Working for an Algorithm: Power Asymmetries and Agency in Online Work Settings

被引:188
作者
Curchod, Corentin [1 ]
Patriotta, Gerardo [2 ]
Cohen, Laurie [3 ]
Neysen, Nicolas [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Edinburgh, Sch Business, Strategy & Org, 29 Buccleuch Pl, Edinburgh EH8 9JS, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Warwick Business Sch, Org Studies, Scarman Rd, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
[3] Univ Nottingham, Sch Business, Work & Org, Jubilee Campus,Wollaton Rd, Nottingham NH8 1BB, England
[4] HEC Liege, Rue Louvrex 14, BE-4000 Liege, Belgium
关键词
power asymmetries; algorithms; online evaluations; sociomateriality; agency; practice; PERFORMANCE-APPRAISAL; TECHNOLOGY; COMMUNITIES; INFORMATION; MATERIALITY; BUREAUCRACY; REACTIVITY; EMERGENCE; KNOWLEDGE; COERCION;
D O I
10.1177/0001839219867024
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Drawing on interviews with 77 high-performing eBay business sellers in France and Belgium, this article investigates the power asymmetries generated by customers' evaluations in online work settings. Sellers revealed a high degree of sensitivity to negative reviews, which, while infrequent, triggered feelings of anxiety and vulnerability. Their accounts exposed power asymmetries at two levels: the transactional level between sellers and customers and the governance level between sellers and eBay. Our findings highlight three main mechanisms underlying power asymmetries in this context. First, online customer evaluations have created a new form of employee monitoring in which power is exercised through the construction of visibility gaps between buyers and sellers and through an implicit coalition between buyers and the platform owner, who join together in the evaluation procedures. Second, by mediating and objectifying relations, algorithms reproduce power asymmetries among the different categories of actors, thereby constraining human agency. Third, online customer evaluations prompt sellers to exploit their practical knowledge of the algorithm to increase their agency. Through the lived experience of working for an algorithm, our findings contribute new understandings of power and agency in online work settings.
引用
收藏
页码:644 / 676
页数:33
相关论文
共 79 条
[1]   Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive [J].
Adler, PS ;
Borys, B .
ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 1996, 41 (01) :61-89
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2019, POWER ESSENTIAL WORK
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1995, The art of case study research
[4]   A Self-Fulfilling Cycle of Coercive Surveillance: Workers' Invisibility Practices and Managerial Justification [J].
Anteby, Michel ;
Chan, Curtis K. .
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 2018, 29 (02) :247-263
[5]   THE ALIGNMENT OF TECHNOLOGY AND STRUCTURE THROUGH ROLES AND NETWORKS [J].
BARLEY, SR .
ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 1990, 35 (01) :61-103
[6]  
Barnes B., 2001, PRACTICE TURN CONT T, P26
[7]  
Bauman Z., 2006, LIQUID MODERNITY, DOI DOI 10.1590/S0034-75902002000100010
[8]   What Difference Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of Distributed Coordination [J].
Beane, Matt ;
Orlikowski, Wanda J. .
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 2015, 26 (06) :1553-1573
[9]   The social power of algorithms [J].
Beer, David .
INFORMATION COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2017, 20 (01) :1-13
[10]   Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious [J].
Beer, David .
NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY, 2009, 11 (06) :985-1002