Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology-Mediated Control Legitimacy in the Gig Economy: Conceptualization and Nomological Network

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Information Systems Outsourcing

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

Abstract

The rise of the gig economy has become a global phenomenon that encompasses various industries. Instead of hiring full-time employees, gig economy companies ‘outsource’ work via online platforms to freelance workers who are paid for completing a given task (‘gig’). While gig workers are often portrayed as independent contractors, gig firms leverage advanced digital technologies and smart algorithms to exercise control over their freelance workforce, referred to as technology-mediated control (TMC). This independence-control paradox raises interesting questions in terms of how gig workers perceive the legitimacy of such controls. Against this backdrop, this chapter builds on extant research to propose a three-dimensional conceptualization of TMC legitimacy attuned to the unique features of the gig economy: autonomy, fairness, and privacy. On this conceptual basis, the chapter sets forth to start exploring the nomological network of gig workers’ perceptions of TMC legitimacy and outlines a set of key antecedents, consequences, and contextual boundary conditions, thereby offering directions for future research in the area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout the chapter, we use Uber as a running example for illustration purposes.

  2. 2.

    Whereas algorithmic management specifically considers how the behavior of remote workers is influenced by software algorithms, exclusive of any human intervention (Lee et al. 2015; Möhlmann and Zalmanson 2017), we follow Cram and Wiener’s (2020) conceptualization of TMC, which recognizes the potential for technology to support the control activities of human managers, as well as the potential to automatically act in place of human managers.

  3. 3.

    In the context of legitimacy, microfoundations represent the perceptions, attitudes, and judgements of individuals. By clarifying the microfoundational legitimacy perceptions of individuals, we can better understand a key antecedent to the collective, macro-level view of organizational legitimacy (Barney and Felin 2013; Suddaby et al. 2017).

  4. 4.

    In line with the definition provided above (see Sect. 3.2), we acknowledge that when referring to TMC legitimacy, it implies the perception of TMC legitimacy by an individual gig worker.

  5. 5.

    Robert (2019) finds that the vast majority of past crowdsourcing research focuses on the performance of micro-tasks and includes no discussion of informal controls.

References

  • Addady, M. (2016). Uber is starting to monitor drivers for bad behavior. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/06/29/uber-monitor-driving-behavior/ (Last Accessed on 20 Sept 2019).

  • Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, S. (2014). Theory of workarounds. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(55), 1041–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthes, E. (2017). The shape of work to come. Nature, 550(7676), 316–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avgerou, C. (2000). IT and organizational change: An institutionalist perspective. Information Technology and People, 14(4), 234–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J., & Felin, T. (2013). What are microfoundations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 138–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beinstein, A., & Sumers, T. (2016). How Uber Engineering increases safe driving with telematics. Retrieved from https://eng.uber.com/telematics/ (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Benlian, A., Hilkert, D., & Hess, T. (2015). How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 30(3), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (1993). Privacy and procedural justice in organizations. Social Justice Research, 6(1), 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M., & Costa, A. C. (2010). Consequences and antecedents of managerial and employee legitimacy interpretations of control: A natural open system approach. In S. B. Sitkin, L. B. Cardinal, & K. M. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational Control (pp. 396–433). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, B., & Ambos, B. (2013). A question of legitimacy? A dynamic perspective on multinational firm control. Organization Science, 24(3), 645–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., & Fairchild, G. (2001). When do elements of procedural fairness make a difference? A classification of moderating differences. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice (pp. 179–212). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broer, J. (2017). The Gamification Inventory: An Instrument for the Qualitative Evaluation of Gamification and its Application to Learning Management Systems. Doctoral Thesis, University of Bremen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012). Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 263–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalykoff, J., & Kochan, T. A. (1989). Computer-aided monitoring: Its influence on employee job satisfaction and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 42(4), 807–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, N. K., & Humphreys, L. (2018). Mediatization of social space and the case of Uber drivers. Media and Communication, 6(2), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, M. A., & Aloisi, A. (2017). ‘Dependent contractors’ in the gig economy: A comparative approach. American University Law Review, 66(3), 635–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantiou, I., Marton, A., & Tuunainen, V. K. (2017). Four models of sharing economy platforms. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(4), 231–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cram, W. A., & Wiener, M. (2018). Perceptions of control legitimacy in information systems development. Information Technology and People, 31(3), 712–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cram, W. A., & Wiener, M. (2020). Technology-mediated control: Case examples and research directions for the future of organizational control. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 46 (Article 4), 70–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croitor, E., & Benlian, A. (2019). Perceived input control on online platforms from the application developer perspective: Conceptualisation and scale development. Journal of Decision Systems, 28(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 49–77). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Groen, W. P., Maselli, I., & Fabo, B. (2016). The digital market for local services: A one-night stand for workers? An example from the on-demand economy. CEPS Special Report, No. 133, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’: On-demand work, crowd work and labour protection in the ‘gig-economy’. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 37(3), 471–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferneley, E., Sobreperez, P., & Stevens, J. (2004). Management information or trompe l’oeil? Resistance to workplace surveillance. Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Paper, 78, 1000–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power, in D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, G. (2014). Workers without employers: Shadow corporations and the rise of the gig economy. Review of Keynesian Economics, 2(2), 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallivan, M. J. (2001). Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization: A content analysis of open source software case studies. Information Systems Journal, 11(4), 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldbach, T., Benlian, A., & Buxmann, P. (2018). Differential effects of formal and self-control in mobile platform ecosystems: Multi-method findings on third-party developers’ continuance intentions and application quality. Information and Management, 55(3), 271–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (2014). To increase productivity, UPS monitors drivers’ every move. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/17/303770907/to-increase-productivity-ups-monitors-drivers-every-move (Last Accessed on 20 Sept 2019).

  • Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., & Keil, M. (2013). Control balancing in information systems development offshoring projects. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1211–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, A. (2016). Uber to start monitoring drivers through their phones to see whether they drive safely. The Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/uber-to-start-monitoring-drivers-through-their-phones-to-see-whether-they-drive-safely-a6834551.html (Last Accessed on 20 Sept 2019).

  • Hall, J., & Krueger, A. B. (2015). An analysis of the labor market for Uber’s driver-partners in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.s3.amazonaws.com/uber-static/comms/PDF/Uber_Driver-Partners_Hall_Kreuger_2015.pdf (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 236–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?—A literature review of empirical studies on gamification, in Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Big Island: Waikoloa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, H. K., & Flyverbom, M. (2015). The politics of transparency and the calibration of knowledge in the digital age. Organization, 22(6), 872–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a theory of marketing control: Environmental context, control types, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, S. (2016). How Uber manages drivers without technically managing drivers. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3062622/how-ubers-app-manages-drivers-withouttechnically-managing-drivers (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Khosrowshahi, D. (2018). Getting serious about safety. Retrieved from https://www.uber.com/newsroom/getting-serious-safety/(Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Kirsch, L. J. (1996). The management of complex tasks in organizations: Controlling the systems development process. Organization Science, 7(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, L. J., Ko, D. G., & Haney, M. H. (2010). Investigating the antecedents of team-based clan control: Adding social capital as a predictor. Organization Science, 21(2), 469–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R., & Kettinger, W. (2004). Informating the clan: Controlling physicians’ costs and outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumer, S., Maier, C., & Weitzel, T. (2017). Information quality, user satisfaction, and the manifestation of workarounds: A qualitative and quantitative study of enterprise content management system users. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(4), 333–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers, in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seoul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehdonvirta, V. (2018). Flexibility in the gig economy: Managing time on three online piecework platforms. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(1), 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, C. P., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls and fairness judgements in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1045–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P. B., & Moody, G. D. (2015). Proposing the control-reactance compliance model (CRCM) to explain opposing motivations to comply with organisational information security policies. Information Systems Journal, 25(5), 433–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marabelli, M., Hansen, S., Newell, S., & Frigerio, C. (2017). The light and dark side of the black box: Sensor-based technology in the automotive industry. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 40, 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G. T., & Sherizen, S. (1987). Corporations that spy on their employees. Business and Society Review, 60(2), 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey Global Institute. (2016). Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/independent-work-choice-necessity-and-the-gig-economy (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Mehrizi, M. H. R., Modol, J. R., & Nezhad, M. Z. (2019). Intensifying to cease: Unpacking the process of information systems discontinuance. MIS Quarterly, 43(1), 141–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as a myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017). Hands on the wheel: Navigating algorithmic management and Uber drivers’ autonomy, in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Seoul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moussa, M. (2015). Monitoring employee behavior through the use of technology and issues of employee privacy in America. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, S. A. (2018). Uber tightens driver background checks. Retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/12/technology/uber-safety-update/index.html (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • O’Brien, S. A., & Yurieff, K. (2017). What we know (and don’t know) about Uber background checks. Retrieved from: https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/03/technology/uber-lyft-background-checks-new-york-terror-attack-suspect/index.html (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Technological dramas. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(3), 292–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, N. (2005). When is a work-around? Conflict and negotiation in computer systems development. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(4), 496–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posey, C., Bennett, R. J., Roberts, T. L., & Lowry, P. B. (2011). When computer monitoring backfires. Journal of Information System Security, 7(1), 24–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, S. (2014). The ions of theory construction. MIS Quarterly 38(2), iii–xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, L. P., Jr. (2019). Crowdsourcing controls: A review and research agenda for crowdsourcing controls used for macro-tasks. In V.-J. Khan, K. Papangelis, I. Lykourentzou, & P. Markopoulos (Eds.), Macrotask Crowdsourcing: Engaging the Crowds to Address Complex Problems (pp. 45–126). Springer Nature: Cham.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblat, A. (2018). Uberland. Oakland: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiber, N. (2017). How Uber uses psychological tricks to push its drivers’ buttons. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/02/technology/uber-drivers-psychological-tricks.html (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Schmitz, H., & Lykourentzou, I. (2018). Online sequencing of non-decomposable macrotasks in expert crowdsourcing. ACM Transactions on Social Computing 1(1), Article 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnedler, W., & Vadovic, R. (2011). Legitimacy of control. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 20(4), 985–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., & George, E. (2005). Managerial trust-building through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms. International Sociology, 20(3), 307–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. P., & Tabak, F. (2009). Monitoring employee e-mails: Is there any room for privacy? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, J.-Y. (2011). Out of fear or desire? Toward a better understanding of employees’ motivation to follow IS security policies. Information and Management, 48(7), 296–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, E. F., Gardner, D. G., Gueutal, H. G., & McClure, S. (1983). A field experiment comparing information-privacy values, beliefs, and attitudes across several types of organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, F., & Smith, W. P. (2005). Privacy and electronic monitoring in the workplace: A model of managerial cognition and relational trust development. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 17(3), 173–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A. (2015). Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems. Information Systems Research, 26(2), 266–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomaselli, F. C., Sanchez, O. P., & Brown, S. A. (2015). How to engage users through gamification: The prevalent effects of playing and mastering over competing, in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). TX: Fort Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uber. (2019a). Driver requirements: How to drive with Uber. Retrieved from https://www.uber.com/drive/requirements/ (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Uber. (2019b). Pre-first trip: Frequently asked questions. https://www.uber.com/drive/new-orleans/resources/prefirst-trip-faqs/ (Last Accessed on 21 Sept 2019).

  • Uber.(2019c). Riding with Uber: Driver compliments. https://www.uber.com/ride/how-uber-works/driver-compliments/ (Last Accessed on 31 May 2019).

  • Whetten, D. A. (2002). Modelling-as-theorizing: A systematic methodology for theory development. In D. Partington (Ed.), Essential Skills for Management Research (pp. 45–71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, M., & Cram, W. A. (2017). Technology-enabled control: Effectiveness, socio-emotional consequences, and ethical dilemmas, in Proceedings of the 23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems. MA: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Remus, U., & Saunders, C. (2016). Control configuration and control enactment in information systems projects: Review and expanded theoretical framework. MIS Quarterly, 40(3), 741–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychological values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woltjer, R. (2017). Workarounds and trade-offs in information security—an exploratory study. Information and Computer Security, 25(4), 402–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woyke, E. (2018). How UPS Delivers Faster Using $8 Headphones and Code that Decides When Dirty Trucks Get Cleaned. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technology.review.com/s/610183/how-ups-delivers-faster-using-8-headphones-and-code-that-decides-when-dirty-trucks-get/. (Last Accessed on 20 Sept 2019).

  • Yang, I. (2015). Cross-cultural perceptions of clan control in Korean multinational companies: A conceptual investigation of employees’ fairness monitoring based on cultural values. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(8), 1076–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support from Bentley University’s Data Innovation Network and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; grant award numbers: BE 4308/3-1 and BE 4308/3-2) is gratefully acknowledged. Also, we are grateful for constructive feedback from participants at the 2019 International Conference on the Outsourcing of Information Services (ICOIS) in Mannheim, Germany, as well as from research seminar participants at TU Darmstadt.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Dresden, Chair of Business Informatics, esp. Business Engineering, Helmholtzstr. 10, 01069, Dresden, Germany

    Martin Wiener

  2. University of Waterloo, School of Accounting and Finance, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, ON, Canada

    W. Alec Cram

  3. Technische Universität Darmstadt, Chair of Information Systems & E-Services, Hochschulstr. 1, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany

    Alexander Benlian

Authors
  1. Martin Wiener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. Alec Cram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Benlian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Wiener .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

    Rudy Hirschheim

  2. School of Business, University Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Armin Heinzl

  3. Institute for Information Systems, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Jens Dibbern

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wiener, M., Cram, W.A., Benlian, A. (2020). Technology-Mediated Control Legitimacy in the Gig Economy: Conceptualization and Nomological Network. In: Hirschheim, R., Heinzl, A., Dibbern, J. (eds) Information Systems Outsourcing. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45819-5_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation