IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v60y2023i1p1-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Algorithms and their Affordances: How Crowdworkers Manage Algorithmic Scores in Online Labour Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca Bellesia
  • Elisa Mattarelli
  • Fabiola Bertolotti

Abstract

On online labour platforms, algorithmic scores are used as indicators of freelancers' work quality and future performance. Recent studies underscore that, to achieve good scores and secure their presence on platforms, freelancers respond to algorithmic control in different ways. However, we argue, to fully understand how freelancers deal with algorithmic scores, we first need to investigate how they interpret scores and, more specifically, what scores can do for them, i.e., perceived algorithmic affordances and constraints. Our interviews and other qualitative data collected with knowledge intensive gig workers on a major platform allow us to explain how the perceived affordances of algorithms (i.e., barrier, individual visibility, self‐extension, rule of the game) act as mechanisms that explain different behavioural and emotional responses over time. Our work contributes to the current debate on the positive and negative consequences of algorithmic work by portraying the fundamental role paid by the individual interpretation of algorithmic scores and by integrating the affordance perspective into our understanding of algorithmic work.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca Bellesia & Elisa Mattarelli & Fabiola Bertolotti, 2023. "Algorithms and their Affordances: How Crowdworkers Manage Algorithmic Scores in Online Labour Markets," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 1-37, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:60:y:2023:i:1:p:1-37
    DOI: 10.1111/joms.12870
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12870
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joms.12870?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lehdonvirta, Vili, 2018. "Flexibility in the Gig Economy: Managing Time on Three Online Piecework Platforms," SocArXiv k3hy4, Center for Open Science.
    2. Chrysanthos Dellarocas, 2003. "The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1407-1424, October.
    3. Marios Kokkodis & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2016. "Reputation Transferability in Online Labor Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1687-1706, June.
    4. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Susan V. Scott, 2014. "What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 868-891, June.
    5. Amany Elbanna & Ayomikun Idowu, 2022. "Crowdwork, digital liminality and the enactment of culturally recognised alternatives to Western precarity: beyond epistemological terra nullius," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 128-144, January.
    6. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2014. "What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57602, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Mark Graham & Isis Hjorth & Vili Lehdonvirta, 2017. "Digital labour and development: impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 23(2), pages 135-162, May.
    8. Jovana Karanović & Hans Berends & Yuval Engel, 2021. "Regulated Dependence: Platform Workers’ Responses to New Forms of Organizing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 1070-1106, June.
    9. Jeacle, Ingrid & Carter, Chris, 2011. "In TripAdvisor we trust: Rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 293-309.
    10. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2003. "The Digitization of Word-of-mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Working papers 4296-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    11. Raymond F. Zammuto & Terri L. Griffith & Ann Majchrzak & Deborah J. Dougherty & Samer Faraj, 2007. "Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 749-762, October.
    12. Mingfeng Lin & Yong Liu & Siva Viswanathan, 2018. "Effectiveness of Reputation in Contracting for Customized Production: Evidence from Online Labor Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 345-359, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brooke, Sian & Rao, Aliya, 2024. "Designing for justice in freelancing: testing platform interventions to minimise discrimination in online labour markets," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122152, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marios Kokkodis, 2021. "Dynamic, Multidimensional, and Skillset-Specific Reputation Systems for Online Work," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 688-712, September.
    2. Karunakaran, Arvind & Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2022. "Crowd-based accountability: examining how social media commentary reconfigures organizational accountability," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Alex J. Wood, 2021. "Algorithmic Management: Consequences for Work Organisation and Working Conditions," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2021-07, Joint Research Centre.
    4. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    5. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5fb16v625i8vdbgdiskfbht5i5 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Yili Hong & Jing Peng & Gordon Burtch & Ni Huang, 2021. "Just DM Me (Politely): Direct Messaging, Politeness, and Hiring Outcomes in Online Labor Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 786-800, September.
    8. Marios Kokkodis & Theodoros Lappas, 2020. "Your Hometown Matters: Popularity-Difference Bias in Online Reputation Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 412-430, June.
    9. Rense Corten & Judith Kas & Timm Teubner & Martijn Arets, 2023. "The role of contextual and contentual signals for online trust: Evidence from a crowd work experiment," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Jiaying Deng & Hossein Ghasemkhani & Yong Tan & Arvind K Tripathi, 2023. "Actions speak louder than words: Imputing users’ reputation from transaction history," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(4), pages 1096-1111, April.
    11. Menon, Alka V., 2017. "Do online reviews diminish physician authority? The case of cosmetic surgery in the U.S," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Jean Samuel Beuscart & Kevin Mellet & Marie Trespeuch, 2016. "Reactivity without Legitimacy? Online Consumer Reviews in the Restaurant Industry," Post-Print hal-03389275, HAL.
    13. Gordon Burtch & Yili Hong & Senthil Kumar, 2021. "When Does Dispute Resolution Substitute for a Reputation System? Empirical Evidence from a Service Procurement Platform," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(6), pages 1565-1582, June.
    14. Mennicken, Andrea & Kornberger, Martin, 2021. "Von performativität zu generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110925, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Marin, Alejandra & Dass, Mayukh & Boal, Kimberly, 2019. "Critic-buyer effects on valuation of ambiguously appraised products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 45-55.
    16. Stella Pachidi & Hans Berends & Samer Faraj & Marleen Huysman, 2021. "Make Way for the Algorithms: Symbolic Actions and Change in a Regime of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 18-41, January.
    17. Power, Michael, 2021. "Modelling the microfoundations of the audit society: organizations and the logic of the audit trail," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100243, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Jason Chan & Jing Wang, 2018. "Hiring Preferences in Online Labor Markets: Evidence of a Female Hiring Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 2973-2994, July.
    19. Lugosi, Peter, 2016. "Socio-technological authentication," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 100-113.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5fb16v625i8vdbgdiskfbht5i5 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Vegard Kolbjørnsrud, 2018. "Collaborative organizational forms: on communities, crowds, and new hybrids," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, December.
    22. Marios Kokkodis & Theodoros Lappas & Gerald C. Kane, 2022. "Optional purchase verification in e‐commerce platforms: More representative product ratings and higher quality reviews," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(7), pages 2943-2961, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:60:y:2023:i:1:p:1-37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.