Online labour platforms, human resource management and platform ecosystem tensions: an institutional perspective

Abstract

This chapter addresses the tensions arising from institutional complexity that are associated with the use of human resource management (HRM) activities by many online labour platforms (OLPs).OLPs use HRM activities to control freelance 'gig' workers and those who request their services.The use of HRM activities by OLPs generates institutional complexity because OLPs circumvent the employment relationship which is central to HRM as a disciplinary field. Extant HRM thinking is founded on the idea that HRM activities like staffing, training, appraisal, compensation and job design serve to shape and manage the employment relationship (Lepak & Snell, 1999;Nishii &

HRM models of online labor platforms: Strategies of market and corporate logics

“…Even though they are often referred to as new, many platform-based companies are already a decade old, and the diversification of services on digital platforms has been ongoing for several years (Vallas and Schor, 2020). This diversity is visible on platforms where mediated services are labor-intensive, often referred to as "online labor platforms" (OLPs) (e.g., Kuhn and Maleki, 2017;International Labour Organization, 2021;Keegan and Meijerink, 2021).…”

“…It is worth noting that earlier studies on platform work have paid far too little attention to OLPs in which work processes and work mediation are managed at lower intensities (Schor et al, 2020). It is, however, noticeable that HRM activities can translate into different elements of work depending on OLPs' businesses and what they consider strategically essential for optimizing their operations (Vallas and Schor, 2020;Keegan and Meijerink, 2021;Schußler et al, 2021) HRM activities may also affect workers' experiences of wellbeing and fairness (Seppänen et al, 2023).…”

“…How OLPs manage governance principles will be viewed through the lens of institutional logic theory. In work by Frenken et al (2020) and Keegan and Meijerink (2021), OLPs have been seen to face the complexity of the market and corporate logic and respond to the complexity with different HRM activities. The presumption is that HRM activities reflect OLPs' responses to logic complexity and the centrality of either of these logics.…”

“…The presumption is that HRM activities reflect OLPs' responses to logic complexity and the centrality of either of these logics. The paper contributes to the theorization of Frenken et al (2020) and uses the HRM approach from Keegan and Meijerink (2021) and Meijerink et al (2021a). Using earlier studies as a foundation, this paper claims that by reviewing logic complexities through HRM activities, we can recognize different OLP models and relations between OLPs and platform workers.…”

“…Earlier studies on OLPs' control schemes and institutional logic have focused on legislatively challenging cases (Frenken et al, 2020) and certain industries and types of platform work (Keegan and Meijerink, 2021;Meijerink et al, 2021b). This study takes a wider sample of different OLP companies and aims to show variations of HRM models and OLP companies' response strategies to market and corporation logic complexities.…”