Algorithmic Management and Employee Autonomy: Impacts on Creativity in Remote First Companies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37034/jems.v8i1.288Keywords:
Algorithmic Management, Employee Autonomy, Creative Work, Remote First Companies, Digital OversightAbstract
This study explores the influence of algorithmic management on employee autonomy and creativity within remote first companies. As organizations increasingly rely on automated systems to assign tasks, monitor performance, and standardize workflows, concerns arise about how such systems impact workers' creative capacities. Using a qualitative case study approach, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 employees across various digital industries. Thematic analysis revealed that while algorithmic oversight enhances operational clarity and consistency, it also imposes rigid structures that often reduce discretionary decision making and psychological safety. Autonomy emerged as a key mediating factor: employees who retained some control over how they worked were more likely to report creative engagement, while those facing strict digital control reported demotivation and cognitive fatigue. Emotional responses, such as anxiety, trust, and detachment, were also found to shape creative outcomes. The study further identified design implications for algorithmic systems, emphasizing transparency, human override mechanisms, and participatory features that support innovation. These findings suggest that creativity and algorithmic management are not mutually exclusive but require careful system design that balances control with employee empowerment. The research contributes to a deeper understanding of how digital oversight affects innovation in distributed work settings and offers practical guidance for organizations navigating remote workforce management through algorithms.
References
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
Jarrahi, M. H., Newlands, G., Lee, M. K., Wolf, C. T., Kinder, E., & Sutherland, W. (2021). Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data & Society, 8(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211020332
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
Hu, Y., Zheng, S., Chong, A. Y. L., Lim, E. T., & Tan, C. W. (2024). Preparing ecosystems for platformization: Insights from multiple case studies. Information Systems Journal, 34(4), 1004-1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12467
Barratt, T., Goods, C., & Veen, A. (2020). ‘I’m my own boss…’: Active intermediation and ‘entrepreneurial’ worker agency in the Australian gig-economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(8), 1643–1661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20914346
Laursen, C. S., Nielsen, M. L., & Dyreborg, J. (2021). Young workers on digital labor platforms: Uncovering the double autonomy paradox. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 11(4), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.127867
Rani, U., & Furrer, M. (2021). Digital labour platforms and new forms of flexible work in developing countries: Algorithmic control and workers’ autonomy. Competition & Change, 25(2), 212–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420905187
Rahman, H. A. (2021). The invisible cage: Workers’ reactivity to opaque algorithmic evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 945–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211010118
Leonardi, P. M., & Treem, J. W. (2020). Behavioral visibility: A new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1601–1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620970728
Tønnessen, Ø., & Flåten, B.-T. (2023). Work from home and collective creativity: Exploring the experiences of IT professionals. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2262219. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2262219
Santiago-Torner, C. (2024). Creativity and emotional exhaustion in virtual work environments: The ambiguous role of work autonomy. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(7), 2087–2100. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14070139
Orlandi, L. B., Pocek, J., Kraus, S., Zardini, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2024). Digital workers’ stress: The role of digital creativity in the future jobs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(2), 100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100492
Veith, C., Minciu, M., & Bojin, D. C. (2025). Understanding the dynamics of telework: A Job Demands Resources model based qualitative analysis of employee and managerial experiences in Romania. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(2), 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20020104
Maulana, N., & Syamsunasir, S. (2025). The effect of remote work on creativity and productivity in creative agencies. Dinasti International Journal of Management Science, 6(4), 974–990. https://doi.org/10.38035/dijms.v6i4.4386
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Santiago-Torner, C. (2023). The influence of teleworking on creative performance by employees with high academic training: The mediating role of work autonomy, self-efficacy, and creative self-efficacy. Revista Galega de Economía, 32(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.15304/rge.32.1.8788
Lee, G. K., Lampel, J., & Shapira, Z. (2020). After the storm has passed: Translating crisis experience into useful knowledge. Organization Science, 31(4), 1037-1051. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1366
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Medi Wusono, Mira Yona, Yannik Ariyati, Rahman Hasibuan, Hanafi Siregar, Habibuddin Nasution, Wilmar Simanjuntak, Peromikha Barus, Siti Yolanda

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.





