From Taylorism to Algorithmic Management: How Technological Evolution Reshapes Foundational Management Principles

Abstract: This study traces management’s evolution from Frederick W. Taylor’s early 20th‑century scientific management to the contemporary phenomenon of algorithmic management, probing how technological advancements have fundamentally transformed managerial logic and dynamics. Taylorism emphasized optimizing labor through meticulous time‑and‑motion studies, task standardization, top-down control, and managerial oversight, aimed at maximizing economic efficiency and reducing reliance on worker discretion.

In contrast, algorithmic management entrusts managerial functions such as monitoring, performance assessment, scheduling, goal‑setting, compensation, and even dismissal to algorithms and automated systems. Enabled by real‑time data collection, predictive analytics, and digital platforms, algorithmic management enables organizations to manage dispersed labor at scale with unprecedented precision.

While both approaches share enduring principles like efficiency, standardization, and control, the shift from human supervision to software‑mediated governance introduces distinctive dynamics. Algorithmic systems create triangular visibility regimes rather than traditional hierarchical oversight, often obscuring decision logic and engendering information asymmetries, where employers and increasingly algorithm designers hold more knowledge than workers do.

Moreover, the impacts of algorithmic management are complex and dual in nature. Empirical and theoretical literature suggests such systems can simultaneously restrict and enable worker autonomy and value creation shaping workstation design, job demands, well-being, and motivation. This duality underscores that algorithmic management’s consequences are not predetermined by technology but are contingent on sociotechnical design and implementation choices.

The paper explores how these shifts play out in contemporary labor contexts - from gig platforms to fulfillment centers where workers are subject to algorithmic surveillance and quantified performance regimes, compelling new forms of worker resistance, adaptation, and negotiation of agency.

Integrating Labor Process Theory, the analysis reveals how algorithmic systems reenact power asymmetries and labor control while posing fresh challenges and opportunities for worker autonomy and organizational justice. It argues that as management becomes digitized, practitioners, policymakers, and scholars must critically assess algorithmic design, prioritize ethical implementation, and craft frameworks to preserve worker dignity, transparency, and fairness.

Taylorism, Scientific Management, Algorithmic Control, Managerial Automation, Platform Work, Labor Process Theory.

1. Bajwa, U., Knorr, L., & Doucet, M. (2021). The algorithmic workplace: Resistance, control, and politics in the platform economy. Canadian Journal of Communication, 46(2), 211–232. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2021v46n2a3955 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barley, S. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 61–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Benanav, A. (2020). Automation and the future of work. Verso Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bérastégui, P. (2021). AI and platform work: How artificial intelligence is transforming platform work. European Trade Union Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cant, C. (2021). Riding for Deliveroo: Resistance in the new economy. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cherry, M. A. (2016). Beyond misclassification: The digital transformation of work. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 577–602. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the "just-in-time workforce": On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the "gig economy". Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 471–504. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management and app‐work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gandini, A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gray, M. L., & Suri, S. (2019). Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Head, S. (2014). Mindless: Why smarter machines are making dumber humans. Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Heeks, R., Graham, M., & Ahmed, S. (2021). Digital labour platforms and the future of work: A development perspective. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hoffmann, J., Reuter, M., & Bormann, R. (2021). Algorithmic management and collective bargaining in Germany. European Trade Union Institute. https://www.etui.org/publications/algorithmic-management-and-collective-bargaining-germany [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Howcroft, D., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2019). A typology of crowdwork platforms. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018760136 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kalleberg, A. L., & Dunn, M. (2016). Good jobs, bad jobs in the gig economy. Perspectives on Work, 20, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kashyap, R., & Belli, L. (2021). Digital discomfort: Experiences of Indian gig workers under algorithmic management. Centre for Internet and Society. https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-discomfort [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Moore, P. V. (2021). The quantified worker: Technology and the future of work. Bristol University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Schor, J. B., & Attwood-Charles, W. (2017). The sharing economy: Labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms. Sociology Compass, 11(8), e12493. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12493 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Thompson, P., & van den Broek, D. (2010). Managerial control and workplace regimes: An introduction. Work, Employment and Society, 24(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017010376243 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. van Doorn, N. (2017). Platform labor: On the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the ‘on-demand’ economy. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 898–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1294194 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Veen, A., Barratt, T., & Goods, C. (2020). Platform-capital’s “app-etite” for control: A labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 34(3), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019836911 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Zhang, C., Lu, L., & Li, N. (2022). Algorithmic management, job burnout, and turnover intentions in the gig economy: A person–job fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000911 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Advanced Techniques for Fake News Detection on Twitter Using NLP and AI: A Comprehensive Review
• Review of Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Slag Sand as Fine Aggregate
• Performance of Local Construction Contractors – Case Study of Registered Contractors in Monrovia, Liberia
• Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Innovation Management in Multinational Organizations
• Modeling of Reaction Between Dissolved Oxygen (DO) And Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in Degradation River