Carsten Röttgen ^1,2* Britta Herbig ³ Tobias Weinmann ³ Andreas Müller ²

• ¹ University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
• ² Institute of Psychology, Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany, Essen, Germany
• ³ Institute and Polyclinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU Munich University Hospital, München, Bavaria, Germany

This paper aims to explain potential psychological effects of algorithmic management (AM) on human-centered task design and with that also workers' mental well-being. For this, we link research on algorithmic management (AM) with Sociomaterial System Theory and Action Regulation Theory (ART). Our main assumption is that psychological effects of sociomaterial systems, such as AM, can be explained by their impact on human action. From the synthesis of the theories, mixed effects on human-centered task design can be derived: It can be expected that AM contributes to fewer action regulation opportunities (i.e., job resources like job autonomy, transparency, predictability), and to lower intellectual demands (i.e., challenge demands like task complexity, problem solving). Moreover, it can be concluded that AM is related with more regulation problems (i.e., hindrance demands like overtaxing regulations) but also fewer regulation problems (like regulation obstacles, uncertainty). Based on these considerations and in line with the majority of current research, it can be assumed that the use of AM is indirectly associated with higher risks to workers' mental well-being. However, we also identify potential positive effects of AM as some stressful and demotivating obstacles at work are often mitigated. Based on these considerations, the main question of future research is not whether AM is good or bad for workers, but rather how work under AM can be designed to be humane. Our proposed model can guide and support researchers and practitioners in improving the understanding of the next generation of AM systems.