When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Enjoy unlimited access to quality journalism.

Limited time offer

Get your 30-day free trial!
Future

When Your Boss Is Really An Algorithm

Hard questions amid the increasing use of software algorithms to take on managerial functions, such as hiring, firing and evaluating employees.

a man checking his phone

Algorithm management is having toxic conquences on the workplace.

Raw Pixels / Creative Commons
Robert Donoghue and Tiago Vieira*

The 1999 cult classic film Office Space depicts Peter’s dreary life as a cubicle-dwelling software engineer. Every Friday, Peter tries to avoid his boss and the dreaded words: “I’m going to need you to go ahead and come in tomorrow.”

This scene is still popular on the internet nearly 25 years later because it captures troubling aspects of the employment relationship – the helplessness Peter feels, the fake sympathy his boss intones when issuing this directive, the never-ending demand for greater productivity.

There is no shortage of pop culture depictions of horrible bosses. There is even a film with that title. But things could be about to get worse. What is to be made of the new bosses settling into workplaces across all sectors: the algorithm managers?


The prospect of robots replacing workers is frequently covered in the media. But, it is not only labour that is being automated. Managers are too. Increasingly we see software algorithms assume managerial functions, such as screening job applications, delegating work, evaluating worker performance – and even deciding when employees should be fired.

What is algorithm management?

The offloading of tasks from human managers to machines is only set to increase as surveillance and monitoring devices become increasingly sophisticated. In particular, wearable technology that can track employee movements.

From an employer’s point of view, there is much to be gained from transferring managers’ duties to algorithms. Algorithms lower business costs by automating tasks that take longer for humans to complete. Uber, with its 22,800 employees, can supervise 3.5 million drivers according to the latest yearly figures.

Artificial intelligence systems can also discover ways to optimise business organisations. Uber’s surge pricing model (temporarily raising prices to attract drivers during busy times) is only possible because an algorithm can process real-time changes in passenger demand.

Why is algorithm management dangerous?

Some problems associated with algorithm management receive more attention than others. Perhaps the risk most discussed by journalists, researchers, and policymakers is algorithmic bias.

Amazon’s defunct CV ranking system is an infamous example. This program, which was used to rate applicant CVs on a one-to-five scale, was discontinued because it consistently rated CVs with male characteristics higher than comparable ones deemed more feminine.

But several other issues surround the growth of algorithm management.

One is the problem of transparency. Classic algorithms are programmed to make decisions based on step-by-step instructions and only give programmed outputs.

Machine-learning algorithms, on the other hand, learn to make decisions on their own after exposure to lots of training data. This means they become more complex as they develop, making their operations opaque even to programmers.

When the reasoning behind a decision like whether to sack an employee is not transparent, a morally dubious arrangement is afoot. Was the algorithm’s decision to fire the employee biased, corrupt or arbitrary?

If so, its output would be considered morally illegitimate, if not illegal in most cases. But how would an employee demonstrate that their dismissal was the result of unlawful motivations?

Algorithm management exacerbates the power imbalance between employers and employees by shielding abuses of power from redress. And algorithms cut a critical human function from the employment relationship. It’s what late philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau called our “natural sense of pity” and “innate repugnance to seeing one’s fellow human suffer”.

Even though not all human managers are compassionate, there is zero per cent chance that algorithm managers will be. In our case study of Amazon Flex couriers, we observed the exasperation that platform workers feel about the algorithm’s inability to accept human appeals. Algorithms designed to maximise efficiency are indifferent to childcare emergencies. They have no tolerance for workers moving slowly because they are still learning the job. They do not negotiate to find a solution that helps a worker struggling with illness or disability.

What can we do

The risks faced by workers under the management of algorithms are already a central focus of researchers, trade unions and software developers who are trying to promote good working conditions. US politicians are discussing an extension of digital rights for workers. Other solutions include regular impact assessments of how algorithms affect workers and giving employees a say in how these technologies are used.

While businesses may find management algorithms to be highly lucrative, the need to make a profit is no reason to tolerate employee suffering.

Peter eventually learned how to manage his boss and make work enjoyable. He did this by showcasing his value in highly personable encounters with top levels of management. The question is, how would he have fared if his boss had been an algorithm?The Conversation

*Robert Donoghue, is a PhD Candidate, Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath and Tiago Vieira, a PhD Candidate, Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Society

The Everyday Weight Of Wearing A Hijab In India

Several Muslim women who wear hijabs share their stories to highlight the discrimination, from disapproving looks to outright insults, they face everyday in India in both their personal and professional lives.

photo of women wearing hijabs during the Muharram procession in Srinagar, India

During the Muharram procession in Srinagar, India

Idrees Abbas/SOPA Images via ZUMA
Seemi Pasha

On September 20, 2022, the government of Karnataka told the Supreme Court that Muslims girls in Udupi were goaded into wearing a hijab to school by the Islamic Popular Front of India (PFI) through social media messages. The state government made the argument while responding to a petition challenging the ban on wearing a hijab to school imposed by Karnataka, and upheld by the state high court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the apex court that wearing a hijab was part of a "larger conspiracy" orchestrated by the PFI to create social unrest.

On October 13 this year, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on pleas challenging the Karnataka high court order that had upheld the ban. A constitutional bench comprising the Chief Justice of India will now examine whether Muslim girls can or cannot wear a head scarf in school.

As of December 1 this year, there were 69,598 cases pending before the Supreme Court. The backlog includes petitions challenging the Modi government’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 and pleas challenging the government’s decision to dilute Article 370 of the Constitution. These have been pending for more than two years. Despite the urgency of matters that have been placed on the back burner, the apex court is being forced to spend its time deciding whether schoolgoing Muslim girls can get an education while wearing a head scarf, a tradition some Muslims believe is integral their faith.

The ban on wearing a hijab in classrooms may have highlighted the Karnataka government’s intolerance towards minorities, but the bias against the head scarf, it seems, is an old one.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest