Exploring Crowdworker Voice on Digital Work Platforms
Exploring Crowdworker Voice on Digital Work Platforms
Thomas Gegenhuber, Leuphana University Lüneburg
Markus Ellmer, University of Salzburg,
Elke Schüßler, Johannes Kepler University Linz
Division: Sociology & Humanities
How digital work platforms organise work relations with crowdworkers has become the subject of controversial discussions in the past few years. Given platforms’ considerable influence on organising work relations (Kirchner and Schüßler, 2019), scholars in various research fields increasingly suggest viewing crowdwork as a new form of ‘non-standard’ work and the unfolding ‘employment’ relations (Kalleberg and Dunn, 2016; Kilhoffer et al., 2017; Kuhn, 2016; Kuhn and Maleki, 2017; Meijerink and Keegan, 2019). One central element in work relations is voice, defined as having the opportunity to speak up to seek change instead of exiting the current work arrangement (Hirschman, 1970; Lavelle et al., 2010; Wilkinson et al., 2013). Extant crowdwork literature disagrees regarding platforms’ disposition to provide crowdworkers opportunities voice, suggesting crowdsourcing platforms mediating routine tasks (e.g., clickworking such as tagging images) refrain from providing crowdworker voice (Fieseler et al., 2017; Irani and Silberman, 2013), while platforms offering creative tasks (e.g., design) embrace voice (Boons et al., 2015; Gol et al., 2019; Troll et al., 2018).
Drawing on data from covert participatory observations, document analysis, and interviews with six German-based digital work platforms, we consider why and how platforms enable crowdworker voice. We find that platforms offering routine and creative tasks alike establish voice mainly to retain crowdworkers and increase output quality. Competition amongst platforms and worker-oriented values are drivers for platforms establishing a functional – and not democratising – voice platform regime. Considerations, such as organising costs, the desire to have control over voice and crowd heterogeneity shape the platforms’ voice regimes, pointing to a multitude of external economic, legal, and socio-cultural, but also platform-related contingencies shaping platform voice regime (Kaufman, 2015).
Our study contributes to the crowdsourcing literature by demonstrating the utility of a voice lens in understanding workers’ sustained willingness to contribute (Boons et al., 2015; Deng and Joshi, 2016; Gol et al., 2019; Jabagi et al., 2019), and to the industrial relations literature by translating the voice concept into the context of digital work platforms (Wilkinson et al., 2018).
Boons M, Stam D and Barkema HG (2015) Feelings of pride and respect as drivers of ongoing member activity on crowdsourcing platforms. Journal of Management Studies 52(6): 717–741.
Deng X and Joshi KD (2016) Why individuals participate in micro-task crowdsourcing work environment: Revealing crowdworkers’ perceptions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 17(10): 711–736.
Fieseler C, Bucher E and Hoffmann CP (2017) Unfairness by design? The perceived fairness of digital labor on crowdworking platforms. Journal of Business Ethics 12(2).
Gol SE, Stein M-K and Avital M (2019) Crowdwork platform governance toward organizational value creation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 28(2): 175–195.
Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Irani L and Silberman MS (2013) Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. CHI 13 Proceedings: 611–620.
Jabagi N, Croteau A-M, Audebrand LK, et al. (2019) Gig-workers’ motivation: Thinking beyond carrots and sticks. Journal of Managerial Psychology 8(1): 1.
Kalleberg AL and Dunn M (2016) Good jobs, bad jobs in the gig economy. Perspectives on Work 20: 10–14.
Kaufman BE (2015) Theorising determinants of employee voice: An integrative model across disciplines and levels of analysis. Human Resource Management Journal 25(1): 19–40.
Kilhoffer Z, Lenaerts K and Beblavý M (2017) The platform economy and industrial relations: Applying the old framework to the new reality. CEPS Research Report.
Kirchner S and Schüßler E (2019) The organization of digital marketplaces: Unmasking the role of Internet platforms in the sharing economy. In: Ahrne G and Brunsson N (eds) Organization Outside Organizations: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn KM (2016) The rise of the “gig economy” and implications for understanding work and workers. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 9(1): 157–162.
Kuhn KM and Maleki A (2017) Micro-entrepreneurs, dependent contractors, and instaserfs: Understanding online labor platform workforces. Academy of Management Perspectives 31(3): 183–200.
Lavelle J, Gunnigle P and McDonnell A (2010) Patterning employee voice in multinational companies. Human Relations 63(3): 395–418.
Meijerink J and Keegan A (2019) Conceptualizing human resource management in the gig economy. Journal of Managerial Psychology 34(4): 214–232.
Troll J, Blohm I and Leimeister JM (2018) Why incorporating a platform-intermediary can increase crowdsourcees’ engagement. Business & Information Systems Engineering 8(3): 433–450.
Wilkinson A, Dundon T and Marchington M (2013) Employee involvement and voice. In: Bach S and Edwards MR (eds) Managing human resources: Human resource management in transition. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 268–288.
Wilkinson A, Gollan PJ, Kalfa S, et al. (2018) Voices unheard: Employee voice in the new century. International Journal of Human Resource Management 33(3): 711–724.