Participatory Algorithmic Management: Elicitation Methods for Worker Well-Being Models

Min Kyung Lee, Ishan Nigam, Angie Zhang, J. Afriyie, Zhizhen Qin, Sicun Gao
{"title":"Participatory Algorithmic Management: Elicitation Methods for Worker Well-Being Models","authors":"Min Kyung Lee, Ishan Nigam, Angie Zhang, J. Afriyie, Zhizhen Qin, Sicun Gao","doi":"10.1145/3461702.3462628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to manage the workforce. Algorithmic management promises organizational efficiency, but often undermines worker well-being. How can we computationally model worker well-being so that algorithmic management can be optimized for and assessed in terms of worker well-being? Toward this goal, we propose a participatory approach for worker well-being models. We first define worker well-being models: Work preference models---preferences about work and working conditions, and managerial fairness models---beliefs about fair resource allocation among multiple workers. We then propose elicitation methods to enable workers to build their own well-being models leveraging pairwise comparisons and ranking. As a case study, we evaluate our methods in the context of algorithmic work scheduling with 25 shift workers and 3 managers. The findings show that workers expressed idiosyncratic work preference models and more uniform managerial fairness models, and the elicitation methods helped workers discover their preferences and gave them a sense of empowerment. Our work provides a method and initial evidence for enabling participatory algorithmic management for worker well-being.","PeriodicalId":197336,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462628","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to manage the workforce. Algorithmic management promises organizational efficiency, but often undermines worker well-being. How can we computationally model worker well-being so that algorithmic management can be optimized for and assessed in terms of worker well-being? Toward this goal, we propose a participatory approach for worker well-being models. We first define worker well-being models: Work preference models---preferences about work and working conditions, and managerial fairness models---beliefs about fair resource allocation among multiple workers. We then propose elicitation methods to enable workers to build their own well-being models leveraging pairwise comparisons and ranking. As a case study, we evaluate our methods in the context of algorithmic work scheduling with 25 shift workers and 3 managers. The findings show that workers expressed idiosyncratic work preference models and more uniform managerial fairness models, and the elicitation methods helped workers discover their preferences and gave them a sense of empowerment. Our work provides a method and initial evidence for enabling participatory algorithmic management for worker well-being.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与式算法管理:工人福利模型的启发方法
人工智能越来越多地被用于管理劳动力。算法管理保证了组织效率,但往往会损害员工的福祉。我们如何通过计算建立工人福利的模型,以便算法管理可以根据工人福利进行优化和评估?为了实现这一目标,我们提出了工人福利模型的参与式方法。我们首先定义了工人福利模型:工作偏好模型——对工作和工作条件的偏好,以及管理公平模型——对多个工人之间公平资源分配的信念。然后,我们提出启发方法,使工人能够利用两两比较和排名建立自己的幸福模型。作为一个案例研究,我们在算法工作调度的背景下评估了我们的方法,有25名轮班工人和3名经理。研究结果表明,员工表现出特质性的工作偏好模型和更统一的管理公平模型,启发式方法帮助员工发现自己的偏好,并赋予他们一种赋权感。我们的工作为实现参与式算法管理工人福利提供了一种方法和初步证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Improving Fairness in Budget-Constrained Decision Making using Confidence Thresholds Measuring Automated Influence: Between Empirical Evidence and Ethical Values Artificial Intelligence and the Purpose of Social Systems Ethically Compliant Planning within Moral Communities Co-design and Ethical Artificial Intelligence for Health: Myths and Misconceptions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1