Cited by 84Digital Economy and Work TransformationLegal and Labor StudiesMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chapter 5 Brave New Digital Work? New Forms of Performance Control in Crowdwork

Open access
Gerber, Christine, Krzywdzinski, Martin·2019·Research in the Sociology of Work

Abstract

The term “crowdwork” describes a new form of digital work that is organized and regulated by internet-based platforms. This chapter examines how crowdwork platforms ensure their virtual workforce’s commitment and control its performance despite its high mobility, anonymity, and dispersion. The findings are based on a case study analysis of 15 microtask and macrotask platforms, encompassing 32 interviews with representatives of crowdwork platforms, and crowdworkers, as well as an analysis of the platforms’ homepages and community spaces. The chapter shows that performance control on crowd platforms relies on a combination of direct control, reputation systems, and community building, which have until now been studied in isolation or entirely ignored. Moreover, the findings suggest that while all three elements can be found on both microtask and macrotask platforms, their functionality and purpose differ. Overall, the findings highlight that platforms are no neutral intermediaries but organizations that adopt an active role in structuring the digital labor process and in shaping working conditions. Their managerial structures are coded and objectified into seemingly neutral technological infrastructures, whereby the underlying power relations between capital and labor become obscured.

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 · 10.1108/s0277-283320190000033008

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The impact of using algorithmic management to set goals on the reduction of workers' autonomy has been outlined by many scholars, namely in gig work where autonomy in task selection is often viewed by externals as a major advantage of platform-based work.

    “The impact of the use of AM to set goals on the reduction of workers' autonomy has been outlined by many scholars, namely in gig-work where autonomy in task selection is often viewed by externals as a major advantage of platform-based work (Curchod, Patriotta, Cohen, & Neysen, 2019;Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019;Griesbach et al., 2019;Rosenblat, 2018;Shapiro, 2018).”

    From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In gig work, the algorithmic task allocation process is highly contingent on demand or customer satisfaction scores.

    “In gig work, the algorithmic task allocation process is highly contingent on demand or customer satisfaction scores (Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019;Gregory, 2020;Griesbach et al., 2019).”

    From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019

    The Microtask platforms section (pp. 21–22) says algorithmically organised rankings help allocate tasks and draw on ratings of completed jobs, including client ratings. The paper does not establish that allocation is contingent on demand, and it describes other factors besides customer ratings, including experience and activity (p. 21; Discussion and Conclusions, p. 33). Its findings concern crowdwork platforms, not gig work generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Algorithmic systems facilitate high contingency of performance scores on customer satisfaction ratings in gig work and traditional work settings.

    “Moreover, algorithmic systems facilitate high contingency of performance scores on customer satisfaction ratings, both in gig work (Curchod et al., 2019;Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019;Griesbach et al., 2019) and in traditional work settings such as restaurants (O'Donovan, 2018), retail (Evans & Kitchin, 2018;Levy & Barocas, 2018), or telecommunications (Bakewell et al., 2018).”

    From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019

    The Macrotask platforms section (p. 24) says reputation is primarily an average of past ratings, often given by clients, supporting the claim for some gig work. But the Microtask platforms section (p. 22) says client ratings are mostly voluntary and often insufficient, while the Discussion and Conclusions (p. 33) describes other inputs to algorithmic rankings. The citation is attached to gig work, not the sentence’s examples of traditional workplaces. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the gig economy, the termination procedure starts with the platform notifying a worker of unsatisfying ratings and probability of account deactivation if no improvement, followed by official account deactivation.

    “Mainly found in the gig economy, this procedure starts with the platform notifying a worker of unsatisfying ratings and probability of account deactivation if no improvement, followed by official account deactivation (Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019;Griesbach et al., 2019;Rosenblat & Stark, 2016).”

    From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019

    The Microtask platforms section (p. 22) says low ratings can limit access to work until a worker sees no jobs on the dashboard. It does not describe the claimed termination procedure: a warning about ratings and possible deactivation, followed by official account deactivation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For gig workers like ridesharing drivers or delivery workers, having the power to decline tasks without implicit or explicit penalties or prejudice could prevent workers from the accumulation of frustrating, low-paid or alienating tasks.

    “Also, for gig workers like ridesharing drivers or delivery workers, having the power to decline tasks without implicit or explicit penalties or prejudice could prevent workers from the accumulation of frustrating, low-paid or alienating tasks (Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019).”

    From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Gerber & Krzywdzinski, 2019

    The Microtask platforms section (p. 23) reports that a worker can actively decline a job without losing points, while failing to respond to an offer can affect their rating. This supports the relevance of penalties to task choice, but the paper studies online crowdwork and expressly excludes offline work such as driving and food delivery (Introduction, p. 3). It does not say that penalty-free refusal prevents an accumulation of frustrating, low-paid, or alienating tasks. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Ackroyd S., 1999, Organizational misbehaviour
  2. Adler P., 2015, Organization Studies, 36, 445, 10.1177/0170840614561566 · DOI
  3. Alvesson M., 2004, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 423, 10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00034-5 · DOI
  4. Aytes A., 2012, The “other” in the machine: Oriental automata and the mechanization of the mind
  5. Basit T. N., 2003, Educational Research, 45, 143, 10.1080/0013188032000133548 · DOI
  6. Bergvall-Kåreborn B., 2014, New Technology, Work and Employment, 29, 213, 10.1111/ntwe.12038 · DOI
  7. Blohm I., 2013, Business Informatics, 55, 275
  8. Boes A., 2014, Crowdwork and the Future of Work. Critical Analysis of the “Generation Open” Strategy at IBM
  9. Bolton G., 2013, Management Science, 59, 265, 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Boudreau K. J., 2013, Harvard Business Review, 91, 60
  11. Brown P., 2010, The global auction: The broken promises of education, jobs, and incomes, 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199731688.001.0001 · DOI
  12. Cheng J., 2015, Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, 4061, 10.1145/2702123.2702146 · DOI
  13. De Stefano V., 2015, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37, 471
  14. Fieseler C., 2017, Journal of Business Ethics, 1
  15. Gandini A., 2016, The reputation economy. Understanding knowledge work in digital society
  16. Graham M., 2017, The risks and rewards of online gig work at the global margins
  17. Haythornthwaite C., 2012, Journal of Democracy, 4, 160
  18. Hearn A., 2010, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organisation, 10, 421
  19. Hewson C., 2017, The SAGE handbook of online research methods, 57, 10.4135/9781473957992.n4 · DOI
  20. Huws U., 2014, Labor in the global digital economy: The Cybertariat comes of age
  21. Irani L., 2015, New Media & Society, 17, 720, 10.1177/1461444813511926 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Irani L. C., 2013, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 611, 10.1145/2470654.2470742 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Jones S., 1995, Understanding community in the information age
  24. Kenney M., 2016, Issues in Science and Technology, 32, 61
  25. Kuek S. C., 2015, The global opportunity in online outsourcing
  26. Kunda G., 1992, Engineering culture. Control and commitment in a high-tech cooperation
  27. Langley P., 2016, Finance and Society
  28. Lee M. K., 2015, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, 1603, 10.1145/2702123.2702548 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lehdonvirta V., 2016, Space, place and global digital work, 53, 10.1057/978-1-137-48087-3_4 · DOI
  30. Leimeister J. M., 2016, Systematisierung und Analyse von Crowd-Sourcing-Anbietern und Crowd-Work-Projekten
  31. McKinlay A., 2014, Foucault, governmentality, and organization, 10.4324/9781315796345 · DOI
  32. O’Mahony S., 2011, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 33, 3
  33. O’Reilly C. A., 1996, Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157
  34. Ouchi W. G., 1980, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129, 10.2307/2392231 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Pongratz H. J., 2018, New Technology, Work and Employment, 33, 58, 10.1111/ntwe.12104 · DOI
  36. Rosenblatt A., 2016, International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758
  37. Sallaz J. J., 2015, Work and Occupations, 42, 3, 10.1177/0730888414551207 · DOI
  38. Schörpf P., 2017, New Technology, Work and Employment, 32, 43, 10.1111/ntwe.12080 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Smith C., 2006, Work, Employment & Society, 20, 389, 10.1177/0950017006065109 · DOI
  40. Smith A., 2016, Shared, collaborative and on demand: The new digital economy
  41. Srnicek N., 2016, Platform capitalism
  42. Thompson P., 1989, The nature of work: An introduction to debates on the labour process, 10.1007/978-1-349-20028-3 · DOI
  43. Thompson P., 1999, Culture and economy after the cultural turn, 162, 10.4135/9781446218112.n8 · DOI
  44. Tönnies F., 1957, Community and society
  45. Yin M., 2016, Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web, 1293, 10.1145/2872427.2883036 · DOI
  46. Zogaj S., 2014, Proceedings of the European conference on information systems

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gerber, C., & Krzywdzinski, M.
Venue
Research in the Sociology of Work
Published
2019-06-14
Pages
121-143
ISSN
0277-2833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952516309
Cited by
84
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
FWCI
101.36
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research in the sociology of work (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Keywords
crowdwork, performance control, digital labor, reputation systems, community building, platform governance, platform intermediaries, working conditions

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