Autonomy at work in the gig economy: analysing work status, work content and working conditions of independent professionals

Abstract

This paper offers a critical perspective on the debate surrounding autonomy at work for a specific category of non‐standard workers: independent professionals. The increasing numbers now working this way as well as their spread into all sectors, industries and occupations, mean that their work arrangements can no longer be dismissed as non‐standard or atypical. Defining them by what they are not is quite simply no longer an option. Our paper examines the various components intertwined behind the taken‐for‐granted concept of autonomy. Drawing on debates from the legal through to the sociological and HR literatures, we identify three underlying dimensions to autonomy. When combined, they provide the basis for an analytical matrix that may assist policy makers, practitioners and individual workers to understand the challenges and opportunities linked to new ways of working.

Digital Platforms of Work and the Crafting of Career Path: The Crowdworkers’ Perspective

“…6 The career trajectory of full-time Macro-tasks crowdworkers to increase their social job resources connecting with other crowdworkers and joining and building further support networks online and offline. Although crowdwork is assumed to seclude workers from traditional organisational relationships and institutional support (Pichault and McKeown 2019), the crowdworkers we studied were keen on developing relationships with employers and forming social relationships with other crowdworkers not only online but also offline. They considered these social connections and relationships a valuable asset for a long-term successful career in digital platforms employment (Gray et al 2016).…”

Independent professionals as talent: Evidence from individual views of working as a contractor

“…In summary, despite sitting on or outside the boundaries of the organization, extrapolating the wider research characterizes IPros as the embodiment of talent (Aguinis & O'Boyle, 2014; Kalleberg, 2009; McKeown, 2016; Pichault & McKeown, 2019; Süß & Sayah, 2013). Thus, while IPros hold high human capital and, as key sources of talent, should be managed, according to the proponents of HR architecture, by inclusive HRM policies and practices, they are often explicitly excluded by the client organization from HRM in general, and from TM policies and practices in particular.…”

“…This moves us to a body of research of direct relevance to the TM issue, that of the individual contractor perspective and their diverse characteristics, motivations, and preferences. Over a decade ago, Ashford et al (2007, p. 69) identified those who consciously “take their careers into their own hands, construct their identities as professional and entrepreneurial, and view organizations in an increasingly negative light.” It is an observation made even more explicit in recent research findings that many contractors seek to be independent, to leverage their talent in ways that allow them be their own boss and subject to their defined market place of consumers and clients (Fishman, 2017; Pichault & McKeown, 2019; Ravenelle, 2017), or to satisfy their personal values and nonwork commitments (Anderson & Bidwell, 2019; McKeown, 2019). There are also other explanations.…”

“…This has led HR practitioners adopting “arm's length” practices and policies of purposeful exclusion (Dundon & Rafferty, 2018). There is also the widely acknowledged gap between existing behavioral research and frameworks based on assumptions of standard employment and their theoretical and practical value when applied to nonstandard work arrangements (Bush & Balven, 2018; Guest, Isaksson, & De Witte, 2010; Pichault & McKeown, 2019). As Cascio and Boudreau (2017) note, investigation of TM within nonstandard work is nearly nonexistent.…”

Don’t Work for Free: Online Discursive Resistance to Precarity in Commercial Photography

“…However, Pichault and McKeown (2019) and Bain (2005) highlight how complicated it is to construct and communicate professional norms in precarious occupations. Bain's artists lack the 'shared workplace cultures and everyday social interactions' necessary to establish shared norms (2005: 26) and both studies note the difficulty 'professional' workers may face in distinguishing themselves from amateurs or hobbyists (Pichault and McKeown, 2019). Bain argues that artists lack 'the degrees or licences, prerequisites or credentials to authenticate occupational status' and claims that '[w]ithout clear definitional parameters .…”