JournalsKart submission@journalskart.com 8882640642, 011-43101010
Register Login
Volume 17 Issue 1 Jan - June 2026
IITM Journal of Management and IT |Articles

One Algorithm, Two Responses: Occupational Identity and Motivation in White and Blue Collar Platform Work

Anjum Tanwar , Sunita Tanwar
Research Scholar, Department of Management Studies, Central University of Haryana
Professor, Department of Management Studies, Central University of Haryana
View PDF Volume 17 Issue 1 Jan - June 2026 10.65301/iitm.2026.17.1.9 ↗
Anjum Tanwar, Sunita Tanwar . (2026). One Algorithm, Two Responses: Occupational Identity and Motivation in White and Blue Collar Platform Work. IITM Journal of Management and IT, 17(1), 126-160.
Published by
Article outline
Article info

Abstract

Purpose: This paper proposes the Occupational-Motivational Engagement Model (OMEM), a conceptual framework for thinking about how occupational identity shapes motivational experience under algorithmic management on digital work platforms.

Design/methodology/approach: The paper is conceptual. It draws on integrative theorising, bringing together Self-Determination Theory, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, and occupational identity research, and reading these alongside contemporary work-design scholarship (Parker & Knight, 2024) and recent empirical evidence from platform-work studies. Following a problematisation logic, we identify a gap in current frameworks and propose three psychological mechanisms (identity-based need prioritisation, cognitive framing of platform features, and occupation-specific social comparison) that, acting together, produce systematic differences in how white-collar and blue-collar platform workers experience algorithmic management.

Findings: Seven propositions set out the occupational differences. White-collar workers tend to prioritise method autonomy, read algorithmic control as an encroachment on professional discretion, and anchor their comparisons on skill development and client quality. Blue-collar workers tend to prioritise temporal autonomy, treat algorithms as a source of predictability, and compare on earnings and performance metrics.

Practical implications: OMEM points HRM toward occupationally informed algorithmic design. Platforms should protect method autonomy and invest in qualitative feedback for white-collar workers. For blue-collar workers, predictable workflows and legible quantitative metrics matter more.

Originality/value: OMEM is, to our knowledge, the first mechanism-based framework that connects occupational identity, algorithmic job design, and motivational experience to explain occupational variation in platform work.

Keywords

Digital platform work Algorithmic management Occupational identity Worker motivation Job design Self-Determination Theory

References

  1. Bellesia, F., Mattarelli, E., & Bertolotti, F. (2022). Algorithms and their affordances: How crowdworkers manage algorithmic scores in online labour markets. Journal of Management Studies, 60(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12801
  2. Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., & Lepak, D. P. (2019). A systematic review of human resource management systems and their measurement. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2498–2537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318818718
  3. Cangialosi, N., Battistelli, A., & Odoardi, C. (2023). Designing innovative jobs: A fuzzy-set configurational analysis of job characteristics. Personnel Review, 52(1), 382–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2021-0105
  4. Churchill, B., & Craig, L. (2019). Gender in the gig economy: Men and women using digital platforms to secure work in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 55(4), 741–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319894060
  5. Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196
  6. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
  7. Duggan, J., Carbery, R., McDonnell, A., & Sherman, U. (2023). Algorithmic HRM control in the gig economy: The app-worker perspective. Human Resource Management, 62(6), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22168
  8. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
  9. Gagné, M., Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Dunlop, P. D., Knight, C., Klonek, F. E., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2022). Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(7), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00056-1
  10. Gandini, A. (2018). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002
  11. Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
  12. Government of India. (2026). Economic Survey 2025–26. Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/
  13. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. John Wiley & Sons.
  14. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667055
  15. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
  16. Jarrahi, M. H., Sutherland, W., Nelson, S. B., & Sawyer, S. (2020). Platformic management, boundary resources for gig work, and worker autonomy. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 29(1–2), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09368-7
  17. Kadolkar, I., Kepes, S., & Subramony, M. (2024). Algorithmic management in the gig economy: A systematic review and research integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 46(7), 1057–1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2831
  18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
  19. Kaur, R., & Verma, S. (2025). Exploring commitment in the gig economy: The role of corporate image, employee expectations and employer familiarity. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 47(5), 719–740. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-12-2024-0750
  20. Kurian, J. S., & Madhavi, N. B. (2024). Navigating the gig economy: Exploring challenges and motivations for the wellbeing of Gen Y and Gen Z gig workers. Cogent Psychology, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2024.2357458
  21. Lehdonvirta, V. (2018). Flexibility in the gig economy: Managing time on three online piecework platforms. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12102
  22. Lips-Wiersma, M., Wright, S., & Dik, B. (2016). Meaningful work: Differences among blue-, pink-, and white-collar occupations. Career Development International, 21(5), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-04-2016-0052
  23. Lu, J., Wang, Y., & Zhao, L. (2026). Algorithmic reliability at the helm: Investigating the relationship between experienced algorithmic reliability, trust, and work engagement in the gig economy. Human Resource Management, 65(2), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70033
  24. MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136
  25. Mainka, K., Hertel, G., & Pfrombeck, J. (2024). Algorithmic human resource management and the experience of work. Human Resource Management Review, 34(3), 101018.
  26. Masta, R., & Kaushiva, P. (2024). Work in the platform economy: A systematic literature review. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 46(7), 1365–1387. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-12-2023-0638
  27. Matthews, M. J., & Kelemen, T. K. (2024). To compare is human: A review of social comparison theory in organizational settings.
Citation copied to clipboard