Algorithmic Management: Its Implications for Information Systems Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the topic of algorithmic management has received increasing attention in information systems (IS) research and beyond. As both emerging platform businesses and established companies rely on artificial intelligence and sophisticated software to automate tasks previously done by managers, important organizational, social, and ethical questions emerge. However, a cross-disciplinary approach to algorithmic management that brings together IS perspectives with other (sub-)disciplines such as macro- and micro-organizational behavior, business ethics, and digital sociology is missing, despite its usefulness for IS research. This article engages in cross-disciplinary agenda setting through an in-depth report of a professional development workshop (PDW) entitled “Algorithmic Management: Toward a Cross-Disciplinary Research Agenda” delivered at the 2021 Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Three leading experts (Mareike Möhlmann, Lindsey Cameron, and Laura Lamers) on the topic provide their insights on the current status of algorithmic management research, how their work contributes to this area, where the field is heading in the future, and what important questions should be answered going forward. These accounts are followed up by insights from the breakout group discussions at the PDW that provided further input. Overall, the experts and workshop participants emphasized that future research should examine both the desirable and undesirable outcomes of algorithmic management and should not shy away from posing ethical and normative questions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it