Mechanical Turk and the gig economy: exploring differences between gig workers

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an investigation of how different types of gig workers engage in the gig economy. Specifically, the authors distinguish between workers who view gig work as primary income (or not) and those workers who view it as a job (or not). Design/methodology/approach In total, 1,190 Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers completed surveys across two studies examining whether types of workers differ based on demographic characteristics, utilization of MTurk, why they participate in the gig economy on MTurk (i.e. push and pull factors) and how this impacts life satisfaction. Findings Workers relying on MTurk as a primary income had lower incomes and spent more time completing large numbers of work units. This group of workers also reported fewer pull factors (e.g. enjoyment) as a reason for working in the gig economy and had lower levels of self-reported current and predicted future life satisfaction. Individuals who view MTurk as a job were more likely to treat MTurk like a job – engaging in online communities and having a regular work schedule. These workers were more likely to report pull factors (e.g. enjoyment and challenge) and did not differ on life satisfaction. Originality/value The current research contributes to our understanding of MTurk, one of the largest online platforms for gig work, as part of the diverse gig economy and highlights potential areas for future research.

Working 9‐to‐5? A review of research on nonstandard work schedules

“…Finally, there has been a lot written about gig workers, but there was surprisingly little academic research for us to review on this topic that was relevant to our focus on nonstandard work schedules. For instance, a recent special issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology focused on “Work in the Gig Economy,” but these articles emphasized larger issues, such as how gig workers view their work and how that affects their satisfaction (Keith, Harms, & Tay, 2019), the motivation of gig workers (Jabagi, Croteau, Audebrand, & Marsan, 2019), and how to conceptualize human resource management practices in the gig economy (Meijerink & Keegan, 2019). In a study of Uber drivers, using data collected from online forums, emails, and in‐depth interviews, Rosenblat and Stark (2016) found that Uber uses its software to monitor and control driver behavior and performance in a way that undermines the very freedom, flexibility, and independence that it promotes to drivers.…”

The Gig Economy’s Implications for Management Education

“…The roles of managers and subordinates increasingly are moving away from those of the "organization man" who was the foundation of most current theory and practice (Barley et al, 2017;Whyte, 1956). In addition, our efforts to understand are complicated by the diversity of the "gig" category, which includes multiple job-holding, independent contracting, temporary work, and many other kinds of employment relations (Keith et al, 2019). Since gig work is defined primarily by the absence of a traditional job, all gig experiences are not the same (Spreitzer et al, 2017), and each represents a unique mix of costs and benefits (Ashford et al, 2018).…”

Mental Illness of Management Educators: Does Holding Multiple Academic Jobs Play a Role? A Qualitative Study

“…Moreover, the rapid digital transformation characterising today’s world has made it easier to do jobs remotely, flexibly and independently (Cascio & Montealegre, 2016 ; Arntz et al, 2016 ; Mousa, 2021a , b , c ). This helps employees in fulfilling their job duties (Keith et al, 2019 ; Mousa et al, 2020 ) on the one hand, and fosters an individual’s readiness to find more than one job, on the other. Lastly, some organization-related behaviours, such as loyalty, commitment and workplace engagement among those with more than one job, have not been addressed by management researchers, and considering the digital turn, it seems timely to theoretically and empirically address their work-related behaviour and attitudes (Webster et al, 2019 ).…”