Ward van Zoonen, Monika E. von Bonsdorff, Beatrice I. J. M. van der Heijden
{"title":"Algorithmic surveillance and workers’ compliance: The role of trust, privacy concerns, and fairness in online crowdwork","authors":"Ward van Zoonen, Monika E. von Bonsdorff, Beatrice I. J. M. van der Heijden","doi":"10.1177/00187267251379698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do workers decide to comply with, alter, or resist algorithmic surveillance? We argue that decontextualization is a key, yet overlooked, mechanism that shapes workers’ responses to algorithmic surveillance. Research has widely critiqued algorithmic surveillance, focusing on diminished worker control and agency. However, the control-resistance mechanisms related to algorithmic surveillance are undertheorized and underexplored. We draw on socio-technical systems theory and micro-level legitimacy to examine mechanisms of surveillance and resistance in online crowdwork. Our findings, based on three-wave data from 435 European online crowdworkers, show that perceived algorithmic surveillance undermines trust and fairness, while increasing privacy concerns, which in turn inform workers’ intentions to comply, alter, or resist algorithmic surveillance. Perceived decontextualization moderates these relationships, exacerbating the adverse effects on trust and fairness while mitigating the effects on privacy concerns. These outcomes extend the view that individual outcomes are shaped by social and technical factors only by demonstrating that perceived decontextualization and micro-level legitimacy judgments—that is, trust, privacy concerns, and fairness—are important socio-technical mechanisms that also impact workers’ compliance. By highlighting the overlooked role of decontextualization in shaping resistance and compliance, this study challenges dominant control-centric narratives and offers a new lens on algorithmic governance.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267251379698","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
How do workers decide to comply with, alter, or resist algorithmic surveillance? We argue that decontextualization is a key, yet overlooked, mechanism that shapes workers’ responses to algorithmic surveillance. Research has widely critiqued algorithmic surveillance, focusing on diminished worker control and agency. However, the control-resistance mechanisms related to algorithmic surveillance are undertheorized and underexplored. We draw on socio-technical systems theory and micro-level legitimacy to examine mechanisms of surveillance and resistance in online crowdwork. Our findings, based on three-wave data from 435 European online crowdworkers, show that perceived algorithmic surveillance undermines trust and fairness, while increasing privacy concerns, which in turn inform workers’ intentions to comply, alter, or resist algorithmic surveillance. Perceived decontextualization moderates these relationships, exacerbating the adverse effects on trust and fairness while mitigating the effects on privacy concerns. These outcomes extend the view that individual outcomes are shaped by social and technical factors only by demonstrating that perceived decontextualization and micro-level legitimacy judgments—that is, trust, privacy concerns, and fairness—are important socio-technical mechanisms that also impact workers’ compliance. By highlighting the overlooked role of decontextualization in shaping resistance and compliance, this study challenges dominant control-centric narratives and offers a new lens on algorithmic governance.
期刊介绍:
Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.