Cited by 2,755Digital Economy and Work TransformationLegal and Labor StudiesInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control

Kellogg, Katherine C., Valentine, Melissa A., Christin, Angéle·2020·Academy of Management Annals

Abstract

The widespread implementation of algorithmic technologies in organizations prompts questions about how algorithms may reshape organizational control. We use Edwards’ (1979) perspective of “contested terrain,” wherein managers implement production technologies to maximize the value of labor and workers resist, to synthesize the interdisciplinary research on algorithms at work. We find that algorithmic control in the workplace operates through six main mechanisms, which we call the “6 Rs”—employers can use algorithms to direct workers by restricting and recommending, evaluate workers by recording and rating, and discipline workers by replacing and rewarding. We also discuss several key insights regarding algorithmic control. First, labor process theory helps to highlight potential problems with the largely positive view of algorithms at work. Second, the technical capabilities of algorithmic systems facilitate a form of rational control that is distinct from the technical and bureaucratic control used by employers for the past century. Third, employers’ use of algorithms is sparking the development of new algorithmic occupations. Finally, workers are individually and collectively resisting algorithmic control through a set of emerging tactics we call algoactivism. These insights sketch the contested terrain of algorithmic control and map critical areas for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/annals.2018.0174

Cites

295 of 295 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • For advertisers, algorithmic ad delivery creates uncertainty about the targets they reach and reduces their control over the output of their actions.

    “For advertisers, algorithmic ad delivery creates uncertainty about the targets they reach and more generally reduces their control over the output of their actions (Kellogg et al., 2020).”
  • Algorithmic systems are socially constructed and embedded in existing power dynamics, and are neither created nor function outside the biases rooted in the organizational cultures within which they are implemented.

    “Understanding that algorithmic systems are socially constructed and embedded in existing power dynamics also means these systems are neither created nor function outside the biases rooted in the organizational cultures within which they are implemented (Kellogg et al., 2020).”

    From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Kellogg et al., 2020

  • The use of advanced algorithms creates new opportunities for managers to exercise control over the workforce.

    “However, the use of advanced algorithms cre-ates new opportunities for managers to exercise control over the workforce (Kellogg et al., 2020; Shapiro, 2018).”

    From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Kellogg et al., 2020

  • Digital labor platforms manage gig workers via algorithmic management.

    “Different from traditional staffing agencies, digital labor platforms manage gig workers via algorithmic management (Kellogg et al., 2020;McDonnell et al., 2021).”

    From Gig work and gig workers: An integrative review and agenda for future research (2024) · cites this paper as Kellogg et al., 2020

  • Gig workers' customer evaluations serve as surrogates for their performance ratings and affect the likelihood of their future orders.

    “Indeed, gig workers' customer evaluations not only serve as surrogates for their performance ratings but also affect the likelihood of their future orders (Kellogg et al., 2020).”

    From Gig work and gig workers: An integrative review and agenda for future research (2024) · cites this paper as Kellogg et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 95

  1. Ahmed S. I., 2016, Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  2. Aloisi A., 2015, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 37, 653
  3. Autor D. H., 2015, Performance and progress: Essays on capitalism, business and society
  4. Bailey D., 2019, Academy of Management
  5. Barocas S., 2016, California Law Review, 104, 671
  6. Berente N., 2014, Stakeholders, and Measurement (March 26, 2014)
  7. Beunza D., 2015, Systemic Risk Center
  8. Bodie M. T., 2017, University of Colorado Law Review, 88, 961
  9. Borch C., 2016, Socio-Economic Review, 15, 283
  10. Boyle E., 2018, Understanding latent style, Multithreaded
  11. Bradley A., 2019, Building our centralized experimental platform, Multithreaded, 2019
  12. Brayne S., Social Problems
  13. Brockman J., 2019, Possible minds: Twenty-five ways of looking at AI
  14. Calo R., 2017, Columbia Law Review, 117, 1623
  15. Cameron L., 2018, Academy of Management Annual Meeting
  16. Cameron L., 2019, 9th Biennial Positive Organizational Scholarship Conference
  17. Campbell H., 2018, The rideshare guy: A blog and podcast for rideshare drivers
  18. Chai S., 2018, Academy of Management Proceedings
  19. Chalmers M., 2003, Workshop at the Crossroads: The interaction of HCI and Systems Issues in UbiComp
  20. Cherry M. A., 2015, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 37, 577
  21. Christin A., 2017, Big Data & Society, Big Data & Society, 4, 1
  22. Christin A., 2019, International Journal of Communication
  23. Colner E., 2018, Three years of erch engineering, Multithreaded
  24. Common M., 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal
  25. Corporaal G. F., 2017, Platform sourcing–How fortune 500 firms are adopting online freelancing platforms
  26. Corporaal G. F., 2019, Reshaping Work Conference
  27. Crawford K., 2014, Boston College Law Review, 55, 93
  28. Curchod C., 2019, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1
  29. Davenport T. H., 2016, Only humans need apply: winners and losers in the age of smart machines
  30. Davidson A., 2016, The future Of work looks like a UPS truck
  31. De Stefano V., 2015, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 37, 471
  32. Deterding S., 2011, CHI 2011 gamification workshop proceedings
  33. Diakopoulos N., 2016, MIT Technology Review, 17, 2016
  34. Feller A., 2016, The Washington Post
  35. Felstiner A., 2011, Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 32, 143
  36. Fourcade M., 2016, Socio-Economic Review, 15, 9
  37. Glynn P., 2018, Your client engagement program isn’t doing what you think it is, MultiThreaded
  38. Gomez-Uribe C. A., 2016, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 6, 13
  39. Gupta A., 2018, Crisis Text Line Blog, 2019
  40. Hall J. V., 2019, Pricing efficiently in designed markets: The case of ride-sharing
  41. Haraszti M., 1978, A worker in a worker’s state
  42. Howe J., 2006, Wired Magazine, 14, 1
  43. Jackson S. R., 2019, MIT Economic Sociology Working Group
  44. Karunakaran A., 2019, 35th European Group for Organizational Studies pre-colloquium
  45. Kaynak F. E., 2019, Bootcamps: A new path for occupational entry
  46. Kellogg K., 2018, Oxford Professional Services Conference
  47. Kellogg K., Organization Science
  48. Kessinger R., 2019, MIT Economic Sociology Working Group Seminar
  49. Kochan T. A., 2019, ILR Review, 72, 3
  50. Landay J., 2019, Smart interfaces for human-centered AI
  51. Lanier J., 2018, Harvard Business Review
  52. Lebovitz S., 2019, Doubting the diagnosis: How artificial intelligence increases ambiguity during professional decision making
  53. Leonardi P., 2018, Harvard Business Review, 96, 70
  54. Levy K., 2017, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 32, 1183
  55. Levy K., 2018, International Journal of Communication, 12, 23
  56. Liu Y.-E., 2014, EDM
  57. Lix K., 2019, Expressly different: Interpretive diversity and team performance
  58. Lix K., 2019, Kharma scores and team learning in software development gigs
  59. Martin D., 2014, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
  60. McClelland M., 2012, Mother Jones
  61. Mindell D. A., 2015, Our robots, ourselves: Robotics and the myths of autonomy
  62. Mollick E. R., 2014, The Wharton School research paper series
  63. Myers J., 2019, An Expanded Role for State Actors: Coordinating Workforce Intermediation Across Multiple Geographies and Industries in Four U.S. States
  64. Nikolaidis S., 2012, Human-robot teaming using shared mental models
  65. O’Connor S., 2015, Financial Times, 8
  66. Pasquale F., 2015, The Hedgehog Review, 17, 30
  67. Pine K. H., 2016, Conference 2016 Proceedings
  68. Rahman H., 2017, Reputational ploys: Reputation and ratings in online labor markets
  69. Rahman H., 2019, From iron cages to invisible cages: Algorithmic evaluations in online labor markets
  70. Rahman H., 2019, How client managers restrain control to keep control: Evidence from technologically-mediated ‘Gigs’
  71. Ramsay R. A., 1966, Managers and men: Adventures in industry
  72. Ranganathan A., 2017, Academy of Management
  73. Raval N., 2016, Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
  74. Rosenblat A., 2016, International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758
  75. Sachon M., 2017, KUKA: Planning for the future of automation
  76. Salehi N., 2015, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  77. Scheiber N., 2017, The New York Times, 2
  78. Scholz T., 2016, Challenging the corporate sharing economy
  79. Schwartz D., 2018, Work and Occupations, 45, 247, 10.1177/0730888418762263 · DOI
  80. Segal L., 2014, The decoded company: Know your talent better than you know your customers
  81. Stanculescu L. C., 2016, Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 346
  82. Sundararajan A., 2016, The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism
  83. Tabrizi B. N., 2019, Harvard Business Review, 13
  84. Thorp A. A., 2012, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 1
  85. Truelove E., 2019, Integrating the crowd into the firm production process: The critical role of guided mobilization
  86. Valentine M., 2019, Algorithms and the org chart
  87. Vancil R. F., 1982, Implementing strategy: The role of top management
  88. Waardenburg L., 2018, 34th European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium: Surprise in and around Organizations: Journeys to the Unexpected
  89. Walz S. P., 2014, The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications
  90. Whyte W. H., 1956, The organization man
  91. Wilson H. J., 2017, Mit Sloan Management Review
  92. Winner L., 1980, Daedalus, 109, 121
  93. Wood A., 2019, SASE
  94. Zhou S., 2018, Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1
  95. Zhou S., 2018, Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Department of Communication Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences
Venue
Academy of Management Annals
Published
2020-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
366-410
ISSN
  • 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-6520
OpenAlex
W2990520658
Cited by
2,732
References
284
Citations by year
2026: 1145 · 2025: 477 · 2024: 350 · 2023: 288 · 2022: 247 · 2021: 175 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 2
FWCI
237.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Annals (publishedVersion)
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
algorithmic control, contested terrain, labour process theory, rational control, employee resistance, worker evaluation, worker discipline

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