The day-to-day functions traditionally performed by mid-level managers are increasingly being delegated to data-driven applications capable of screening résumés, assigning tasks, assessing performances, calculating wages, setting incentives and imposing sanctions.
Algorithmic management (AM)—a set of socio-technical practices that support or complement human decision-making through big data harvesting and ubiquitous computing—is gaining traction in business and attention in wider society. In fact, numerous workers are now experiencing the consequences of the expansion of the width, velocity and severity of the managerial prerogatives legally conferred on employers.
Several inherent features render the rise of ‘algorithmic bosses’ difficult to grasp. First, it involves a gradual makeover that takes place at different paces in different industries. Second, it is almost invisible and faceless, involving characteristics that can have a chilling effect on both individual awareness and collective resistance. It also makes grievances more complex for those exposed to such systems as well as for the judiciaries. Third, it appears innocuous when presented as a magic bullet for solving problems related to human subjectivity, bottlenecks, lack of fairness and systematic disparities.
AM threatens to disrupt the equilibrium that exists between powers and their relevant limits, as it allows for the dodging of legal rules intended to limit the extent of managerial prerogatives. Code-based systems add a new layer of complexity because they are undeniably more powerful and indecipherable than human power holders. It may prove difficult to reconstruct or document procedural steps in an extensive way when the sources of power are fragmented across multiple actors.
The ‘Boss Ex Machina’ MSCA sought to unveil and unravel the digital transformation of managerial functions within workplaces driven by machines, artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms. The main research questions were as follows. Is employer authority today the same as it was in the past? How are workforces currently managed in ‘regular workplaces’ (not only within the gig economy)? Is the existing legal framework able to address the intensification of authority that is facilitated by technologies?
Through the adoption of a qualitative approach, the experiences of a group of employees, who all work in companies that have implemented modern (albeit not necessarily digital) human resources practices, were mapped. Here, management practices were found to interact with the underlying authority structures. They constrained workers’ autonomy by means of inelastic monitoring, constant instructions and excessive reporting duties.
Through the application of a multidimensional, anticipatory and participatory approach, the project focused on integrating the substantive and procedural rules that contribute to the rebalancing of the asymmetries within workplaces. Using examples derived from case law, administrative decisions and legislative developments, the mutually reinforcing relationship between data protection provisions and anti-discrimination measures was unpacked. The involvement of worker representatives in the co-designing of future-proof organisational policies was deemed to be crucial.
