When food‐delivery platform workers consent to algorithmic management: a Foucauldian perspective
Abstract
This paper extends research on algorithmic management by examining mechanisms of compliance. Algorithmic management has predominantly been analysed in terms of the exercise of disciplinary power over workers and rational control of labour. Facing algorithms, platform workers would be in a situation of fear, passivity and frustration. In this paper, we utilise the Foucauldian framework of ‘dispositive’ in order to reconceptualise platforms as exerting both rational and normative control. Based on a qualitative case study of the food‐delivery platform Deliveroo, we underscore that algorithmic rational control, although fallible, is being reinforced by techniques of subjectification. Several dispositives on the platform, such as the pay‐per‐delivery and shift picker systems, generate an active mobilisation of workers. Our discussion highlights the governmentality power of algorithmic management, which builds consent by promoting a hyper‐meritocratic ideal of justice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Food-delivery workers can identify surveillance flaws and game the platform based on knowledge acquired through experience and informal socialization with other food-delivery workers.
“Galière (2020) concluded that food-delivery workers can identify surveillance flaws and game the platform based on knowledge acquired through experience and informal socialization with other food-delivery workers.”
From Socio‐technical issues in the platform‐mediated gig economy: A systematic literature review: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper (2024) · cites this paper as Galière, 2020
Algorithmic compensation encourages workers to internalize a logic of efficiency and productivity, infusing an ideal of hyper-meritocratic justice, which could result in the embracement of higher workloads.
“Another study observed that algorithmic compensation encourages the workers”
From Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs (2022) · cites this paper as Galière, 2020
Cites
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732 · see citing works
The social power of algorithms
Beer, D. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1216147 · Cited by 945 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs
Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Parker, S. K. (2022) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838 · Cited by 512 · see citing works
Langer, M., & Landers, R. N. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106878 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Siegel, R., König, C. J., & Lazar, V. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100227 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences
Deranty, J.-P., & Corbin, T. (2024) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01496-x · Cited by 118 · see citing works
“Here, the emphasis is on the different forms of control platforms enjoy in comparison with traditional workplaces, notably through surveillance, monitoring, but also the gamification of work, symbolic rewards and inducements (Galiere 2020; Perrig in Moore and Woodstock 2021).”
Dedema, M., & Rosenbaum, H. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24868 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“Standards and policies that guide all parties' behaviors are also embedded in the algorithms (Gol et al., 2019), which means that they not only have a structuring power on each party, but also operate with efficiency, calculation, and objectivity (Galière, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialBeigi, M., Nayyeri, S., & Shirmohammadi, M. (2022) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103782 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
De Stavola, F. (2025) · Platforms & Society · doi:10.1177/29768624251338613 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Furthermore, this unpaid labour managed through gami fi cation mechanisms tends to extend the working day by enhancing self-improvement dynamics (De Stavola, 2020; Franco, 2021; Galière, 2020).”
- Authors
- Galière, S.
- Corresponding author
- Galière, Sophia
- ORCID
- Galière, Sophia
- Venue
- New Technology, Work and Employment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 357-370
- ISSN
- 0268-1072 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-005X
- OpenAlex
- W3113060706
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 9
- FWCI
- 23.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- New Technology Work and Employment (publishedVersion)
- HAL (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
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- algorithmic management, food delivery apps, Deliveroo, worker consent, dispositive, governmentality, subjectification, rational control, normative control, meritocracy, platform work, Michel Foucault
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
