Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Digital Economy and Work TransformationLegal and Labor StudiesEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 52 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Between control and participation: The politics of algorithmic management

Open access
Krzywdzinski, Martin, Schneiß, Daniel, Sperling, Andrea·2025·New Technology, Work and Employment
DOI 10.1111/ntwe.12293
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Understanding the role of human management is crucial for the debate over algorithmic management—to date limited to studies on the platform economy. This qualitative case study in logistics reconstructs the actor constellations (managers, engineers, data scientists and workers) and negotiation processes in different phases of algorithmic management. It offers two major contributions to the literature: (1) a process model distinguishing three phases: goal formation, data production and data analysis, which is used to analyse (2) the politics of algorithmic management in conventional workplaces, which differ significantly from platform companies. The article goes beyond surveillance to elucidate the role of the regulatory framework, various actors' knowledge contributions to the algorithmic management system, and the power relations resulting therefrom. While the managerial goals in the examined case were not oriented towards a surveillance regime, the outcome was nevertheless a centralisation of knowledge and disempowerment of workers.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This qualitative case study reconstructs the politics of algorithmic management in a German logistics company, distinguishing goal formation, data production, and data analysis phases and showing that multiple actors’ knowledge shapes outcomes. Despite a process-oriented, non-surveillance strategy shaped by works council negotiation, the system centralised knowledge and excluded workers from optimisation.

Key findings

  • The paper develops a three-phase process model—goal formation, data production, and data analysis/usage—in which actor constellations and knowledge contributions change by phase: central management, AnalyticsTech, local management, and works council in goal formation; process engineers, data scientists, local management, and workers in data production; process engineers and data scientists with local management in data analysis.
  • In this German case, management adopted a process-oriented strategy rather than a workforce-oriented surveillance strategy: a works council agreement ensured voluntary participation, anonymous data, no individual performance monitoring, no measurements during breaks, and no staff cuts; but the outcome was still a centralisation of knowledge and disempowerment of workers, who were not involved in optimisation and referred to themselves as “lab rats.”
  • Data production was crucial and labour-intensive: measurements lasted two weeks; sensors generated approximately 3000–4000 data points per second and sensor; workers’ domain knowledge was an important power resource, and workers sometimes undermined measurement by not wearing wearables, removing sensors, or working slower. Process engineers and local management were powerful due to domain knowledge, while data analysis became a centralisation phase led by process engineers, with data scientists in a service role.
  • The study finds narrow limits to automating management decisions in conventional firms compared with platforms: simple analyses can be automated, but identifying problems and developing optimisation concepts require domain experts; LogisticsCorp initially depended on AnalyticsTech, then licensed the software and internalised analysis, showing decentring and recentring are both possible.

Methods

  • In-depth qualitative case study of an algorithmic management system for process optimisation at LogisticsCorp, a German logistics company with more than 10,000 employees, using software from AnalyticsTech, a software developer with around 50 employees; the case is embedded in the German regulatory context.
  • Data collection included 16 semi-structured interviews of one to two hours with AnalyticsTech management and LogisticsCorp central/local management, process engineers, and data scientists; four additional interviews with managers from other companies using AnalyticsTech software; a two-day field observation of implementation; participation in two AnalyticsTech workshops; and document analysis of workshop materials, information documents, process maps, protocols, and analysis outputs.
  • Analysis used qualitative content analysis in MAXQDA with inductive and deductive coding, four thematic main categories, and a respondent-validation workshop with company actors.

Limitations

  • As stated by the authors, the methodological characteristics of an in-depth case study mean they cannot draw conclusions about how common the described constellation is in the overall population of companies; this is left for future research.
  • Evident from the text: the study is a single case involving two companies and one advanced implementation, limiting generalisability; workers were not formally interviewed but only spoken with informally and observed, so the worker perspective is less fully captured than management, engineer, and data scientist perspectives.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ntwe.12293

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 1 Not valid · 34 Not checked · 85 Own results and interpretations

57 more claims

Create a free account to see all 120 claims and to verify the 32 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 35
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 31

Create a free account to see these claims.

Create a free account to see these assumptions.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Ackroyd S., 2022, Organisational misbehaviour
  2. Barro S., 2019, People and machines: partners in innovation, MIT Sloan Management Review, 60, 22
  3. Child J., 1985, Job redesign, 108
  4. Karger D., 1987, Engineered work measurement: the principles, techniques, and data of methods‐time measurement background and foundations of work measurement and methods‐time measurement
  5. Wood A., 2020, Despotism on demand

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Krzywdzinski, M., Schneiß, D., & Sperling, A.
Affiliations
  • Helmut Schmidt University (DE)
  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
  • WZB Berlin Social Science Center (DE)
Corresponding author
Krzywdzinski, Martin
ORCID
Venue
New Technology, Work and Employment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-04-13
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
60-80
ISSN
  • 0268-1072 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-005X
DOI
10.1111/ntwe.12293
OpenAlex
W4394783391
Cited by
74
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 8
FWCI
32.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • New Technology Work and Employment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Multimedialen Archiv und Publikationsserver der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Volkswagen Foundation
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
algorithmic management, logistics, platform economy, organizational politics, human management, goal formation, data production, data analysis, surveillance, regulatory framework, power relations, actor constellations, process model

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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.