If you think your manager treats you unfairly, the thought might have crossed your mind that replacing said boss with an unbiased machine that rewards performance based on objective data is a path to workplace happiness.

But as appealing as that may sound, you’d be wrong. Our review of 45 studies on machines as managers shows we hate being slaves to algorithms (perhaps even more than we hate being slaves to annoying people).

Algorithmic management — in which decisions about assigning tasks to workers are automated — is most often associated with the gig economy.

Platforms such as Uber were built on technology that used real-time data collection and surveillance, rating systems, and “nudges” to manage workers. Amazon has been another enthusiastic adopter, using software and surveillance to direct human workers in its massive warehouses.

As algorithms become ever more sophisticated, we’re seeing them in more workplaces, taking over tasks once the province of human bosses.

To get a better sense of what this will mean for the quality of people’s work and well-being, we analyzed published research studies from across the world that have investigated the impact of algorithmic management on work.

We identified six management functions that algorithms are currently able to perform: monitoring, goal setting, performance management, scheduling, compensation, and job termination. We then looked at how these affected workers, drawing on decades of psychological research showing what aspects of work are important to people.

Just four of the 45 studies showed mixed effects on work (some positive and some negative). The rest highlighted consistently negative effects on workers. In this article we’re going to look at three main impacts:

Less task variety and skill use

Reduced job autonomy

Greater uncertainty and insecurity

1. Reduced task variety and skill use

A great example of the way algorithmic management can reduce task variety and skill use is demonstrated by a 2017 study on the use of electronic monitoring to pay British nurses providing home care to elderly and disabled people.

The system under which the nurses worked was meant to improve their efficiency. They had to use an app to “tag” their care activities. They were paid only for the tasks that could be tagged. Nothing else was recognized. The result was they focused on the urgent and technical care tasks — such as changing bandages or giving medication — and gave up spending time talking to their patients. This reduced both the quality of care as well as the nurses’ sense of doing significant and worthwhile work.

Research suggests increasing use of algorithms to monitor and manage workers will reduce task variety and skill. Call centers, for example, already use technology to assess a customers’ mood and instruct the call center worker on exactly how to respond, from what emotions they should deeply to how fast they should speak.

2. Reduced job autonomy

Gig workers refer to as the “fallacy of autonomy” that arises from the apparent ability to choose when and how long they work. When the reality is that platform algorithms use things like acceptance rates to calculate performance scores and to determine future assignments.

This loss of general autonomy is underlined by a 2019 study that interviewed 30 gig workers using the “piecework” platforms Amazon Mechanical Turk, MobileWorks, and CloudFactory. In theory, workers could choose how long they worked. In practice, they felt they needed to constantly be on call to secure the best paying tasks.

This isn’t just the experience of gig workers. A detailed 2013 study of the US truck driving industry showed the downside of algorithms dictating what routes drivers should take, and when they should stop, based on weather and traffic conditions. As one driver in the study put it: “A computer does not know when we are tired, fatigued, or anything else […] I am also a professional and I do not need a [computer] telling me when to stop driving.”

3. Increased intensity and insecurity

Algorithmic management can heighten work intensity in a number of ways. It can dictate the pace directly, as with Amazon’s use of timers for “pickers” in its fulfillment centers.

But perhaps more pernicious is its ability to ramp up the work pressure indirectly. Workers who don’t really understand how an algorithm makes its decisions feel more uncertain and insecure about their performance. They worry about every aspect of affecting how the machine rates and ranks them.

For example, in a 2020 study of the experience of 25 food couriers in Edinburgh, the riders spoke about feeling anxious and being “on edge” to accept and complete jobs lest their performance statistics be affected. This led them to take risks such as riding through red lights or through busy traffic in heavy rain. They felt pressure to take all assignments and complete them as quickly as possible so as to be assigned more jobs.

Avoiding a tsunami of unhealthy work

The overwhelming extent to which studies show negative psychological outcomes from algorithmic management suggests we face a tsunami of unhealthy work as the use of such technology accelerates.

Currently, the design and use of algorithmic management systems are driven by “efficiency” for the employer. A more considered approach is needed to ensure these systems can coexist with dignified, meaningful work.

Transparency and accountability are key to ensuring workers (and their representatives) understand what is being monitored, and why, and that they can appeal those decisions to a higher, human, power.

Article by Sharon Kaye Parker , Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow, Curtin University and Xavier Parent-Rocheleau , Professor, HEC Montréal

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Tech loves to talk ‘diversity,’ but some firms are actually moving backwards

The U.S. tech sector is growing 10 times faster and has wages twice as high as the rest of the economy . This industry also wins the race for high profits and stock returns .

At the same time, the tech sector’s professional, managerial and executive labor forces are overwhelmingly white and male .

It is not surprising, then, that the field is under a great deal of pressure to diversify its labor force .

As researchers who study inequality , we examined the data to go beyond the picture of diversity in the tech sector as a whole. In our most recent research , we looked at which types of tech firms increased their workforce diversity, by how much, and for which groups of people. What we found surprised us.

Our research used machine learning techniques and firm-level data on employment diversity for 6,163 tech firms employing 2,582,342 workers. We used a clustering algorithm to identify groups of firms with similar changes in diversity between 2008 and 2016.

We focused in particular on professional jobs – the programmers , engineers, and designers who are the core source of innovation in the sector. We also looked at the managers and executives responsible for human resource practices. We don’t identify specific firms because this data was originally collected by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and our ability to analyze it requires strict confidentiality.

Diversity trajectories

We found that 80% of firms displayed a pattern of very minimal increases in diversity in their professional labor force, primarily driven by small increases in the employment of Asian men and Asian women, with declines among non-Asian women and no change among other minority men. We also found that this widespread pattern reflects much slower movement toward employment diversity in this sector than in the rest of the U.S. labor force.

Our findings for the remaining 20% of firms surprised us. We found some firms with rapid increases in diversity among professional jobs, and others where diversity declined substantially. In about 10% of firms, we found rapid increases in the proportion of white male professionals, in most the percentage of women fell, but in some, mainly Asian men were displaced. This latter small group of firms also saw growth in all other groups, even Asian women. This pattern permitted white male dominance at the expense of Asian men while making room for all other groups.

More hopefully, we observed a rapid growth in diversity of the technical labor force in two types of firms. In both, the percentage of white men declined by about a quarter. In the larger of these two groups, about 7% of tech sector firms, white male professionals were primarily replaced with white and Asian women, although Hispanic and Black men and women saw gains as well. The second group of firms was smaller, representing only 2% of tech firms. In these, white men were replaced by Asian men and Asian women, while all other groups declined as well.

We found similar patterns at the managerial and executive levels. Most firms showed little change, but there were small groups with rapid increases in diversity, and others with rapid decreases.

White male executives declined across the sector by 5.9%, and we discovered significant increases in the representation of all other groups, even Hispanic women, in the top jobs. It appears that the most common tech response to the pressure to increase diversity was to move more women and minorities into executive positions. This pattern has been described in previous research as being primarily a defensive response to diversity demands rather than a commitment to promoting employment diversity.

When do firms become more inclusive?

We also wanted to figure out which types of firms showed a pattern of rapidly increased diversity. Here we have two more hopeful findings.

Firms where professional diversity was growing rapidly also tended to be among those with rapid overall employment growth. Diversity looks to be good for business – or perhaps innovative, well-run businesses are better at hiring more diverse labor forces.

We wondered whether increased diversity among managers who do the hiring and executives who set the tone was associated with having a rapidly diversifying professional labor force. Here we found that those firms with strong increases in managerial diversity also tended to embrace strong increases in professional diversity. In contrast, strong increases in executive diversity did not reliably raise the chances that a firm would have strong diversity growth among its core professional labor force.

Window dressing or diversity now?

It looks to us as though the recipe for increasing diversity in the tech sector is at least in part to increase diversity at the managerial level. It also looks like increased diversity is good for business, although it is also possible that well-run firms hire more diverse labor forces. Unfortunately, this combination is not widespread. Dramatic improvements in employment diversity are confined to only 10% of firms.

We believe that most of the technology industry is stuck in a low-inclusion rut, and a disturbing set of firms are moving backward. However, a handful of firms demonstrate that diversity is possible now.

This article by Donald T. Tomaskovic-Devey , Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for Employment Equity, UMass Amherst , and JooHee Han , Postdoctoral Fellow in Sociology, University of Oslo is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Pixar, YouTube, and Google TV made me an ‘intrapreneur’ — here’s what I learned

An entrepreneur is defined as “an individual who creates a new business, bearing most of the risks and enjoying most of the rewards…an innovator, a source of new ideas.” In comparison, an intrapreneur is a leader who promotes innovative product development and marketing within the domain of a larger company.

Both terms elicit a profile of a person who is willing to take risks to promote ground-breaking product development. Their motivations vary, but both typically possess deep insights into emerging domains and a passion for their vision of the future. Our culture reveres such visionaries, and for good reason.

Think how a venture capitalist’s intuitive understanding of recombinant DNA technology drove him to found Genentech . Though less flashy, intrapreneurs make waves, too, as we saw with Paul Buchheit starting Gmail at Google via its famous 20% project .

Intrapreneurs receive a little less limelight in the press, and for that reason, guidance and best practices for those on this path are limited. Here are five lessons from my career, spent working from the inside of several of the world’s most innovative tech companies.

1. Choose your own adventure

Whether you start a company or join one depends in large part on how much you believe in the founders’ vision versus how much you’re driven to champion your own. Both choices have pros and cons, but neither is for the faint of heart.

Recognize your own flashes of insight and explore synergies with people already in the domain. Has anyone put forth a compelling vision? Have these organizations received promising funding, or are they on a path towards it?

If someone else’s idea has momentum and their vision is aligned with yours, intrapreneurship may be the way. People underestimate the power of teams — whether you are a founder or not is immaterial if the journey is strengthened for all.

Early in my career, I had a vision that computer animation would be the way movies would get made in the future. I was fortunate to find a burgeoning organization of people who shared that vision at Pixar. I joined the company when the team was just 50 people, and I got to ride its momentum.

In my early days, we worked on short films and commercials but soon landed a deal with Disney, where we got funded to work on the world’s first full-length CG film. That film was Toy Story, and it became a stellar hit.

The innovation it landed was such that today, all animated movies are now CG-driven. I chose to join a team that shared my passion, and as a result, I made a higher contribution than I ever could’ve had I started my own animation studio.

2. Look beyond the status quo

Intrapreneurs are always challenging the this-is-how-it’s-done thinking. However, they do so in a manner that is more acceptable within an existing company culture. Throughout your career, you will encounter organizations with entrenched processes and politics. Most people want to play it safe and will pressure you to do the same.

Remember that your disruptor mindset is your greatest asset — but how you apply it needs to respect existing paradigms. Choose an approach that will expand and enhance existing structures as opposed to competing with them.

My disruptor mindset led me to join YouTube. The company had started to showcase a way of distributing videos that was catching on with a younger demographic, but it had plenty of challenges to get beyond Nyan Cat .

Having worked in media production at Pixar, I had a strong instinct that creators of all sizes would embrace the democratic nature of distribution via the web as opposed to waiting for gatekeepers. I joined the team in charge of helping creators distribute and get mindshare for their videos — a team of just three people at that time!

We worked closely with our engineering counterparts, constantly pushing the boundaries of what we could deliver to serve our customers best. We used techniques and processes that were well ingrained within the company, such as Objectives and Key Results and a user-focused mindset. Also, we worked to ensure that the business models we doubled-down on were in line with the company’s larger plans.

YouTube has changed the way we interact with video forever. Remember that saying “we can do better” is often the first step in unlocking pivotal career opportunities and business success.

3. Cultivate breadth and depth of knowledge

Deep expertise is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it enables you to delve into a specific field and affect substantive change, such as what we saw with Genentech. On the other, we become so narrowly focused on our experiences that we often fail to see the broader trends.

Disney was slow to adopt computer graphics because they were so focused on creating traditional animations — a field in which they had deep expertise. Meanwhile, the Pixar team observed that the CG animation behind short films like Tin Toy made amazingly immersive full-length films. Several decades later, Disney would acquire Pixar.

As an intrapreneur, the company relies on you to understand your domain deeply. But it’s also up to you to keep the rest of the team aware of trends and to anticipate how those trends could impact the company’s business down the line.

4. Be your own best advocate

Intrapreneurs are not exempt from the task of selling their vision and getting internal support. It’s your job to lead your team, do your research, and advocate for your ideas.

When I first started working on the TV team at Google, TV was viewed as an antiquated concept. The model had existed for nearly 100 years, and we had to figure out how to embrace the future.

Our team created a vision and knew we needed to bring around our internal stakeholders to succeed. We did this by showing them how TV was changing, identifying the key trends of streaming media and home-based viewership, and showing how we could adapt to address these shifts.

We were thoughtful in our approach and provided context and ample research that would resonate. At every step of the way, our team executed key milestones that helped garner confidence in our vision and enabled the team to get to the next level. Today, our Google TV product is recognized as a leading streaming platform.

Never fear the road of advocacy. Your role is to help showcase the path within your domain. An intrapreneur usually starts with very few resources, no matter how big the company is. You work as a team, gain support from your stakeholders, and showcase proof points to unlock every funding round — just like an entrepreneur has to do with VCs.

5. Reframe conventional success

Intrapreneurs tend to thrive in environments that demand abstract creative thinking. Testing ideas and taking risks are part of the game. Of course, that mindset has trade-offs: s uccess is neither linear nor guaranteed. It’s important to realize that sometimes you will experience setbacks and even failure.

Meanwhile, you may see colleagues making more conventional choices climb the corporate ladder. Similar success may take longer for you, in part because resources will not always be at your disposal or because your market doesn’t grow as you expect.

In my career, I’ve had many moments when initiatives failed due to a lack of resources and support, making me feel the path was hopeless. But solving complex problems and creating something new excites me. These became my metrics of success.

Intrapreneurship is an opportunity to shape history, and that’s its own reward. And having the safety net of a larger company can help mitigate some (but not all) risks.

Remember: there will be times when intrapreneurship feels lonely, but it’s also incredibly gratifying! In my opinion, a career spent challenging the status quo, contributing your perspective, and creating something new out of nothing is infinitely rewarding. If you have a similar mindset — just DO IT!