Algorithmic surveillance and workers’ compliance: The role of trust, privacy concerns, and fairness in online crowdwork

IF 5.4 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
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.
算法监控和工人的合规性:信任、隐私问题和公平在在线众筹中的作用
员工如何决定遵守、改变或抵制算法监控?我们认为,去语境化是一个关键的、但被忽视的机制,它塑造了工人对算法监控的反应。研究广泛批评了算法监控,重点是削弱了工人的控制力和能动性。然而,与算法监视相关的控制抵抗机制的理论和探索不足。我们利用社会技术系统理论和微观层面的合法性来研究在线众包中的监视和抵抗机制。我们的研究结果基于来自435名欧洲在线众筹工作者的三波数据,表明感知到的算法监控破坏了信任和公平,同时增加了对隐私的担忧,这反过来又告知了工人遵守、改变或抵制算法监控的意图。感知的去语境化调节了这些关系,加剧了对信任和公平的不利影响,同时减轻了对隐私问题的影响。这些结果扩展了个人结果是由社会和技术因素塑造的观点,只有通过证明感知的非情境化和微观层面的合法性判断——即信任、隐私问题和公平——是重要的社会技术机制,也会影响工人的合规性。通过强调反语境化在塑造抵抗和遵从性方面被忽视的作用,本研究挑战了以控制为中心的主流叙事,并提供了一个关于算法治理的新视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Relations
Human Relations Multiple-
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
7.00%
发文量
82
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信