3.7.2 Digital Monitoring and Surveillance
To analyse the prevalence of digital monitoring and surveillance across platform work, we distinguish two broad categories (described more in detail in the previous chapter). The first one refers to activity monitoring (computer use, voice calls and emails, internet use); while the second one refers to physical monitoring (tracking entry and exit, whereabouts in the office, location outside the office and time spent working). Both types of monitoring can be used to (automatically) control, evaluate and discipline workers.
Estimates in Figure 25a and 8b show platform workers are significantly more likely to have their activity monitored than the rest of the employed population in both countries, but not always more likely to be physically monitored. The activity that is monitored more often is internet use, peaking at about 26.5% for the Spanish platform workers who do it as a main job. However, physical monitoring is more pervasive than simple activity monitoring, with between 37% and 64% of platform workers having at least their working time tracked, and more than a third having their entry and exit tracked (in Spain). In addition, more than half of Spanish platform workers who do it as main job claim to have their location tracked via digital devices in their vehicle.
Figure 25a: Activity monitoring: comparing platform workers with the employed population
*The category ‘employed population’ excludes all platform workers. Please note that the sample of main platform workers for Germany is extremely small, and estimates should be considered purely indicative.
Source: authors’ elaborations based on the AMPWork survey. Data for the employed population are weighted. Data for platform workers include booster sample.
Figure 25b: Physical monitoring: comparing platform workers with the employed population
*The category ‘employed population’ excludes all platform workers. Please note that the sample of main platform workers for Germany is extremely small, and
3.7.3 Algorithmic Management
All the aforementioned monitoring actions produce data that can be collected and processed. In digital labour platforms, the collected data are then fed to the platforms’ algorithms and used to automate several managerial functions, such as directing and organising, controlling, evaluating and disciplining. The automation of such functions is generally referred to as algorithmic management (which is more formally defined in the introduction and in the chapter on platformisation of regular work).
Our survey collects information on algorithmic management by asking workers whether the digital devices they work with (tablet, smartphone, computer or laptop) are used to automatically allocate shifts and tasks, provide instructions, determine the speed or rate of work, rank their performance on a leaderboard, and award points, prizes or badges for good performance. Finally, respondents are also asked whether their performance ratings are used as a way to allocate projects or tasks, or as a reason to cancel their shift/suspend their account.
Like in the previous section, we divide algorithmic management in two broad categories: the first category is algorithmic direction which includes the automatic allocation (or determination) of rosters, shifts or working times, tasks or activities, speed or rate of work and instructions. The second category refers to automated actions that fall into the category of algorithmic evaluation (and disciplining). Many of the activities carried out to automatically evaluate workers include aspects of gamification, as workers can be evaluated by the automated ranking of their performance on a leaderboard or through the awarding of points, badges, prizes, stars, or similar. Another evaluation activity – ratings – is performed by customers, but automatically aggregated by the organisation (or platform). Finally, respondents are asked whether they could suffer consequences should their rating drop below a certain level, for instance the automatic cancelling of their shift, job (or account) suspended etc.
Estimates for the two broad groups are reported separately for the two categories in Figure 26a and b.
Consistent with the literature and our priors, algorithmic management practices are significantly more widespread in digital labour platforms, but significantly more so in Spain than Germany, with 40/50% of the Spanish platform workers who do it as a main job being assigned their shifts, tasks and instructions automatically by a digital device. Similarly, algorithmic evaluation is more widespread in Spain and among main platform workers, with approximately four in ten having their performance ranked or awarded with points, stars, or badges, their activity rated by customers, and also suffering the consequences of poor ratings with cancelling or suspension. The proportion of German platform workers who are algorithmically evaluated is roughly half, and only a small fraction answered that they might be suspended or have their shift cancelled due to bad performance.
Figure 26a: Algorithmic direction: comparing platform workers with the employed population
*The category ‘employed population’ excludes all platform workers. Please note that the sample of main platform workers for Germany is extremely small, and estimates should be considered purely indicative.
Source: authors’ elaborations based on the AMPWork survey. Data for the employed population are weighted. Data for platform workers include booster sample.
Figure 26b: Algorithmic evaluation (gamification): comparing platform workers with the employed population
*The category ‘employed population’ excludes all platform workers. Please note that the sample of main platform workers for Germany is extremely small, and estimates should be considered purely indicative.
Source: authors’ elaborations based on the AMPWork survey. Data for the employed population are weighted. Data for platform workers include booster sample.
3.7.4 Algorithmic Management and digital monitoring by task
Finally, we can look at activity and physical monitoring as well as algorithmic direction and evaluation by task by using simple indicators equal to 1 if any of the items in its category is equal to 1 and zero otherwise. We use standardised measures of the four main composite indicators, with zero mean and standard deviation equal to 1, for ease of comparability. Results in Figure 27 show that both types of algorithmic management and of monitoring are more pervasive for platform workers who carry out on-location tasks; overall, algorithmic direction appears to be more pervasive in Spain than in Germany, whereas algorithmic evaluation is similarly distributed. The pervasiveness of activity monitoring depends more on the type of task: for professional online tasks, it is generally more widespread in Germany, while for non-professional online tasks seems to be more widespread in Spain. Similarly, physical monitoring in Spain is much less widespread among platform workers who carry out professional tasks, but fairly present for those who carry out non-professional or on-location tasks.
Figure 27: Algorithmic management and monitoring by task (platform workers who provided services in the past 12 months)
Type of task (main or only) DE ES DE ES DE ES DE ES
Professional tasks
Online software development 0.444 0.347 0.468 0.197 0.54 0.062 0.661 -0.085
Online creative and multimedia work 0.502 0.556 1.1 0.611 0.826 0.388 0.034 -0.113
Online writing and translation work 0.054 -0.172 0.216 0.246 0.154 0.305 0.059 -0.096
Online professional services 0.347 0.687 0.739 0.468 0.635 0.196 0.392 0.07
Interactive online lessons 0.193 0.11 0.378 -0.094 0.444 -0.056 0.273 -0.269
Non-professional (micro) tasks
Online sales and marketing 0.502 1.132 1.461 1.605 1.017 1.056 0.989 0.435
Online clerical tasks 0.105 0.465 0.739 0.306 0.499 0.368 0.136 0.006
Online data entry task 0.131 0.965 0.955 0.793 0.368 0.54 -0.252 0.285
Online content moderation 0.965 1.28 1.4 0.392
On location tasks
Taxi and people transportation services 0.502 0.838 -0.344 2.314 1.973 0.93 0.034 0.88
Food and other goods delivery services 0.965 1.428 1.28 1.59 -0.321 0.662 0.392 0.699
In-person services 0.552 -0.066 0.709 0.599 0.051 0.123 0.77 -0.266
Algorithmic direction Algorithmic Evaluation Activity monitoring Physical monitoring