The Algorithmic Transparency Paradox How Algorithmic Control And Job Demands Drive Turnover Intention Among Digital Platform Workers

Penulis

  • Muh. Fahmi Firdaus Universitas Islam Raden Rahmat, Malang, Indonesia
  • Moch. Abd Goffar Universitas Islam Raden Rahmat, Malang, Indonesia
  • Moch. Abdul Aziz Universitas Islam Raden Rahmat, Malang, Indonesia
  • Masrohul Yasar Universitas Islam Raden Rahmat, Malang, Indonesia
  • Ahmad Ramadhani Universitas Islam Raden Rahmat, Malang, Indonesia
  • Niki Puspita Sari Universitas Islam Raden Rahmat, Malang, Indonesia

Abstrak

Meningkatnya penetrasi platform kerja digital di kota-kota non-metropolitan Indonesia memunculkan pertanyaan kritis tentang dampak algorithmic management terhadap kesejahteraan dan retensi pekerja. Penelitian ini bertujuan menguji pengaruh algorithmic control dan job demands terhadap turnover intention, serta peran moderasi algorithmic transparency, pada pekerja platform digital di Kepanjen, Kabupaten Malang. Berlandaskan Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Theory dan Algorithmic Management Theory, penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif eksplanatori dengan desain cross-sectional. Data dikumpulkan melalui survei kuesioner terhadap 80 responden, kemudian dianalisis menggunakan Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA). Hasil menunjukkan bahwa algorithmic control tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap turnover intention (β = 0,231, p = 0,163), mengindikasikan adanya algorithmic accommodation akibat keterbatasan alternatif pekerjaan di kota non-metropolitan (H1 tidak terdukung). Sebaliknya, job demands terbukti berpengaruh positif dan sangat signifikan (β = 0,579, p < 0,001), menjadikannya prediktor terkuat dalam model (H2 terdukung). Algorithmic transparency tidak terbukti memoderasi hubungan algorithmic control turnover intention (H3 tidak terdukung), sementara moderasi job demands×algorithmic transparency bersifat counter-directional dan signifikan (β = +0,262, p = 0,041), mengungkap paradoks transparansi di mana pemahaman yang lebih jelas tentang tuntutan algoritmik justru mempertajam niat keluar (H4 tidak terdukung dalam arahnya). Model penuh menjelaskan 41,5% variansi turnover intention (R² = 0,415, p < 0,001). Secara teoritis, penelitian ini memperluas JD-R Theory ke dalam konteks kerja berbasis algoritma di negara berkembang dan memperkenalkan konsep paradoks transparansi algoritmik (algorithmic transparency paradox) sebagai kontribusi orisinal pada Algorithmic Management Theory yakni kondisi di mana transparansi algoritmik yang lebih tinggi justru mempertajam niat keluar pekerja ketika job demands tinggi. Secara praktis, temuan ini merekomendasikan agar operator platform digital (Gojek, Grab, ShopeeFood) merancang mekanisme transparansi yang disertai genuine agency termasuk kanal banding formal dan kalibrasi target algoritmik yang mempertimbangkan kondisi infrastruktur lokal kota non-metropolitan. Bagi regulator ketenagakerjaan, hasil penelitian mendukung urgensi regulasi yang tidak sekadar mewajibkan keterbukaan informasi, melainkan juga standar algorithmic accountability dan audit berkala terhadap sistem algoritmik platform kerja digital di Indonesia.

Referensi

Aiken Stephen G West, L. S., & Raymond Reno, by R. (n.d.). MULTIPLE REGRESSION: Testing and Interpreting Interactions With contributions.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Bujold, A., Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Gaudet, M. C. (2022). Opacity behind the wheel: The relationship between transparency of algorithmic management, justice perception, and intention to quit among truck drivers. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100245

Cameron, L. D., & Rahman, H. (2022). Expanding the Locus of Resistance: Understanding the Co-constitution of Control and Resistance in the Gig Economy. Organization Science, 33(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.2021.1557

Creswell. J.W. (2009). reserarch design.

Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. In Human Resource Management Journal (Vol. 30, Number 1, pp. 114–132). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258

Griesbach, K., Reich, A., Elliott-Negri, L., & Milkman, R. (2019). Algorithmic Control in Platform Food Delivery Work. Socius, 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119870041

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. In European Business Review (Vol. 31, Number 1, pp. 2–24). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Jarrahi, M. H., Newlands, G., Lee, M. K., Wolf, C. T., Kinder, E., & Sutherland, W. (2021). Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data and Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211020332

Kadolkar, I., Kepes, S., & Subramony, M. (2025). Algorithmic management in the gig economy: A systematic review and research integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 46(7), 1057–1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2831

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. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174

Langer, M., König, C. J., & Busch, V. (2021). Changing the means of managerial work: effects of automated decision support systems on personnel selection tasks. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(5), 751–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09711-6

Lwanga, S. K., & Lemeshow, S. (1991). Sample size determination in health studies.

Mazzetti, G., Robledo, E., Vignoli, M., Topa, G., Guglielmi, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2023). Work Engagement: A meta-Analysis Using the Job Demands-Resources Model. In Psychological Reports (Vol. 126, Number 3, pp. 1069–1107). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211051988

Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017). Navigating Algorithmic Management and Drivers.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Saunders. M.N.K, Lewis. P, & Thornhill. A. (2023). research methods.

Shrestha, Y. R., Ben-Menahem, S. M., Von Krogh, G., & Zurich, E. (2019). Organizational Decision-Making Structures in the Age of AI. In California Management Review (Vol. 61, Number 4).

Towards Green, Resilient and Inclusive Digitalization. (2022). www.worldbank.org

Veen, A., Meijerink, J., Barratt, T., Keegan, A., & Goods, C. (2025). Overcoming legitimacy challenges of novel HRM practices during internationalization: The case of two food-delivery platforms. Journal of World Business, 60(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2024.101611

Wiener, M., Cram, W. A., & Benlian, A. (2023). Algorithmic control and gig workers: a legitimacy perspective of Uber drivers. European Journal of Information Systems, 32(3), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1977729

Unduhan

Diterbitkan

2026-07-07

Cara Mengutip

The Algorithmic Transparency Paradox How Algorithmic Control And Job Demands Drive Turnover Intention Among Digital Platform Workers. (2026). Integrative Conference on Bussiness and Islamic Studies, 1(1), 215-231. https://ejournal.uniramalang.ac.id/iconbis/article/view/10789

Artikel paling banyak dibaca berdasarkan penulis yang sama