IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v24y2022i6p3060-3078.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impacts of Algorithmic Work Assignment on Fairness Perceptions and Productivity: Evidence from Field Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Bing Bai

    (Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63130)

  • Hengchen Dai

    (Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095)

  • Dennis J. Zhang

    (Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63130)

  • Fuqiang Zhang

    (Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63130)

  • Haoyuan Hu

    (Alibaba Group, Hangzhou 311101, China)

Abstract

Problem definition : We study how algorithmic (versus human-based) task assignment processes change task recipients’ fairness perceptions and productivity. Academic/practical relevance : Since algorithms are widely adopted by businesses and often require human involvement, understanding how humans perceive algorithms is instrumental to the success of algorithm design in operations. Particularly, the growing concern that algorithms may reproduce inequality historically exhibited by humans calls for research about how people perceive the fairness of algorithmic decision making (relative to traditional human-based decision making) and, consequently, adjust their work behaviors. Methodology : In a 15-day-long field experiment with Alibaba Group in a warehouse where workers pick products following orders (or “pick lists”), we randomly assigned half of the workers to receive pick lists from a machine that ostensibly relied on an algorithm to distribute pick lists, and the other half to receive pick lists from a human distributor. Results : Despite that we used the same underlying rule to assign pick lists in both groups, workers perceive the algorithmic (versus human-based) assignment process as fairer by 0.94–1.02 standard deviations. This yields productivity benefits: receiving tasks from an algorithm (versus a human) increases workers’ picking efficiency by 15.56%–17.86%. These findings persist beyond the first day when workers were involved in the experiment, suggesting that our results are not limited to the initial phrase when workers might find algorithmic assignment novel. We replicate the main results in another field experiment involving a nonoverlapping sample of warehouse workers. We also show via online experiments that people in the United States also view algorithmic task assignment as fairer than human-based task assignment. Managerial implications : We demonstrate that algorithms can have broader impacts beyond offering greater efficiency and accuracy than humans: introducing algorithmic assignment processes may enhance fairness perceptions and productivity. This insight can be utilized by managers and algorithm designers to better design and implement algorithm-based decision making in operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bing Bai & Hengchen Dai & Dennis J. Zhang & Fuqiang Zhang & Haoyuan Hu, 2022. "The Impacts of Algorithmic Work Assignment on Fairness Perceptions and Productivity: Evidence from Field Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 3060-3078, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:24:y:2022:i:6:p:3060-3078
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2022.1120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1120
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2022.1120?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:24:y:2022:i:6:p:3060-3078. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.