ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
The algorithmic management paradox: a structured integrative review of perceived autonomy on performance in digital workplaces.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital workplaces increasingly delegate managerial functions such as task allocation, scheduling, monitoring, evaluation, feedback, and sanctioning to software systems. These systems can improve coordination speed, scalability, and consistency, but they also redistribute worker discretion in uneven ways. This article examines that tension as an algorithmic management autonomy paradox. Rather than asking whether algorithmic management is simply empowering or controlling, the review asks which facet of autonomy is affected, through which psychological mechanism, and with what consequences for different types of performance. A structured integrative review was conducted across Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ABI/INFORM, and the ACM Digital Library, supported by backward and forward citation tracing. The core search covered 2015 to January 2026 and used search blocks related to algorithmic management, digital monitoring, platform work, autonomy, fairness, stress, empowerment, and performance. The screening process identified 358 records, retained 276 after de-duplication, assessed 94 full texts, and produced a final corpus of 41 sources. The synthesis used a thematic coding matrix to classify algorithmic practices, autonomy facets, psychological mediators, outcome categories, moderators, evidence type, and level of analysis. The review makes a deliberately bounded contribution. It does not claim to propose a wholly new theory of algorithmic management; instead, it develops a middle-range framework that connects five groups of algorithmic practices with three autonomy facets, key psychological mechanisms, and differentiated performance outcomes. The synthesis suggests that algorithmic management is most likely to support sustainable performance when workers retain meaningful method and decision-making autonomy, when monitoring is developmental rather than punitive, and when transparency is actionable through explanation, contestability, and human review. Six propositions and a practical governance agenda are offered for future research and organizational design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.