As illustrated by the neologism “uberization”, there is increasing concern over new forms of work intermediated by digital platforms. If these crowdwork platforms first have been perceived as market-like organizations, further research pointed out how management is still prevailing in algorithmic governance form. “Operator-type” platforms, such as Uber, are increasingly depicted as pure disciplinary tools to which crowdworkers meekly obey in fear of penalties. Our research contributes to this approach of management as a practice of power (Courpasson, 2017) in focusing on reappropriation and resistance mechanisms crowdworkers may set up. As advanced digital tools revive the temptations of scientific work organizations, our point is to show that hopes of omniscient or “panopticon-like” management are often deceived. In order to clarify what are the power relationships at stake in one operator-type platform, we intend to use Foucault’s plurality of explanatory frameworks. We conducted a qualitative case study of the ideal-typical model Deliveroo so as to enquire interpretations crowdworkers made of their situation, coupling 21 semi-directive interviews, participatory observations of riders’ meetings and non-participatory observations of riders’ Facebook groups. Our main contribution is to show Deliveroo riders partly adhere to the platform’s governmentality and report feeling free despite algorithmic management, as their experiences with the platform gives them greater autonomy compared to previous jobs done in highly hierarchical organizations. The concept of “power/knowledge” dispositif also helps us understand how, when facing prescriptions viewed as illegitimate, the most experienced riders may elaborate fragile individual or collective strategies to counteract power asymmetries.
