CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Digital Economy and Work TransformationLegal and Labor StudiesManagement and Organizational Studies

Having their cake and eating it too? Online labor platforms and human resource management as a case of institutional complexity

Open access
Meijerink, Jeroen, Keegan, Anne, Bondarouk, Tanya·2021·The International Journal of Human Resource Management
DOI 10.1080/09585192.2020.1867616
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that online labor platforms want to have their cake and eat it too by implementing human resource management (HRM) activities to control gig workers who ought to be autonomous in their work. Our empirical study shows that using HRM activities to control gig workers creates institutional complexity and explores the strategies adopted by platform firms to address this complexity. Based on case studies of two meal-delivery platforms in the Netherlands (Uber Eats and Deliveroo), we identify freelance-related HRM activities that create tensions between the market and corporation logics. We show that online labor platforms rely on response strategies that integrate/balance, rather than rule out competing logics, including creating novel forms of HRM outsourcing, HRM devolution, and covert HRM implementation to control gig workers while simultaneously upholding their freelance status. Furthermore, we show that these response strategies are enabled by information technologies and the marketplaces that online labor platforms create, allowing for more experimental and dynamic approaches to HRM than so far theorized. The main implication of these findings is that the HRM activities for gig workers are simultaneously the source of, and the solution to, the institutional complexity associated with HRM for controlling freelance gig workers.

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 · 10.1080/09585192.2020.1867616

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • OLPs substitute algorithmic HRM for organizational hierarchy and physical oversight to control worker behavior, and need to strike a balance between autonomy and control.

    “For instance, rather than use organizational hierarchy to control employee behavior through physical oversight, OLPs substitute algorithmic HRM and in doing so, need to strike a balance between autonomy and control (Frenken et al., 2020;Meijerink et al., 2021;Wood et al., 2019).”

    From Algorithmic human resource management: Synthesizing developments and cross-disciplinary insights on digital HRM (2021) · cites this paper as Meijerink et al., 2021

    The Introduction describes algorithm-based compensation and other HRM practices that control gig workers, while ‘Institutional complexity of HRM for freelancers’ describes the tension between worker autonomy and control. The paper does not say that algorithmic HRM substitutes for organizational hierarchy or physical oversight; its discussion of the corporation logic instead likens platform control to organizational routines and hierarchy. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • OLPs rely on opaque HRM algorithms in an attempt to replace HR managers and disguise the control exercised over the behavior of their freelance workforce.

    “Moreover, OLPs rely on opaque HRM algorithms in an attempt to replace HR managers and disguise the control that is exercised over the behavior of their freelance workforce (Meijerink et al., 2021).”

    From Algorithmic human resource management: Synthesizing developments and cross-disciplinary insights on digital HRM (2021) · cites this paper as Meijerink et al., 2021

    The Abstract and Implications for theory and practice describe technology-enabled, covert HRM practices that control freelance workers while preserving their freelance status. Limitations and directions for future research says Uber Eats and Deliveroo withheld details of their algorithms. The copy does not say that the algorithms are intended to replace HR managers or that their opacity itself disguises control. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • OLPs still need to control their freelance workforce to align their behavior to strategic objectives of the OLP and clients' interests.

    “However, OLPs nevertheless still need to control their freelance workforce to align their behavior to strategic objectives of the OLP and clients' interests (Frenken et al., 2020;Gandini, 2019;Meijerink et al., 2021).”

    From Algorithmic human resource management: Synthesizing developments and cross-disciplinary insights on digital HRM (2021) · cites this paper as Meijerink et al., 2021

  • OLPs create online marketplaces where supply and demand for contingent labor meet electronically.

    “As labor market intermediaries, OLPs create online marketplaces where supply and demand for contingent labor meet electronically (Duggan et al., 2020;Kuhn & Maleki, 2017;Meijerink et al., 2021).”

    From Algorithmic human resource management: Synthesizing developments and cross-disciplinary insights on digital HRM (2021) · cites this paper as Meijerink et al., 2021

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Aloisi, A. (2016). Commoditized workers: Case study research on labor law issues arising from a set of on-demand/gig economy platforms. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 653-690.
  2. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318391 · DOI
  3. Bos-Nehles, A. C., & Meijerink, J. G. (2018). HRM implementation by multiple HRM actors: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 3068-3092.
  4. Chen, L., Mislove, A., & Wilson, C. (2015). Peeking beneath the hood of uber. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2015 Internet Measurement Conference.
  5. Daskalova, V. (2018). Regulating the new self-employed in the uber economy: What role for EU competition law. German Law Journal, 19(3), 461-508. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S207183220002277X D'Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. H. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 636-661. · DOI
  6. Denzin, N. K. (1987). Sociological methods: A source book. Routledge.
  7. Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management & app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations & HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1748-8583.12258 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2011). Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations, 38(3), 372-416. https://doi. org/10.1177/0730888411406824 · DOI
  9. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.590299 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Greve, H. R., & Man Zhang, C. (2017). Institutional logics and power sources: Merger and acquisition decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 671-694. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0698 · DOI
  11. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 · DOI · Paper page
  12. K€ assi, O., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2018). Online labour index: Measuring the online gig economy for policy and research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.056 · DOI
  13. Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2019). The rise and nature of alternative work arrange- ments in the United States, 1995-2015. ILR Review, 72(2), 382-416. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0019793918820008 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kuhn, K. M., & Maleki, A. (2017). Micro-entrepreneurs, dependent contractors, and instaserfs: Understanding online labor platform workforces. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(3), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0111 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers [Paper presen- tation]. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York.
  16. Lepak, D. P., Bartol, K. M., & Erhardt, N. L. (2005). A contingency framework for the delivery of HR practices. Human Resource Management Review, 15(2), 139-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.06.001 · DOI
  17. Lewis, A. C., Cardy, R. L., & Huang, L. S. (2019). Institutional theory and HRM: A new look. Human Resource Management Review, 29(3), 316-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hrmr.2018.07.006 · DOI
  18. Lin, K.-Y., & Lu, H.-P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152-1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Maatman, M., & Meijerink, J. (2017). Why sharing is synergy: The role of decentralized control mechanisms and centralized HR capabilities in creating HR shared service value. Personnel Review, 46(7), 1297-1317. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2016-0245 · DOI
  20. Meijerink, J. G., & Keegan, A. (2019). Conceptualizing human resource management in the gig economy: Toward a platform ecosystem perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(4), 214-232. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2018-0277 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A meth- ods sourcebooks. SAGE Publications.
  22. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Variability within organizations: Implications for strategic human resource management. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations (pp. 225-248).
  24. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organ- izational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455-476.
  25. Raaijmakers, A. G., Vermeulen, P. A., Meeus, M. T., & Zietsma, C. (2015). I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 85-110. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0276 · DOI
  26. Rosenblat, A., Levy, K. E., Barocas, S., & Hwang, T. (2017). Discriminating tastes: Uber's customer ratings as vehicles for workplace discrimination. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 256-279. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.153 · DOI
  27. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber's drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10(27), 3758-3784.
  28. Sandberg, J. (2005). How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches? Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 41-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1094428104272000 · DOI
  29. Shapiro, A. (2018). Between autonomy and control: Strategies of arbitrage in the "on- demand" economy. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2954-2971. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444817738236 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932-970. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0638 · DOI
  31. Stanford, J. (2017). The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28(3), 382-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1035304617724303 · DOI
  32. Tanriverdi, H., & Lee, C.-H. (2008). Within-industry diversification and firm performance in the presence of network externalities: Evidence from the software industry. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 381-397. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767300 · DOI
  33. Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford University Press.
  34. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/210361 · DOI
  35. Van Mierlo, J., Bondarouk, T., & Sanders, K. (2018). The dynamic nature of HRM implementation: A structuration perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(22), 3026-3045. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018. 1443957 · DOI
  36. Veen, A., Barratt, T., & Goods, C. (2020). Platform-capital's 'app-etite'for control: A labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 134(3), 388-406.
  37. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment & Society : A Journal of the British Sociological Association, 33(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0950017018785616 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meijerink, J., Keegan, A., & Bondarouk, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Meijerink, Jeroen
ORCID
Venue
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-01-11
Volume
32
Issue
19
Pages
4016-4052
ISSN
  • 0958-5192 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-4399
DOI
10.1080/09585192.2020.1867616
OpenAlex
W3120529752
Cited by
72
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6
FWCI
14.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The International Journal of Human Resource Management (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
Keywords
online labour platforms, human resource management, gig workers, institutional complexity, Uber Eats, Deliveroo, information technology

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