Digital transformation and workplace wellbeing: the psychosocial impact of algorithm adoption at work
Keywords:
bem-estar laboral, gestão algorítmica, riscos psicossociais, transformação digital, liderança organizacionalAbstract
This article examines the psychosocial consequences of adopting algorithmic systems in team management. Digital transformation in organizations is not limited to the incorporation of new software tools: it fundamentally reshapes the relationship between employers and employees, redistributes power within firms, and alters how people experience autonomy, recognition, and meaning in their daily work. Drawing on an integrative review of the literature on the sociology of work, organizational psychology, and human resource management, the article analyzes how algorithmic supervision affects worker wellbeing and which organizational capabilities help mitigate its most harmful effects. It draws on established theoretical frameworks, including self-determination theory, the job demands-resources model, and platform capitalism studies, to show that the operational efficiency promised by management automation is often achieved at the cost of autonomy, mental health, and team cohesion. The article concludes that the sustainability of digital transformation depends on organizations developing mechanisms of algorithmic transparency, effective channels for worker participation, and leadership styles capable of mediating between system metrics and people's concrete needs.
Academic Metrics
- Downloads 1
- Views 31
This article does not yet have a registered DOI; some metrics are unavailable.
Downloads
References
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Cheng, M., & Foley, C. (2019). Algorithmic management: The case of Airbnb. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.04.009
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
Gandini, A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002
Griesbach, K., Reich, A., Elliott-Negri, L., & Milkman, R. (2019). Algorithmic control in platform food delivery work. Socius, 5, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119870041
International Labour Organization. (2016). Workplace stress: A collective challenge. ILO.
International Labour Organization. (2021). World employment and social outlook 2021: The role of digital labour platforms in transforming the world of work. ILO.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books.
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Leicht-Deobald, U., Busch, T., Schank, C., Weibel, A., Schafheitle, S., Wildhaber, I., & Kasper, G. (2019). The challenges of algorithm-based HR decision-making for personal integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04204-w
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337–1357. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806
Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017). Hands on the wheel: Navigating algorithmic management and Uber drivers' autonomy. En Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2017). Association for Information Systems.
Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber's drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606
Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
Woodcock, J. (2017). Working the phone lines: A gramscian analysis of labour and industrial relations in call centres. Pluto Press.
World Health Organization. (2022). Mental health at work: Policy brief. WHO.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Alejandro Pelfini (Autor)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published by Noemica Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Sharing and adapting the content is permitted for any purpose, provided appropriate credit is given to the authors and the original publication.
