Do algorithms play fair? Analysing the perceived fairness of HR-decisions made by algorithms and their impacts on gig-workers
Abstract
On digital labour platforms, algorithms execute a wide range of human resource (HR) decisions including work allocation and performance evaluation. Despite their growing use, our understanding of how people perceive such algorithms, particularly in terms of fairness, is less developed. Using Organisational Justice Theory, we explore how workers perceive the fairness of HR-decisions made by algorithms and how those perceptions impact job satisfaction and perceived organisational support (POS). Results from a survey of 435 Uber drivers indicate that perceptions of algorithmic fairness -- and their formation -- differ based on the type of HR-decision enacted by an algorithm and whether those decisions are considered to require mechanical or human skills. Results also demonstrate positive significant relationships between perceived algorithmic fairness, POS, and job satisfaction. This study answers calls to investigate perceptions of algorithmic fairness across different HR-decisions and their impacts in real-world settings. Our results suggest that algorithms play an important role in shaping platform-workers' experiences and attitudes as both technological artefacts and social agents of the organisation. Recommendations for improving the perceived fairness of algorithms for HR-decisions by focusing on transparency and high impact/value fairness indicators are offered.
Study specs
- Authors
- N Jabagi,AM Croteau,LK Audebrand
- Discipline
- Organizational Behavior,Human Resources
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.