Configuration Study on Influencing Factors of Platform Employee Initiative under Algorithmic Program
Case Study Based on Drip Platform Driver Interview
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/hset.v1i.437Keywords:
Platform employees, Enthusiasm, Qualitative comparative analysisAbstract
Under the overall pressure of the employment situation in China, the number of platform employees is increasing gradually. Under the algorithm program, how to rationally allocate platform employees’ work tasks and improve employee motivation are affected by many factors. This paper uses random interviews with drip drivers in Guangdong and Anhui as a first-hand data sample and uses a clear set qualitative comparison method to analyze and study the configuration of factors affecting employee motivation. Emphasizes that the platform should pay attention to the role of multi-factor coupling in improving employee motivation; Increase employee participation in platform strategic decision-making and procedural fairness among platform employees. The main theoretical contributions of this paper are as follows: Firstly, the factors that affect the enthusiasm of the algorithm program are combed; Second, it verifies the path of different factors to improve employee motivation. The results of the study show that different program settings can meet the needs of employees to varying degrees, thus improving the enthusiasm of employees.
Downloads
References
Benoit Rihoux, Charles. C Larkin. QCA Design Principles and Applications: A New Approach Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Research [M]. Translated by Du Yunzhou and Li Yongfa. Beijing: Machinery Industry Press, 2017.
Cui Xiaoming, Yao Kai, Hu Junchen. Transaction cost, network value and platform innovation: A qualitative analysis based on 38 platform practice cases [J]. Research and Development Management, 2014, 26(03): 22-31.
Du Yunzhou, Li Jiaxin, Liu Qiuchen, Zhao Shuting, Chen Kaiwei. Configuration Theory and QCA Method from the Perspective of Complex Dynamics: Research Progress and Future Directions [J]. Management World, 2021, 37(03): 180-197.
Du Yunzhou, Jia Liangding. Configuration Perspective and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): A New Path for Management Research [J]. Management World, 2017(06): 155-167.
Guo Yuanyuan, He Yining, Deng Xiaohui. Research on innovative resource curse governance model based on QCA method [J]. Scientific Research Management, 2019, 40(04): 83-91. DOI: 10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2019.04.009.
Liu Shanshi, Pei Jialiang, Zhong Chuyan. Is platform work autonomous? The impact of online labor platform algorithm management on work autonomy [J]. Foreign Economics and Management, 2021, 43(2): 51-67.
Wang Fengbin, Jiang Hong, Wang Jing. The evolution of the management and control structure of the central enterprise group: strategic decision, system-induced or path dependence? - A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) attempt [J]. Management World, 2014(12): 92-114.
Wu Qingjun, Li Zhen. Labor control and work autonomy under the sharing economy: A mixed study on the work of online car-hailing drivers [J]. Sociological Research, 2018, 33(4): 137-162.
Xia Xin, He Jianmin, Liu Jiayi. The Research Logic of Qualitative Comparative Analysis——Also on Its Enlightenment to Economic Management Research [J]. Finance and Economics Research, 2014, 40(10): 97-107.
Zhang Ming, Du Yunzhou. Application of QCA method in organization and management research; orientation, strategy and direction [J]. Journal of Management, 2019, 16(9): 1312.
Arch G. Woodside. Visualizing matching generalizing: Case identification hypotheses and case-level data analysis[J]. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ),2015, 23(3).
Arnold D, Bongiovi J R. Precarious, informalizing, and flexible work: Transforming concepts and understandings[J]. American Behavioral Scientist, 2013, 57(3): 289-308.
Barnes S A, Green A, De Hoyos M. Crowdsourcing and work: Individual factors and circumstances influencing employability[J]. New Technology, Work and Employment, 2015, 30(1): 16-31.
Burbano V C. Social responsibility messages and worker wage requirements: Field experimental evidence from online labor marketplaces[J]. Organization Science, 2016, 27(4): 1010-1028.
Burbano V C. Social responsibility messages and worker wage requirements: Field experimental evidence from online labor marketplaces[J]. Organization Science, 2016, 27(4): 1010-1028.
Barnes S A, Green A, De Hoyos M. Crowdsourcing and work: Individual factors and circumstances influencing employability[J]. New Technology, Work and Employment, 2015, 30(1):16-31.
Charles C. Ragin. Pennings Paul. Fuzzy Sets and Social Research [J]. Sociological Methods,2005,33(4)
Claudius Wagemann, Jonas Buche, Markus B. Siewert. QCA and business research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda? [J]. Journal of Business Research, 2016, 69(7).
Debra Howcroft, Birgitta BergvallKåreborn. A Typology of Crowd work Platforms [J]. Work, Employment and Society, 2019, 33(1).
Edwards Jeffrey R, Cable Daniel M. The value of value congruence.[J]. The Journal of applied psychology,2009,94(3).
Gretchen M. Spreitzer. A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain[J]. Journal of Management,1997,23(5).
James Duggan, Ultan Sherman, Ronan Carbery, Anthony McDonnell. Algorithmic management and app‐work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM[J]. Human Resource Management Journal,2020,30(1).
Kokkodis M, Ipeirotis P G. Reputation transferability in online labor markets[J]. Management Science, 2016, 62(6): 1687-1706.
Lehdonvirta V. Flexibility in the gig economy: Managing time on three online piecework platforms[J]. New Technology, Work and Employment, 2018, 33(1): 13-29.
Peer C. FISS. Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research [J]. Academy of management journal,2011,54(2).
Ragin Charles C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press,1989.
Ragin Charles C. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press,2009.
Ragin C. C. Fuzzy Set Social Science[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Rosenblat A, Stark L. Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers[J]. International Journal of Communication, 2016, 10: 3758-3784.
R. P. Gregory. Two Decades of EP Work: Progress or Just Change?[J]. Educational Psychology in Practice,1993,9(2).
ROUX B. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods[J]. International Sociology, 2006, 21(5): 679-706.
Stone DL, Lukaszewski KM, StoneRomero E F, et al. Factors affecting the effectiveness and acceptance of electronic selection systems[J]. Human Resource Management Review, 2013, 23(1): 50-70.
Stewart A, Stanford J. Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options[J]. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 2017, 28(3):420-437.
Thomas K D. Taxing the gig economy[J]. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2018, 166(6): 1415-1473.
Van Doorn N. Platform labor: On the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the “on-demand” economy[J]. Information, Communication, and Society, 2017, 20(6): 898-914.
Wood A J, Graham M, Lehdonvirta V, et al. Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gigeconomy[J]. Work, Employment and Society,2019,33(1):56-75.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
