Social Comparison, Algorithmic Rankings, and Goal Achievement in Gig Economy Platforms
Keywords:
gig economy, algorithmic rankings, social comparison, goal achievement, platform governance, algorithmic management, worker well-beingAbstract
The rapid expansion of gig economy platforms has introduced novel forms of digitally mediated work organized through algorithmic management infrastructures. Central to these infrastructures are ranking systems and performance dashboards that expose workers to continuous social comparison with peers. This paper investigates the interplay between social comparison, algorithmic rankings, and goal achievement within platform-mediated labor environments from a systems perspective. We examine how platform architectures integrate behavioral data streams, ranking algorithms, and goal-setting affordances to shape worker motivation and productivity. The analysis reveals structural trade-offs between transparency and psychological safety, efficiency and fairness, and individualized goal pursuit and collective well-being. Algorithmic rankings serve as double-edged instruments: they can stimulate constructive competition and self-regulation while concurrently amplifying stress, attrition, and maladaptive social comparison. The paper discusses how platform governance frameworks can incorporate fairness constraints, dynamic granularity controls in feedback presentation, and decentralized auditing mechanisms to mitigate negative externalities. We further explore infrastructure-level design choices, including real-time data pipelines, personalized dashboard configurations, and privacy-preserving computation layers that influence the social comparison landscape. Policy implications are drawn regarding algorithmic accountability, worker classification, and the ethical boundaries of performance optimization. By synthesizing interdisciplinary insights from computer science, organizational behavior, and platform studies, the paper contributes a systematic understanding of how algorithmic ranking architectures can be calibrated to support sustainable goal achievement without undermining worker agency. The analysis underscores the need for participatory design processes and regulatory sandboxes that allow iterative evaluation of socio-algorithmic systems before large-scale deployment.
References
1. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784.
2. 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.
3. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1603–1612.
4. 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.
5. Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197.
6. Schor, J. B., Attwood-Charles, W., Cansoy, M., Ladegaard, I., & Wengronowitz, R. (2020). Dependence and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society, 49(5), 833–861.
7. Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J. F., Breazeal, C., ... & Wellman, M. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477–486.
8. Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017). Hands on the wheel: Navigating algorithmic management and Uber drivers’ autonomy. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, 1–18.
9. Kooti, F., Grbovic, M., Aiello, L. M., Djuric, N., Radosavljevic, V., & Lerman, K. (2017). Portrait of an online shopper: Understanding and predicting consumer behavior. Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 205–214.
10. Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L., & Neysen, N. (2020). Working for an algorithm: Power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(3), 644–676.
11. Prassl, J., & Risak, M. (2016). Uber, Taskrabbit, and co.: Platforms as employers? Rethinking the legal analysis of crowdwork. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 37(3), 619–652.
12. Griesbach, K., Reich, A., Elliott-Negri, L., & Milkman, R. (2019). Algorithmic control in platform food delivery work. Socius, 5, 1–15.
13. Bucher, E. L., Fieseler, C., Lutz, C., & Buhmann, A. (2021). The role of professionals in the governance of algorithmic systems. Regulation & Governance, 15(4), 1273–1292.
14. Min, X., Chi, W., Hu, X., & Ye, Q. (2024). Set a goal for yourself? A model and field experiment with gig workers. Production and Operations Management, 33(1), 205-224.
15. De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the “just-in-time workforce”: On-demand work, crowdwork and labour protection in the “gig-economy”. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 37(3), 471–504.
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, 29(1), 153–189.
17. Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273–294.
18. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802–5805.
19. Cheng, R., & Foley, C. (2018). Algorithmic management: The case of Airbnb. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 49–58.
20. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989.
21. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.
22. Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019). The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–24.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Data Intelligence and AI Systems
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
