A multi-layered perspective on algorithmic control systems: managerial design choices and worker legitimacy judgments

2025/11/07 by Alireza Alizadeh, Armin Alizadeh, Martin Wiener +1
Social Sciences · #Digital Economy and Work Transformation #Ethics and Social Impacts of AI #Information Systems Theories and Implementation

paper · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2025.2576230

openalex created_date 2025/11/07 · openalex publication_date 2025/11/07 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/26

Abstract

As algorithmic control (AC)—broadly defined as the managerial use of algorithms to direct, evaluate, and discipline workers—is increasingly implemented across a wide range of organisations, understanding how workers judge the legitimacy of AC becomes ever more critical. While prior research in this area often remains fixated on the effects of individual AC mechanisms, our study adopts a system-level perspective on AC. Specifically, we propose a three-layered conceptual framework for AC systems—consisting of (1) a control layer, (2) a data layer, and (3) an organisational embedding layer—and identify key design choices within each layer. Based on this framework, we conducted an experimental vignette study with 329 workers to assess how these design choices affect workers’ perceptions of autonomy and exploitation and, ultimately, their legitimacy judgments of AC systems. Our study advances research by shifting the focus beyond the level of individual control mechanisms to the system level and by providing empirical evidence that workers’ legitimacy judgments are highly sensitive to managerial design choices along all three layers. In particular, our results suggest that design choices within the data and organisational embedding layers are at least as critical as the AC mechanisms themselves in shaping workers’ judgments.

Citations

• Responsible AI starts with the artifact: Challenging the concept of responsible AI in IS research
• The Making of the “Good Bad” Job: How Algorithmic Management Manufactures Consent Through Constant and Confined Choices
• Common Method Bias: It's Bad, It's Complex, It's Widespread, and It's Not Easy to Fix
• Examining the Impact of Algorithmic Control on Uber Drivers’ Technostress
• Algorithmic control and gig workers: a legitimacy perspective of Uber drivers
• The Invisible Cage: Workers’ Reactivity to Opaque Algorithmic Evaluations
• When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions
• What Do Platforms Do? Understanding the Gig Economy
• Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation-Augmentation Paradox
• Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy
• Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4
• Beyond Motivation: Job and Work Design for Development, Health, Ambidexterity, and More
• Neutralization: New Insights into the Problem of Employee Information Systems Security Policy Violations1
• 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review
• A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors
• Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A Principal–Agent Perspective1
• The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
• The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior
• Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs
• The duality of algorithmic management: Toward a research agenda on HRM algorithms, autonomy and value creation
• Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox
• Creation of the algorithmic management questionnaire: A six‐phase scale development process