Autonomy, Dignity and Control: Being Managed by a Machine

All courses / AI Boss / Module 3 / Chapter 11

Learning objectives

After the lesson the participant can:

• Explain how algorithmic direction acts on autonomy, competence and relatedness, and on demands and decision latitude.
• State the case for concern and the case for calm on autonomy at their strongest.
• Identify the three properties on which both positions meet: discretion, reasons and a reachable person.
• Design a before-and-after measurement of autonomy and perceived fairness that protects the respondents.

Key concepts

Decision latitude

In Karasek's model, the authority to make decisions about the work and the discretion to use one's skills. High demands with low latitude make a high-strain job. In the book's terms, latitude is a property of the delegation profile.

Three basic needs

Ryan and Deci's competence, autonomy and relatedness. Autonomy suffers when a system sets sequence and pace without reasons, competence when feedback is a score whose basis cannot be seen, relatedness when an interface replaces the manager.

Mechanical and human tasks

In Lee's online experiment, algorithmic and human decisions were perceived as equally fair for tasks seen as requiring mechanical skills; for tasks seen as requiring human skills, algorithmic decisions were perceived as less fair and as dehumanising.

Bounded preference rule

A rule such as PREF-01 that lets handlers state preferences within a cap, considered after deadlines, competence and workload balance, with protection for newer handlers so that an M1 Direction rule does not become a question of M4 Development.

Interactive exercises

Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.

Teaching plan

Discussion

1. The same freelancers reported high flexibility and autonomy alongside isolation, overwork and exhaustion. How can both findings come from the same design?
2. The case for calm says the harms come from business models and weak institutions, not from algorithms. What evidence in the chapter supports that reading, and what resists it?
3. At Hansa Mutual handlers describe the agent's allocation as fairer than the old shared queue, yet experienced handlers miss choosing complex claims. How should a profile weigh those two experiences?

Written exercise

Self-test

Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.

1. What did Lee's online experiment with four managerial decisions find about how people perceive algorithmic decisions?

   1. They were perceived as less fair than human decisions for every kind of task, including work assignment and scheduling, and as dehumanising throughout
   2. They were perceived as fairer than human decisions for tasks requiring human skills
   3. They were perceived as equally fair for mechanical tasks, but less fair and dehumanising for tasks seen as requiring human skills
   4. They were perceived as trustworthy only when a supplier had audited them
   Show the answer

   C. They were perceived as equally fair for mechanical tasks, but less fair and dehumanising for tasks seen as requiring human skills
   The result separates the functions: people accepted algorithmic assignment and scheduling about as readily as human assignment, resisted algorithmic evaluation, and missed the recognition that human decisions can carry.

2. In version 1.1.0 of DLG-HM-CTA-01, what does the protection for development in PREF-01 guarantee?

   1. At least one complex claim a week continues to go to each handler in the first two years of service
   2. Experienced handlers receive every complex claim in their three preferred categories
   3. Preferred claims make up at least 30 per cent of every handler's weekly allocation
   4. Newer handlers are exempt from the agent's allocation for their first two years
   Show the answer

   A. At least one complex claim a week continues to go to each handler in the first two years of service
   Without the cap and the protection, a rule giving experienced handlers the complex claims they enjoy would take away the claims through which newer handlers learn, turning an M1 Direction rule into a question of M4 Development.

3. According to the chapter's practical guide, what triggers a review of the delegation profile after the survey waves?

   1. Any individual respondent scoring below the unit average on the statements about latitude over sequence, method and pace
   2. A response rate below half of the unit's staff
   3. A request from the supplier of the system to change the questions
   4. A fall of more than half a scale point on any dimension, or open answers that name a specific loss
   Show the answer

   D. A fall of more than half a scale point on any dimension, or open answers that name a specific loss
   The guide's sixth step sets the threshold at the level of the unit and a dimension, never an individual; results are never used for M2 Evaluation or M3 Consequence of any person.