4.5 Article

Algorithmic management in a work context

期刊

BIG DATA & SOCIETY
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/20539517211020332

关键词

Algorithmic competencies; algorithmic management; artificial intelligence; opacity; power dynamics; future of work

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway within the FRIPRO TOPPFORSK [275347]
  2. National Science Foundation [CNS-1952085]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article explores the impact of algorithmic management on existing power dynamics and social structures within organizations, including how it affects relationships between workers and managers, the demand for new roles and competencies, and how knowledge and information exchange are influenced by algorithmic management.
The rapid development of machine-learning algorithms, which underpin contemporary artificial intelligence systems, has created new opportunities for the automation of work processes and management functions. While algorithmic management has been observed primarily within the platform-mediated gig economy, its transformative reach and consequences are also spreading to more standard work settings. Exploring algorithmic management as a sociotechnical concept, which reflects both technological infrastructures and organizational choices, we discuss how algorithmic management may influence existing power and social structures within organizations. We identify three key issues. First, we explore how algorithmic management shapes pre-existing power dynamics between workers and managers. Second, we discuss how algorithmic management demands new roles and competencies while also fostering oppositional attitudes toward algorithms. Third, we explain how algorithmic management impacts knowledge and information exchange within an organization, unpacking the concept of opacity on both a technical and organizational level. We conclude by situating this piece in broader discussions on the future of work, accountability, and identifying future research steps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据