13, Seoul, South Korea
  39. Muralidhar SH, Bossen C, O’Neill J (2022) Between a Rock and a hard place: negotiating dependencies and precarity in the On-Demand economy. Comput Support Coop Work 31:443–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10606-022-09434-7 · DOI
  40. Nandram S, Koster N (2014) Organizational innovation and integrated care: Lessons from Buurtzorg. J Integr Care 22:174–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-06-2014-0024 · DOI
  41. Nilsen M, Kongsvik T, Antonsen S (2022) Taming Proteus: Challenges for risk regulation of powerful Digital Labor Platforms. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022 19:6196. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH19106196 · DOI
  42. Ovetz R (2020) The Algorithmic University: On-Line Education, Learning Management Systems, and the Struggle over Academic Labor. Crit Sociol (Eugene). https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520948931 · DOI
  43. Perez F, Conway N, Roques O (2022) The autonomy tussle: AI technology and employee job crafting responses. Relations industrielles 77. https://doi.org/10.7202/1094209AR · DOI
  44. Pignot E (2021) Who is pulling the strings in the platform economy? Accounting for the dark and unexpected sides of algorithmic control: https://doi.org/101177/1350508420974523 · DOI
  45. Rosenblat A, Stark L (2016) Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: a case study of Uber’s drivers. Int J Commun 10:3758–3784. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2686227 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Ruiner C, Klumpp M (2022) Autonomy and new modes of control in digital work contexts-a mixed-methods study of driving professions in food logistics. Empl Relations 44:890–912. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2021-0139 · DOI
  47. Sahlin J, Angelis J (2019) Performance management systems: reviewing the rise of dynamics and digitalization. Cogent Bus Manage 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1642293. : · DOI
  48. Schaupp S (2022) COVID-19, economic crises and digitalisation: how algorithmic management became an alternative to automation. New Technol Work Employ. https://doi.org/10.1111/NTWE.12246 · DOI
  49. Schildt H (2017) Big data and organizational design - the brave new world of algorithmic management and computer augmented transparency. Innovation 19:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1252043 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Schneider N (2018) An internet of ownership: democratic design for the online economy. Sociol Rev 66:320–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118758533 · DOI
  51. Stark D, Pais I (2020) Algorithmic Management in the platform economy. Sociologica 14:47–72. https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/12221 · DOI
  52. Terry E, Marks A, Dakessian A, Christopoulos D (2021) Emotional Labour and the Autonomy of Dependent Self-Employed Workers: The Limitations of Digital Managerial Control in the Home Credit Sector. https://doi.org/101177/0950017020979504 36:665–682 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Veen A, Barratt T, Goods C (2019) Platform-capital’s ‘App-etite’ for control: a labour process analysis of Food-Delivery Work in Australia: https://doi.org/101177/0950017019836911 34. 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019836911 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26:xiii–xxiiii
  56. Weili LIU, Khan H (2020) A literature review on the definition of sharing economy. Global Econ J 20. https://doi.org/10.1142/S219456592030001X · DOI
  57. Wolf CT, Blomberg JL (2019) Evaluating the promise of human-algorithm collaborations in everyday work practices. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 3:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359245 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Wood AJ, Graham M, Lehdonvirta V, Hjorth I (2019) Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the global gig economy. Work Employ Soc 33:56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Zhu X, Liu K (2020) A systematic review and future directions of the sharing economy: business models, operational insights and environment-based utilities. J Clean Prod 290:125209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125209 · DOI
  60. Zuboff S (1988) In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power. Basic Books, New York
  61. Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile books, New York

Cited by

See all 126

Metadata

Authors
Noponen, N., Feshchenko, P., Auvinen, T., Luoma-aho, V., & Abrahamsson, P.
ORCID
Noponen, Niilo
Venue
Management Review Quarterly
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-04-05
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
1695-1721
ISSN
  • 2198-1620
  • 2198-1639
DOI
10.1007/s11301-023-00345-5
Cited by
126
References
19
Language
en
Licence
Funders
University of Jyväskylä

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.