The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Algorithmic human resource management:

Synthesizing developments and cross-disciplinary
insights on digital HRM

Jeroen Meijerink, Mark Boons, Anne Keegan & Janet Marler

To cite this article: Jeroen Meijerink, Mark Boons, Anne Keegan & Janet Marler (2021) Algorithmic
human resource management: Synthesizing developments and cross-disciplinary insights on
digital HRM, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32:12, 2545-2562, DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2021.1925326

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1925326

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Published online: 13 May 2021.

Taylor & Francis Group

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3929

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
2021, VOL. 32, NO. 12, 2545–2562
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1925326

EDITORIAL

Algorithmic human resource management:

Synthesizing developments and cross-disciplinary
insights on digital HRM
Jeroen Meijerink a , Mark Boonsb , Anne Keeganc and
Janet Marlerd
a
Human Resource Mangement Research Group, School of Behavioural, Management and Social
Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; bKIN Center for Digital Innovation,
School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
c
HRM and Employment Relations Group, School of Business, University College Dublin, Dublin,
Ireland; dManagement Department, School of Business, University at Albany, State University of
New York, Albany, New York, USA

Introduction
Across different disciplinary boundaries, research into algorithmic
surveillance (Newlands, 2020), people analytics (Gal et  al., 2020;
Marler & Boudreau, 2017; Tursunbayeva et  al., 2018), human resource
management (HRM) algorithms (Cheng & Hackett, 2021), and algo-
rithmic control (Kellogg et  al., 2020; Veen et  al., 2020) is gaining
traction. Moreover, these various concepts are studied alongside –
and at times interchangeably with – related phenomena including
Big Data (Garcia-Arroyo & Osca, 2019), artificial intelligence
(Strohmeier & Piazza, 2015; Tambe et  al., 2019) and online labor
platforms (Duggan et  al., 2020; Newlands, 2020; Veen et  al., 2020).
These terms and developments are often loosely linked to, or aggre-
gated as, ‘digital HRM’ which, as a broad notion covers a multitude
of topics and issues with unclear and ambiguous relations between
them (Strohmeier, 2020b). Studies into HR analytics ( Marler &
Boudreau, 2017; Minbaeva, 2017; Tursunbayeva et  al., 2018; Van den
Heuvel & Bondarouk et  al., 2017 ), HRM algorithms (Cheng &
Hackett, 2021; Leicht-Deobald et  al., 2019), and artificial intelligence
(AI) deployed in HRM practices (Strohmeier & Piazza, 2015; Vrontis
et  al., 2021), while beginning to coalesce around key issues, tend to
use different terms to describe seemingly similar content leading to

CONTACT Jeroen Meijerink j.g.meijerink@utwente.nl School of Behavioural, Management and Social

Sciences, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, Enschede, 7522 NB The Netherlands
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon
in any way.
2546 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

a lack of construct clarity that may prevent the scholarly community

from building a collective and coherent body of knowledge
(Suddaby, 2010).
In addition to lack of construct clarity, academic research on selected
digital HRM activities, and any, or all, of its related components, lags
the popularity of this term in practice. For example, Cheng and Hackett
(2021: 9) conclude that “the growth of scholarly interest in HR-related
algorithms pales in comparison to the surge of applications in HR
practice.” Similarly, reviewing the HR analytics literature, Marler and
Boudreau (2017: 7-8) find that “while there are many more blogs, white
papers, consulting reports and press reports, it does not appear that
management researchers have focused a great deal of attention to the
topic.” Finally, Strohmeier (2020a: 58) also observes that besides a couple
of initial contributions that deal with algorithmic decision making (e.g.
Cheng & Hackett, 2021; Leicht-Deobald et  al., 2019), there are still too
few contributions that deal with algorithmic decision making as a
key issue.
To set the stage for this special issue which focuses on these related
digital HRM topics, we propose adoption of the term ‘Algorithmic
Human Resource Management’ (hereafter algorithmic HRM) to syn-
thesize insights on issues of common concern including the growing
use of digital data to support HR decision-making, the deployment of
software algorithms that process digital data at work, and the partial
or full automation of HR decision-making, all of which are profoundly
shaping how labor is managed and HR practices are performed. We
propose this term to highlight salient links between different types of
digital HRM discussed in the literature (e.g. HR analytics; AI-enabled
HRM algorithms) as well as the conditions that enable it (e.g. Big
Data) and the organizations that rely on it (e.g. online labor platforms).
Algorithmic HRM is a more narrowly-defined term than digital HRM
which may also help foster stronger cross-disciplinary links with
research from other fields examining how algorithms, digital data, and
digital platforms are transforming HRM practice, work and labor pro-
cesses. We first introduce the research on algorithmic HRM by exam-
ining three key features that characterize it and specify how it is related
to digital HRM. Next, we introduce the papers in the special issue and
show their connections with algorithmic HRM. Finally, we conclude
by looking forward to the challenges and opportunities linked with
algorithmic HRM in different organizational contexts, including online
labor platforms that are studied by researchers from different disci-
plinary fields and who have not communicated extensively with
each other.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2547

Algorithmic human resource management

Building on previous work (Duggan et  al., 2020; Kellogg et  al., 2020;
Lee et  al., 2015; Leicht-Deobald et  al., 2019; Newlands, 2020; Strohmeier,
2020a; Veen et  al., 2020), we define algorithmic HRM as:
The use of software algorithms that operate on the basis of digital data to aug-
ment HR-related decisions and/or to automate HRM activities.

Our definition highlights three main features of algorithmic HRM: 1)

the generation and use of digital data, 2) the deployment of software
algorithms that process digital data, and 3) the partial or full automation
of HRM-related decision-making. Using this definition, we regard algo-
rithmic HRM as a specific subset/type of digital, or electronic, HRM
(Bondarouk et  al., 2017; Strohmeier, 2020b). Here, digital HRM “denotes
the socio-technical result of the digitalization of HRM” (Strohmeier,
2020b: 352), with the digitalization of HRM referring to the process by
which the potential of digital data about work, workers or HRM practices
is used for HRM purposes (Parry & Strohmeier, 2014; Strohmeier, 2020b).
In the case of algorithmic HRM, this potential relates to the use of
digital data for full or partially automated decision making in HRM.
Accordingly, its first two features (i.e. digital data and use of software
algorithms) imply that algorithmic HRM falls within the realm of digital
HRM, while the third feature, automation of HRM-related decision-making,
distinguishes algorithmic HRM from other forms of digital HRM.

Algorithmic HRM and the creation and use of digital data

Algorithmic HRM depends on digital data. Without data, software algo-

rithms do nothing. For software algorithms to be able to “use” data,
these data need to be presented as binary digits that a computer can
read and process. As such, algorithmic HRM requires what (Strohmeier,
2020b) refers to as digitization - a process by which information is
turned into digital data. An example of digitization is the conversion
of paper-based worker records into digital worker data that are stored
in HR information systems (HRIS). Moreover, the use of sensors and
smart devices in the workplace including smartphones, smartwatches,
GPS tracking, smart tools/workpieces, and sociometric badges enables
organizations to further digitize worker-related data. Here, one can think
about the generation of digital data that capture workers’ behavior,
actions, location, performance, emotional states or social relationships
(Garcia-Arroyo & Osca, 2019). Digitization by means of sensors and
smart devices allows for the real-time collection of digital data that
2548 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

come in large amounts and from a variety of sources. This is often

referred to as ‘Big Data’. Data are considered ‘big’ when having the
following three attributes: high volume, high velocity, and high variety,
or the 3Vs of Big Data (Frizzo-Barker et  al., 2016; Garcia-Arroyo &
Osca, 2019; Wenzel & Van Quaquebeke, 2018). Accordingly, Big Data
equates with data that is converted into a large number of bytes about
a large pool of workers (high volume), is collected at a high level of
speed (high velocity) and comes from different types of sources (high
variety). Although some have questioned whether Big Data actually
exists in HRM (Cappelli, 2017), a real-life – yet rare – example of what
might come close to Big Data in HRM is the data on the tens of thou-
sands of Amazon’s warehouse and delivery workers that are collected
on an ongoing, minute-by-minute, basis and that come from a wide
range of different sources such as smart equipment (e.g. a truck), hand-
held devices (e.g. a workers’ smartphone), and consumers (e.g. online
customer reviews).

Algorithmic HRM and the role of automated data processing

Given the sheer size and speed at which they are collected, Big Data
are difficult to process efficiently in a manual manner. This is where
software algorithms come into play for transforming data in an auto-
mated and efficient manner. We define software algorithms as a set of
computer-programmed steps to automatically accomplish a task by trans-
forming data into output (Cheng & Hackett, 2021; Strohmeier, 2020a).
This involves algorithms that extract data from different databases,
combine these data, and convert them into a common format with little
or no human involvement. In an HRM context, an example is software
algorithms used by the Upwork platform, as highlighted in one of the
articles in our special issue (Waldkirch, Bucher, Schou and Grünwald,
this issue). Upwork’s algorithms combine behavioral data (e.g. number
of tasks completed) and customer evaluations to arrive at a so-called
Job Success Score (JSS) that claims to capture a worker’s job-related
performance (Kinder et  al., 2019). Accordingly, algorithms process data
and by so doing they produce “information” that can be treated as new
knowledge or not (Pachidi et  al., 2021). This may include the use of
relatively straightforward descriptive statistics derived from HRIS as well
as more sophisticated regression-based techniques.
Only recently, HRM scholars have started discussing how these HRM
algorithms can become adaptive and self-learning (for a review, see
Vrontis et  al., 2021). This is where the link between algorithmic HRM
and artificial intelligence (AI) in HRM comes to the fore. In line with
the work of others (Strohmeier & Piazza, 2015; Tambe et  al., 2019), we
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2549

define AI in the context of HRM as a broad class of software algorithms

by which a computer executes HRM activities that would normally
require human cognition and intervention. While most software algo-
rithms in HRM are likely to be static, meaning that computer-programmed
steps remain the same irrespective of the data inputted (e.g. use of an
Excel spreadsheet to rank job applicants or use of SPSS to predict turn-
over intentions), in the case of AI these evolve with the data they
process based on, for example, machine learning (Strohmeier & Piazza,
2015; Vrontis et  al., 2021). In this sense, the use of AI in HRM is a
specific form of algorithmic HRM. An example of a self-learning algo-
rithm in HRM is one that automatically adjusts which variables and the
weights of variables or the order of computer-programmed steps for
predicting a job candidate’s future performance within the organization.
Along similar lines, food-delivery platforms such as Uber Eats and
Deliveroo rely on self-learning algorithms that optimize the allocation
of tasks to workers, using existing data on past availability of workers,
weather conditions, travel time or customer habits (Newlands, 2020;
Veen et  al., 2020).
Notwithstanding their benefits such as adaptability, the use of software
algorithms in HRM creates challenges (Gal et  al., 2020; Leicht-Deobald
et  al., 2019; Tambe et  al., 2019). For example, software algorithms are
(or can be made) opaque to workers, and it may not be entirely clear
how these algorithms learn, or the exact source of their learning, and
how they add parameters or adjust parameter weights using the data
to which they are dynamically adapting (Burrell, 2016). This becomes
particularly problematic when data reflects existing biases towards
selected groups of job candidates. Thus, algorithmic HRM has the poten-
tial to reinforce discrimination on the basis of, for example, gender,
ethnicity or age at scale (Ge et  al., 2016; Hannák et  al., 2017) if it learns
these are parameters that are associated with human decisions. More
generally, IT developers and therefore end-user employees, managers or
independent contractors are not aware of the basis upon which
computer-programmed steps are taken and which data are drawn on
when HRM algorithms generate a selected type of output (Gal et  al.,
2020; Leicht-Deobald et  al., 2019). Consequently, researchers and prac-
titioners alike are increasingly calling for more transparency (Schildt,
2017) and “explainability” (Gunning et  al., 2019) in the development
and use of software algorithms at work.

Algorithmic HRM and automated decision-making as output

Algorithm-based HR decision making refers to the use of software

algorithms to select one option from a range of alternatives (Cheng &
2550 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

Hackett, 2021; Leicht-Deobald et  al., 2019; Strohmeier, 2020a). Software

algorithms support HRM decision making in two ways, through pro-
viding information (or augmentation) and with automation
(Leicht-Deobald et  al., 2019; Raisch & Krakowski, in press).
Information is provided when algorithms create output that helps
human decision makers to make more informed decisions. For example,
this information could be in the form of descriptive statistics which
provide additional insights into skill or diversity gaps in the workforce
(Deloitte, 2020). Furthermore, HRM algorithms augment human decision
making by offering predictions which are used to forecast how a current
decision may impact future outcomes. These so-called predictive algo-
rithms operate regression-based forecasting techniques that, for example,
help managers predict which employees are likely to leave the organi-
zation (and thus how to make decisions about retention), or to predict
the future performance of a job candidate (and thus help hiring man-
agers with selection decisions) (Cheng & Hackett, 2021; Leicht-Deobald
et  al., 2019). The use of predictive algorithms may involve machine
learning and data mining to explore patterns in the data that humans
may not (or could not) have uncovered themselves (Raisch & Krakowski,
in press; Tambe et  al., 2019). Such algorithmically generated information
can be used by HR decision makers to choose between different alter-
native courses of action. This is where algorithmic HRM and the field
of HR analytics intersect. As noted by Marler and Boudreau (2017: 15),
HR analytics is “a HR practice enabled by information technology that
uses descriptive, visual and statistical analysis of data related to HR
processes, human capital, organizational performance, and external eco-
nomic benchmarks to establish business impact and enable data-driven
decision making”. Key to HR analytics is that humans, albeit drawing
on descriptive or predictive algorithms, make decisions and act on those
decisions themselves (Ellmer & Reichl, this issue; Wiblen & Marler, this
issue). Put differently, HRM algorithms can both automate and augment
HRM decision making. Currently, in HR Analytics, algorithmic HRM
primarily augments HRM decision-making in that human decision mak-
ers may choose not to act on algorithmic-enabled insights or choose
alternatives that are not necessarily predicted to be optimal by an algo-
rithm (Rasmussen & Ulrich, 2015; Tursunbayeva et  al., 2018). But with
increasingly sophisticated algorithms, particularly with advances in AI
algorithms, some HR decisions are now made without human
“decision-making”.
As AI-based algorithms become more widely used, algorithmic HRM
is shifting decision-making responsibility from human to machine by
automating decision-making processes where human managers are
replaced. This occurs when prescriptive algorithms automate HR-related
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2551

decision making, putting the execution of HRM activities in the hands

of a robot or computer (Duggan et  al., 2020; Leicht-Deobald et  al.,
2019; Newlands, 2020). Prescriptive algorithms that automate HRM
activities not only forecast what can be done in different scenarios, but
also select and execute a course of action without (much) involvement
by a human decision maker.1 Although the study of prescriptive algo-
rithms that automate HRM activities is growing in number (Cassady
et  al., 2018; Duggan et  al., 2020; Meijerink et  al., 2021), other streams
of literature, such as Sociology of Labor (Ellmer, 2015; Veen et  al., 2020;
Wood et  al., 2019) and Organization Studies (Newlands, 2020; Pachidi
et  al., 2021), more extensively reveal how organizations fully automate
managerial activities by means of prescriptive algorithms as well as the
consequences of doing so for worker outcomes (Bucher et  al., 2021;
Pachidi et  al., 2021). Where this shift from human to machine in
decision-making is most prevalent is with online labor platforms such
as Uber, Upwork and Deliveroo that automate HR-related decision mak-
ing and execution in areas such as selection (e.g. an algorithm that
grants or denies workers access to the Upwork platform), compensation
(e.g. Uber’s surge price algorithm that adjusts workers’ pay on the basis
of labor supply and demand dynamics), and task allocation (e.g.
Deliveroo’s algorithm that dispatches orders to food deliverers without
human involvement). As these examples show, algorithmic HRM includes
the use of a broad array of digital HRM activities that now goes well
beyond the use of descriptive/predictive algorithms that HR analytics
scholars frequently study.

Overview of papers included in the special issue

The papers featured in this special issue mobilize concepts and ideas
related to algorithmic HRM including using digital (big) data, augmen-
tation and automation, maintaining control, or balancing machine and
human decision-making autonomy. This section discusses the four special
issue papers individually, which is followed by an outline of avenues
for future research into algorithmic HRM across different types of orga-
nizations that are examined by the studies included in this special issue.
In the first paper, Myllymäki (this issue) reviews how current elec-
tronic HRM research (or: digital HRM research) has been theoretically
framed and compares this to what research using a social-materiality
theoretical perspective might add to our understanding of how HRM
digitalization is affecting how HRM is practiced in organizations. One
of her key arguments is that research into electronic/digital HRM needs
to pay closer attention to how people are using digital technology.
Researchers can gain a more nuanced understanding of the reciprocal
2552 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

nature of ways in which people (human agency) and technology (material

agency) enable, constrain, and control each other by applying a
socio-material theoretical perspective. In line with her theoretical reflec-
tion, Myllymäki (this issue) does not directly address the notion of
algorithmic HRM. The socio-material perspective that she outlines nev-
ertheless has important implications for algorithmic HRM research. Seen
through a socio-material lens, HRM algorithms are performative while
triggering changes in social processes. Even in cases where HRM deci-
sions are fully automated by means of software algorithms (as a material
actor that has agency), these decisions have implications for the human
agency of workers that are subject to the decisions ‘made’ by HRM
algorithms. Vice versa, the actions of workers generate digital data that
HRM algorithms processes, thereby triggering changes in the materiality
of algorithmic HRM. Accordingly, the work of Myllymäki (this issue)
stimulates questions such as how the materiality of HRM algorithms is
integral to (socio-material) HRM processes, enables (or: augments) and
restrains (or: automates) human agency, and how algorithmic HRM is
enacted and changes as it interacts with those people who input and
use the data and information used and created by HRM algorithms.
The second paper in this special issue examines algorithmic HRM
where software algorithms augment HRM decision-making by humans.
This paper illustrates how applying a socio-material theoretical frame-
work can inform our understanding of how algorithmic HRM is enacted
in ways that challenge technologically deterministic thinking. In a study
of a large multi-divisional professional services firm implementing a
digitalized talent management technology, Wiblen and Marler (this issue)
highlight how the interaction between HR managers, operational man-
agers and the algorithms that augment the identification of future talent
in the organization is not deterministic or completely predictable. Despite
using the same technology and algorithmic HRM in the same organi-
zation, Wiblen and Marler show how the role of HR managers, and
how talent is ultimately identified, varies across divisions depending on
how human actors choose to interact with algorithmic HRM and with
each other. Accordingly, their study contributes by showing the different
ways in which algorithmic HRM may (or may not) augment talent
decision making by different organizational actors.
In the third paper, Ellmer and Reichel (this issue) illustrate how the
credibility and status of HR managers is influenced by the ways they
work with HRM algorithms used for HR analytical purposes. In the
context of a large German corporation, the authors show how the intro-
duction of HR analytics, and the use of HRM algorithms to augment
human decision making, is a deeply socio-material process. They show
how HR managers see and use HRM algorithms to demonstrate their
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2553

quantitative and business knowledge, and therefore enhance their cred-

ibility and status within the organization. Their analysis highlights the
epistemic practices of boundary spanning, customizing dashboards, and
speaking a language of numbers. Taken together, these practices reflect
what the authors refer to as epistemic alignment, where members in an
HR analytics team align algorithmic output with the way organizational
decision-makers perceive business reality. Ellmer & Reichl (this issue)
contribute to the literature by showing how epistemic practices – as a
form of human agency – affords the augmentation of HRM-related
decision making by human managers.
The final paper in this special issue provides an example of online
labor platforms as a context where algorithmic HRM fully automates
HRM decision-making. Waldkirch, Bucher, Schou and Grünwald (this
issue) describe how algorithmic HRM is experienced by freelance gig
workers using Upwork, an online labor platform that matches software
projects to software contractors looking for projects. The gig workers
on the Upwork platform are independent contractors and along with
its completely digital business model, most of the HRM practices are
automated. Using an innovative way to collect digital data, the authors
analyze posted conversations on a Reddit discussion community. From
these data, the authors find that HRM activities such as selection, per-
formance management, compensation and employee relations are auto-
mated by HRM algorithms. Interestingly, training and development
appear to be outsourced informally to on-line chat communities such
as Reddit in which training and support are provided by a crowd of
peers/co-workers who focus on building ‘platform literacy’. Gig workers
who work with online labor platforms spend a lot of time trying to
converse with humans as well as figuring out how to challenge, resist
or game the controls and constraints built into the technology.
Accordingly, the study calls for reconsideration of current thinking in
the HRM literature on the design, implementation and outcomes of
HRM activities to include critically evaluating the role of algorithmic
HRM that is at the center of the tension between human and mate-
rial agency.

Avenues for future research into algorithmic HRM

While almost all organizations today are part of the information tech-
nology revolution, most organizations are still in a digitalization process,
albeit some at a more advanced stage than others (Strohmeier, 2020b).
In contrast, some other organizations can be considered ‘digital natives’
(or ‘born digitals’), as from their inception they have always relied
heavily on digital data and software algorithms for augmentation and/
2554 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

or automating many aspect of their operations (Monaghan et  al., 2020).

The papers in this special issue highlight differences in the
socio-materiality of algorithmic HRM across different types of organi-
zations and digitalization phases. Ellmer & Reichl (this issue) and Wiblen
& Marler (this issue) study organizations that are transitioning to a
greater use of algorithmic HRM, while Waldkirch et  al. (this issue)
examine how an online labor platform (OLP) – as a ‘digital native’ –
relies on algorithmic HRM from day one of operation. In fact, OLPs
are an extreme example of algorithmic HRM where many (parts of)
HRM processes are automated (Duggan et  al., 2020). This is clearly
different from organizations in a digitalization process towards digital
HRM that seem to use software algorithms mostly to augment HRM
decision making (Marler & Boudreau, 2017; Marler & Fisher, 2013).
Besides differing in the material agency of HRM algorithms, human
agency and social processes in OLPs are likely to differ due to their
business model and how they interact with (platform) workers
(Gegenhuber et  al., 2020; Kuhn & Maleki, 2017; Meijerink & Keegan,
2019; Wood et  al., 2019). As such, we believe comparing OLPs – along-
side other types of digital natives – to organizations transitioning to
greater use of algorithmic HRM offers fertile ground for future research
into algorithm-enabled HRM decision making. The comparison could
enable a better understanding of the dynamics of how the human agency
(employees, managers, gig workers, customers) and material agency
(HRM algorithms) interact to shape how HRM is practiced. Although
we leave it to future research to better identify, describe and analyze
these differences, we take this opportunity to provide some initial poten-
tial avenues for explore these differences based on early insights from
studying OLPs.

Algorithmic HRM and strategy execution

As labor market intermediaries, OLPs create online marketplaces where

supply and demand for contingent labor meet electronically (Duggan
et  al., 2020; Kuhn & Maleki, 2017; Meijerink et  al., 2021). The business
model of most OLPs is based on charging a monetary fee for each
match made (Prassl, 2018; Rosenblat & Stark, 2016) and thus depends
on attracting and retaining a large user base on both sides of their
online market (both clients and suppliers of labor). The existence of
cross-side network effects, in which the value of the platform for one
side of the market (e.g. clients) is positively related to the size of the
other side of the market (providers) (Katz & Shapiro, 1994), further
highlights the importance of operating at scale (Cennamo & Santalo,
2013; Eisenmann et  al., 2006). As an example, in 2018, the online labor
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2555

platform Didi grew to the staggering number of 30 million taxi drivers

who could be matched to people in need of transportation. In order to
effectively match such large numbers of workers to customers, Didi is
collecting as much data as possible about its market participants. To
process these data, algorithms for automating HRM activities play a key
role in accomplishing the fast and efficient market transactions needed
for the effective organization of short-term tasks through OLPs. As an
example, OLPs operate prescriptive HRM algorithms to control workers
at scale (Duggan et  al., 2020; Veen et  al., 2020) through the automated
direction, evaluation and discipling of worker behavior (Kellogg et  al.,
2020). Given the size of most workforces operating on OLPs, the exe-
cution of HRM activities by human managers would simply be too
time-consuming and limit platforms’ capacity to scale rapidly and per-
form well. Algorithmic HRM for automating HRM decision making is
thus a necessary and integral part of an OLPs’ digital business strategy.
By relying on algorithmic HRM to implement a digital business strat-
egy from their inception, OLPs seem to skip several steps (or move
through them quickly) in the digitalization processes that most organi-
zations go through, such as digitizing manual processes in HRIS
(Strohmeier, 2020b) or HR analytics for improving HR-related decision
making (Marler & Boudreau, 2017). The use of prescriptive HRM algo-
rithms by ‘digital natives’ such as OLPs stands in stark contrast with
organizations that are endeavoring to become digital and mostly use
algorithms for augmenting HR-related decision making by human man-
agers. For instance, a recent survey of almost 9,000 business and HR
leaders shows that the majority of the organizations mostly collect worker
data for descriptive purposes regarding turnover (82%), salary costs
(68%) or workforce composition (53%), while predictive and prescriptive
HRM algorithms are rarely used (Deloitte, 2020). It remains a question
to what extent these types of algorithmic HRM add to realizing strategic
organizational goals (Cheng & Hackett, 2021; Marler & Boudreau, 2017;
Strohmeier, 2020b) and how this compares to algorithmic HRM for
strategy execution by OLPs. Accordingly, future research could answer
questions like: What characterizes the socio-materiality of algorithmic
HRM of ‘digital natives’ like OLPs where algorithms that automate HRM
decision making are a ‘must have’ for executing a digital business strat-
egy? How does this compare to HRM in organizations that are in the
process of becoming digital and where algorithmic HRM is not perceived
as playing an essential role in overall strategy execution? How do HRM
digitalization processes unfold within ‘digital natives’ compared to orga-
nizations that endeavor to ‘become’ digital? Which HRM processes and
decisions are fully automated and which are not and why? How does
strategic HRM differ across these two contexts and what implications
2556 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

does that have for HRM strategy and the practice and relevance of
HRM in organizations?

Algorithmic HRM, worker status and employment relationships

In contrast to most existing organizations in which work is performed

by employees who exchange their labor as part of an open-ended
employment relationship, OLPs work with freelancers whose alternative
employment relationship is temporary and transactional (Prassl, 2018).
In line with their freelance status, these workers are not employed or
controlled by an employing organization, hence the description “free”
(Aloisi, 2016). However, OLPs nevertheless still need to control their
freelance workforce to align their behavior to strategic objectives of the
OLP and clients’ interests (Frenken et  al., 2020; Gandini, 2019; Meijerink
et  al., 2021). This has implications for the design and enactment of
algorithmic HRM in OLPs . For instance, rather than use organizational
hierarchy to control employee behavior through physical oversight, OLPs
substitute algorithmic HRM and in doing so, need to strike a balance
between autonomy and control (Frenken et  al., 2020; Meijerink et  al.,
2021; Wood et  al., 2019). Moreover, OLPs rely on opaque HRM algo-
rithms in an attempt to replace HR managers and disguise the control
that is exercised over the behavior of their freelance workforce (Meijerink
et  al., 2021). Empirical research shows that freelance platform workers
respond to algorithmic control by gaming and at times, sabotaging
algorithms to (re)gain control (Gandini, 2019; Kellogg et  al., 2020;
Newlands, 2020; Veen et  al., 2020).
In contrast, organizations that ‘become digital’ are more likely to have
conventional employment contracts along with managerial oversights
that serves that the primary control mechanism. As such, these orga-
nizations do not need to pay attention to balancing autonomy-control
tensions that OLPs incorporate into their HRM algorithms. Moreover,
employees may not be directly affected by algorithmic HRM in cases
where a human manager and HRM algorithms both interact to enact
HRM activities, yet where humans make the final decision. There is a
need for research that examines the following questions: How does the
nature of the worker-organization relationship relate to the material
agency of HRM algorithms? How do workers perceive, enact and react
to algorithmic HRM depending on work/employment arrangement they
experience? How do interactions between managers and workers in
different forms of employment relationship shape reactions to algo-
rithmic HRM?
Although the workforce that performs tasks through OLPs generally
consists of freelance workers, OLPs also have employees, for example
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2557

software engineers and data specialists, who are responsible for designing
the algorithmic HRM activities that automate HRM decisions regarding
platform workers (Kuhn, Meijerink & Keegan, 2021). OLPs also employ
community managers and marketing specialists to manage communica-
tion within and outside of the platform (Gegenhuber et  al., 2020;
Meijerink & Keegan, 2019). In contrast with ‘traditional’ contexts, plat-
form workers are not supervised by human (line) managers tasked with
implementing HRM activities (Bos-Nehles et  al., 2013) or HR specialists
on HR analytics teams (Ellmer & Reichl, this issue; Wiblen & Marler,
this issue). Put differently, in OLPs, non-managerial employees and
non-HR specialists are responsible for the design and operation of
algorithmic HRM systems applied to freelance workers. Accordingly, we
see the need for future research that examines the implications of the
exclusion of HRM specialists from algorithm-enabled HR decision mak-
ing processes, and how the material agency of algorithmic HRM differs
depending on whether human managers (and HR specialists) are included
or excluded from the design and application of HRM algorithms. Other
questions include what epistemic practices non-HR specialists perform
in automated HR decisions making, and how social interactions and
power dynamics within HR analytics teams play out depending on who
is (not) involved in the design of algorithmic HRM activities and deci-
sion making processes.

Ethical implications of algorithmic HRM

The study of algorithmic HRM in OLPs opens the way for a more
encompassing examination of the critical and ethical implications of
HRM algorithms (Leicht-Deobald et  al., 2019). As noted by
Tursunbayeva et  al. (2021), research on the ethical issues of HR ana-
lytics – where HRM algorithms are mostly used for augmenting deci-
sion making – is still at an early stage and focused mainly on ethical
risks such as discrimination, bias, privacy concerns and excessive
surveillance (Tursunbayeva et  al., 2021). These issues may be the tip
of the iceberg when considering the wider literature on OLPs and
their use of algorithmic HRM to automate HR decisions (Gal et  al.,
2020; Newlands, 2020; Veen et  al., 2020). Labor sociologists have
shown how the use of prescriptive HRM algorithms enables employers
to capture excessive economic value from workers’ labor. Automated
wage theft by online labor platforms, enabled by algorithmic manage-
ment, has been documented (Van Doorn, 2019). Moreover, Newlands
(2020) shows how algorithms are unable to fully reflect the lived
experiences of food deliverers that work for platforms including
Deliveroo and Foodora. Algorithms are unable to detect and account
2558 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

for obstacles (e.g. road blocks, accidents, or detours) facing food

deliverers and how these negatively impact their performance metrics
(e.g. delivery time) (Newlands, 2020). Business ethicists have also
shown how algorithmic HRM challenges the personal integrity of
workers by marginalizing human sensemaking, fostering blind trust
in computer-programmed steps and limiting imagination (Leicht-Deobald
et  al., 2019). In this special issue, Waldkirch et  al. describe how HR
algorithms based on artificial intelligence and machine learning render
the performance evaluation of freelancers completely opaque and pre-
vent them from autonomously managing or marketing their capabil-
ities. Wiblen and Marler (this issue) show how automating talent
identification results in obscuring and paradoxically magnifying biases
rather than eliminating them. We see a need for research into the
dark(er) side of HRM algorithms and for interdisciplinary research
where HRM research is enriched by insights from other streams of
literature such as Sociology of Labor, Organization Studies, Business
Ethics and Philosophy.

Conclusion
The papers in this special issue shed light on how algorithmic HRM
appears to be shaping the way in which HRM is practiced and enacted
within different organizational settings. From automating, to augment-
ing to controlling to co-opting HRM practice and decision-making,
the papers in this special issue provide an insight into how digital
HRM, generally, and algorithmic HRM more specifically are trans-
forming the field of HRM. Accordingly, it recommends researchers
and practitioners to take notice and learn how to assert their values
and knowledge into the socio-material process that the papers in this
special issue highlight is so critical to the future of HRM theory and
practice.

Note
1. We acknowledge that human decision makers are involved in designing prescriptive
algorithms and that prescriptive algorithms often rely on digital data that that
is generated by humans. However, given the sheer number of decisions to be
made (e.g. allocation of thousands of work assignments to food delivery riders
on a single day), involvement of human decision makers during the actual
algorithm-enabled decision making and execution is limited.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2559

ORCID
Jeroen Meijerink http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0210-073X
Mark Boons http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5773-7263
Anne Keegan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3458-7984

References
Aloisi, A. (2016). Commoditized workers: Case study research on labor law issues
arising from a set of on-demand/gig economy platforms. Comparative Labor Law &
Policy Journal, 37(3), 653–690.
Bondarouk, T., Parry, E., & Furtmueller, E. (2017). Electronic HRM: Four decades of
research on adoption and consequences. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28(1), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1245672
Bos-Nehles, A. C., Van Riemsdijk, M. J., & Looise, J. K. (2013). Employee perceptions
of line management performance: Applying the AMO theory to explain the effec-
tiveness of line managers’ HRM implementation. Human Resource Management, 52(6),
861–877.
Bucher, E. L., Schou, P. K., & Waldkirch, M. (2021). Pacifying the algorithm–Anticipatory
compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the GIG economy. Organization,
28(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420961531
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learn-
ing algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 205395171562251–205395171562212. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
Cappelli, P. (2017). There’s no such thing as big data in HR. Harvard Business Review,
June 2, 2017, 2–4.
Cassady, E. A., Fisher, S. L., & Olsen, S. (2018). Using eHRM to manage workers in
the platform economy. In J. H. Dulebohn & D. Stone (Eds.), The brave new world
of eHRM 2.0 (pp. 217). Information Age Publishing.
Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2013). Platform competition: Strategic trade‐offs in platform
markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1331–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.2066
Cheng, M. M., & Hackett, R. D. (2021). A critical review of algorithms in HRM:
Definition, theory, and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 31(1), 100698.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100698
Deloitte. (2020). The Social Enterprise at Work: Paradox as a Path Forward. Retrieved
from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends/2020/
technology-and-the-social-enterprise.html (accessed on May 6, 2021).
Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management
& app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations &
HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two-sided
markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 1–11.
Ellmer, M. (2015). The digital division of labor: Socially constructed design patterns
of Amazon Mechanical Turk and the governing of human computation labor.
Momentum Quarterly, 4(3), 174–186.
Frenken, K., Vaskelainen, T., Fünfschilling, L., & Piscicelli, L. (2020). An institutional
logics perspective on the gig economy. In I. Maurer, J. Mair, & A. Oberg (Eds.),
2560 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

Theorizing the sharing economy: Variety and trajectories of new forms of organizing
(Vol. 66). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Frizzo-Barker, J., Chow-White, P. A., Mozafari, M., & Ha, D. (2016). An empirical
study of the rise of big data in business scholarship. International Journal of
Information Management, 36(3), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.01.006
Gal, U., Jensen, T. B., & Stein, M.-K. (2020). Breaking the vicious cycle of algorithmic
management: A virtue ethics approach to people analytics. Information and
Organization, 30(2), 100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100301
Gandini, A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations,
72(6), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002
Garcia-Arroyo, J., & Osca, A. (2019). Big data contributions to human resource man-
agement: A systematic review. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1674357
Ge, Y., Knittel, C. R., MacKenzie, D., & Zoepf, S. (2016). Racial and gender discrimi-
nation in transportation network companies (0898-2937). Retrieved from https://www.
nber.org/papers/w22776 (accessed on May 6, 2021).
Gegenhuber, T., Ellmer, M., & Schüßler, E. (2020). Microphones, not megaphones:
Functional crowdworker voice regimes on digital work platforms. Human Relations,
in press, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720915761
Gunning, D., Stefik, M., Choi, J., Miller, T., Stumpf, S., & Yang, G.-Z. (2019). XAI—
Explainable artificial intelligence. Science Robotics, 4(37), eaay7120. https://doi.
org/10.1126/scirobotics.aay7120
Hannák, A., Wagner, C., Garcia, D., Mislove, A., Strohmaier, M., & Wilson, C. (2017).
Bias in online freelance marketplaces: Evidence from taskrabbit and fiverr [Paper
presentation]. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.2.93
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
Kinder, E., Jarrahi, M. H., Sutherland, W. (2019). Gig platforms, tensions, alliances and
ecosystems: An actor-network perspective. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–26.
Kuhn, K. M., & Maleki, A. (2017). Micro-entrepreneurs, dependent contractors, and
instaserfs: Understanding online labor platform workforces. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 31(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0111
Kuhn, K. M., Meijerink, J. G. & Keegan, A. E. (2021). Human resource management
and the gig economy: Challenges and opportunities at the intersection between
organizational HR decision-makers and digital labor platforms. In: Buckley, M.,
Wheeler, T., Baur, J., & Halbesleben, J. (Eds). Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, 39, 1–46.
Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The
impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers [Paper pre-
sentation]. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York.
Leicht-Deobald, U., Busch, T., Schank, C., Weibel, A., Schafheitle, S., Wildhaber, I., &
Kasper, G. (2019). The challenges of algorithm-based HR decision-making for per-
sonal integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-019-04204-w
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2561

Marler, J. H., & Boudreau, J. W. (2017). An evidence-based review of HR Analytics.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 3–26. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244699
Marler, J. H., & Fisher, S. L. (2013). An evidence-based review of e-HRM and strate-
gic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 18–
36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.002
Meijerink, J. G., & Keegan, A. (2019). Conceptualizing human resource management
in the gig economy: Toward a platform ecosystem perspective. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 34(4), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2018-0277
Meijerink, J. G., Keegan, A., & Bondarouk, T. (2021). Having their cake and eating it
too? Online labor platforms and human resource mangement as a case of institu-
tional complexity. International Journal of Human Resource Management. In Press,
1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1867616
Minbaeva, D. (2017). Human capital analytics: Why aren’t we there? Introduction to
the special issue. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,
4(2), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-04-2017-0035
Monaghan, S., Tippmann, E., & Coviello, N. (2020). Born digitals: Thoughts on their
internationalization and a research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies,
51(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00290-0
Newlands, G. (2020). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organisation
of work through Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 1–19. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0170840620937900
Pachidi, S., Berends, H., Faraj, S., & Huysman, M. (2021). Make way for the algorithms:
Symbolic actions and change in a regime of knowing. Organization Science, 32(1),
18–41. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1377
Parry, E., & Strohmeier, S. (2014). HRM in the digital age–digital changes and chal-
lenges of the HR profession. Employee Relations, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/
ER-03-2014-0032
Prassl, J. (2018). Humans as a service: The promise and perils of work in the gig econ-
omy. Oxford University Press.
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (in press). Artificial intelligence and management: The
automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review. 1–48. https://
doi.org/10.5465/2018.0072
Rasmussen, T., & Ulrich, D. (2015). Learning from practice: How HR analytics avoids
being a management fad. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 236–242. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.008
Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A
case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10(27), 3758–
3784.
Schildt, H. (2017). Big data and organizational design–the brave new world of algo-
rithmic management and computer augmented transparency. Innovation, 19(1), 23–
30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1252043
Strohmeier, S. (2020a). Algorithmic decision making in HRM. In Encyclopedia of elec-
tronic HRM (pp. 54–60). De Gruyter.
Strohmeier, S. (2020b). Digital human resource management: A conceptual clarification.
German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung,
34(3), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002220921131
Strohmeier, S., & Piazza, F. (2015). Artificial intelligence techniques in human resource
management—a conceptual exploration. In J. Kacprzyk & L. Jain (Eds.), Intelligent
techniques in engineering management (pp. 149–172). Springer.
2562 J. MEIJERINK ET AL.

Suddaby, R. (2010). Construct clarity in theories of management and organization:

Editor’s comments. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346–357.
Tambe, P., Cappelli, P., & Yakubovich, V. (2019). Artificial intelligence in human re-
sources management: Challenges and a path forward. California Management Review,
61(4), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619867910
Tursunbayeva, A., Di Lauro, S., & Pagliari, C. (2018). People analytics—A scoping
review of conceptual boundaries and value propositions. International Journal of
Information Management, 43(December), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfo-
mgt.2018.08.002
Tursunbayeva, A., Pagliari, C., Di Lauro, S., & Antonelli, G. (2021). The ethics of
people analytics: Risks, opportunities and recommendations. Personnel Review,
ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2019-0680
Van den Heuvel, S., & Bondarouk, T. (2017). The rise (and fall?) of HR analytics: A
study into the future application, value, structure, and system support. Journal of
Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(2), 157–178. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2017-0022
Van Doorn, N. (2019). Reflections on a courier consultation forum in New York City.
Retrived from https://platformlabor.net/blog/reflections-on-a-courier-consultatio
n-forum-in-new-york-city (accessed on May 6, 2021).
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
Vrontis, D., Christofi, M., Pereira, V., Tarba, S., Makrides, A., & Trichina, E. (2021).
Artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced technologies and human resource manage-
ment: A systematic review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1871398
Wenzel, R., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2018). The double-edged sword of big data in
organizational and management research: A review of opportunities and risks.
O r g ani z ati on al R e s e arch Me th o d s , 2 1 ( 3 ) , 5 4 8 – 5 9 1 . http s : / / d oi .
org/10.1177/1094428117718627
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