Parenting Journal · Volume 1 · Issue 3 · Licensed source edition
The algorithmic management paradox: a structured integrative review of perceived autonomy on performance in digital workplaces
Originally published 2026-08-11 · Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers Media SA · DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1829522 ↗
AI / system type
Algorithmic task allocation, scheduling, monitoring, feedback and sanctioning
Workplace evidenceExamines workers, organizations or AI at work. Participants are not necessarily parents; family benefits are not established by this evidence alone.
The AI connection
System or context examined: Algorithmic task allocation, scheduling, monitoring, feedback and sanctioning. Algorithmic management/control is not assumed to be machine learning or generative AI.
Why this reading matters
The reading brings meaningful discretion under algorithmic work management into a concrete discussion of humane work during technological change. It offers structured integrative review evidence or analysis, not a promise of organizational or family benefit.
Workplace evidence
Work, care and the whole person.
The workplace lens is meaningful discretion under algorithmic work management. Source setting or population: Digital-workplace research across five databases with citation tracing. Parenting and child-development outcomes are not inferred from the workplace evidence.
Examines workers, organizations or AI at work. Participants are not necessarily parents; family benefits are not established by this evidence alone.
Editorial reading guide · Independence
Which decisions should remain mine when software manages the workflow?
This structured integrative review examines meaningful discretion under algorithmic work management. Its TRICK home is Independence, an editorial reading path rather than a claim that the paper tests the full framework.
Study context
Digital-workplace research across five databases with citation tracing
Age / stage: Workplace literature or conceptual analysis; no single child age range
Read with three questions
- Which decisions should remain mine when software manages the workflow?
- What do this study’s design and population — Digital-workplace research across five databases with citation tracing — allow you to infer about another workplace?
- When considering meaningful discretion under algorithmic work management, which decisions would need employee input before applying this reading to a working family’s circumstances?
Keep the limits in view
The review develops bounded propositions from heterogeneous evidence; performance findings should not be interpreted as proof of wellbeing or parenting benefits.
The text below is the original article’s licensed repository edition. Its wording is not rewritten. Use the Paper Agent beside the text to locate evidence; open the source for figures, tables and complete context.
Opening the verified paper and agent…
Checking the article identity, license record, and saved source text.
Open the repository recordAttribution & reuse
Follow the original.
Original authorship, publication date, journal and DOI are preserved. This issue’s TRICK placement and reading questions are editorial additions, not claims made by the original authors.
Feng Lu (2026). The algorithmic management paradox: a structured integrative review of perceived autonomy on performance in digital workplaces Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1829522
Permissions checked against the saved article notice; repository publication notices screened 2026-11-05. This is not a new peer-review decision. The source authors and publishers are not represented as endorsing this issue.