Microtargeting control: Explicating algorithmic control and nudges in platform‐mediated cab driving in India

Abstract

We discuss algorithmic control and nudges prevalent in the gig economy in relation to extant management control literature. We draw on an analysis of archival data and interviews with drivers and executives of app‐based cab companies in India. Comparing algorithmic control with direct control, we explain the increase in the scale and scope of automation that enables detailed driver profiling and segmentation, which is crucial for microtargeting control mechanisms and controlling driver earnings. Explaining nudges vis‐a‐vis indirect control, we highlight the role of mental processes and clarify the labelling of control mechanisms as nudges. Furthermore, we show how nudges are interwoven into algorithmic control as they capitalise on and feed into it. We also substantiate the discussions on information asymmetry by explicating the calculative apparatus that underlies the asymmetry.

Connecting at the edge: Cycles of commodification and labour control within food delivery platform work in Belgium

“…Recent studies suggest that labour platforms have extensive control over the compensation for and the organisation of work, as they can hire workers by task and thus instantaneously adapt the workforce to their needs (Woodcock & Graham, 2020). Platforms impose the conditions under which a fragmented workforce connects with users (Wood et al, 2019) and limit workers' and users' capacities to access information which they could use for their own advantage, thereby exercising control through ‘information asymmetries’ (Rosenblat & Stark, 2016; Shalini & Bathini, 2021). This happens in a context where platforms shift economic risks to workers, providing no social protection and requiring workers to use their own resources (De Stefano, 2016).…”

“…Sociological and labour studies have examined the implications of digital platforms for labour subordination and control, pointing to the importance of algorithmic ratings, monitoring and financial nudges prevalent in these platforms (Gandini, 2019; Shalini & Bathini, 2021). Wood et al (2019) refer to a process of commodification when explaining how platform capitalism achieves control by subordinating labour through exposing workers to market forces.…”

Actions in phygital space: Work solidarity and collective action among app‐based cab drivers in India

“…Active solidarity at work often stems from a collective perception of injustice, which, in turn, could originate from the perceived implausibility of grievance resolution through management (Lei, 2021). Studies on gig work indicate that algorithmic management's arbitrary, disciplinary and opaque characteristics create substantial grievances (Rosenblat & Stark, 2016; Shalini & Bathini, 2021; Tassinari & Maccarrone, 2020). The management's unsympathetic and irregular response to grievances can worsen the situation, creating a feeling of unfairness (Griesbach et al, 2019).…”

“…Many people, lured by the prospect, went out of their way to take car loans to work on the platforms. Using such tactics, companies have rendered competitors either nonexistent or limited to small regions, thus leaving the drivers with no good alternatives (see Shalini & Bathini, 2021). Once the companies gained a sufficiently large pool of drivers, they cut down driver incentives and increased commission charges and cancellation penalties, thus leaving many drivers in a financial lurch.…”

“…Once the companies gained a sufficiently large pool of drivers, they cut down driver incentives and increased commission charges and cancellation penalties, thus leaving many drivers in a financial lurch. Drivers' economic dependence coupled with greater platform control resulted in long working hours and poor working conditions for drivers (Shalini & Bathini, 2021). Subsequently, there were multiple protests and strikes by app‐based cab drivers across the country that signalled collective mobilisation.…”