Search results

This research analyzed the existing academic and grey literature concerning the technologies and practices of people analytics (PA), to understand how ethical considerations are being discussed by researchers, industry experts and practitioners, and to identify gaps, priorities and recommendations for ethical practice.

An iterative “scoping review” method was used to capture and synthesize relevant academic and grey literature. This is suited to emerging areas of innovation where formal research lags behind evidence from professional or technical sources.

Although the grey literature contains a growing stream of publications aimed at helping PA practitioners to “be ethical,” overall, research on ethical issues in PA is still at an early stage. Optimistic and technocentric perspectives dominate the PA discourse, although key themes seen in the wider literature on digital/data ethics are also evident. Risks and recommendations for PA projects concerned transparency and diverse stakeholder inclusion, respecting privacy rights, fair and proportionate use of data, fostering a systemic culture of ethical practice, delivering benefits for employees, including ethical outcomes in business models, ensuring legal compliance and using ethical charters.

This research adds to current debates over the future of work and employment in a digitized, algorithm-driven society.

The research provides an accessible summary of the risks, opportunities, trade-offs and regulatory issues for PA, as well as a framework for integrating ethical strategies and practices.

By using a scoping methodology to surface and analyze diverse literatures, this study fills a gap in existing knowledge on ethical aspects of PA. The findings can inform future academic research, organizations using or considering PA products, professional associations developing relevant guidelines and policymakers adapting regulations. It is also timely, given the increase in digital monitoring of employees working from home during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Existing literature on algorithmic management practices – defined as autonomous data-driven decision making in people's management by adoption of self-learning algorithms and artificial intelligence – suggests complex relationships with employees' well-being in the workplace. While the use of algorithms can have positive impacts on people-related decisions, they may also adversely influence job autonomy, perceived justice and – as a result – workplace well-being. Literature review revealed a significant gap in empirical research on the nature and direction of these relationships. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to analyse how algorithmic management practices directly influence workplace well-being, as well as investigating its relationships with job autonomy and total rewards practices.

Conceptual model of relationships between algorithmic management practices, job autonomy, total rewards and workplace well-being has been formulated on the basis of literature review. Proposed model has been empirically verified through confirmatory analysis by means of structural equation modelling (SEM CFA) on a sample of 21,869 European organisations, using data collected by Eurofound and Cedefop in 2019, with the focus of investigating the direct and indirect influence of algorithmic management practices on workplace well-being.

This research confirmed a moderate, direct impact of application of algorithmic management practices on workplace well-being. More importantly the authors found out that this approach has an indirect influence, through negative impact on job autonomy and total rewards practices. The authors observed significant variation in the level of influence depending on the size of the organisation, with the decreasing impacts of algorithmic management on well-being and job autonomy for larger entities.

While the influence of algorithmic management on various workplace practices and effects is now widely discussed, the empirical evidence – especially for traditional work contexts, not only gig economy – is highly limited. The study fills this gap and suggests that algorithmic management – understood as an automated decision-making vehicle – might not always lead to better, well-being focused, people management in organisations. Academic studies and practical applications need to account for possible negative consequences of algorithmic management for the workplace well-being, by better reflecting complex nature of relationships between these variables.