SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Nazilli İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Digital Taylorism: The Continuity Of Control As Capitalism’s Silent Constant

Dijital Taylorizm: Kapitalizmin Sessiz Sabiti Olarak Kontrolün Sürekliliği

Sercan Dereli(ANKARA HACI BAYRAM VELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-4083-8559
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-05-05
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, it is demonstrated that digitalisation does not resolve the control-autonomy tension but instead reproduces it in more complex, indirect, and internalised forms, while discourses of flexibility and technical competence may obscure the intensification of measurement and supervisory practices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This review discusses the effects of digitalisation in production management on the labour process through the framework of labour process theory, situating Taylorism as the “silent constant” of control in capitalist production.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, the analysis examines how digitalisation expands capacities for measurement and monitoring, as well as the effects of algorithmic decision-making mechanisms on work organisation, performance evaluation, and behavioural steering.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, it is demonstrated that digitalisation does not resolve the control-autonomy tension but instead reproduces it in more complex, indirect, and internalised forms, while discourses of flexibility and technical competence may obscure the intensification of measurement and supervisory practices.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dijital Taylorizm · Emek Süreci Teorisi · Algoritmik Yönetim

Abstract

This review discusses the effects of digitalisation in production management on the labour process through the framework of labour process theory, situating Taylorism as the “silent constant” of control in capitalist production. It examines the transformation brought about by digital technologies beyond discourses of efficiency and autonomy. Although digitalisation is often presented as a rupture that enhances flexibility and participation, this study argues that digital technologies do not resolve control in the labour process; rather, they reorganise the logics of measurement, standardisation, and supervision in more intensive, more continuous, and less visible forms. The concept of digital Taylorism is used to describe the updated and intensified forms through which the control principles of classical Taylorism over labour are reproduced via algorithmic management, real-time monitoring, and data-driven decision-making practices. In this context, the analysis examines how digitalisation expands capacities for measurement and monitoring, as well as the effects of algorithmic decision-making mechanisms on work organisation, performance evaluation, and behavioural steering. In addition, the redesign of work, the separation between design and execution, and the control-autonomy tension are discussed within the context of digital production regimes, with the continuity line concretised through practices of standardisation and quantification observed in areas such as platform labour, logistics, and education. Overall, it is demonstrated that digitalisation does not resolve the control-autonomy tension but instead reproduces it in more complex, indirect, and internalised forms, while discourses of flexibility and technical competence may obscure the intensification of measurement and supervisory practices.

Özet

Üretim yönetiminde dijitalleşmenin emek süreci üzerindeki etkilerini, emek süreci teorisi çerçevesinde Taylorizm’in kapitalist üretimde kontrolün “sessiz sabiti” olarak sürekliliği üzerinden tartışan bu derleme, dijital teknolojilerin yarattığı dönüşümü verimlilik ve otonomi söylemlerinin ötesinde ele almaktadır. Dijitalleşme çoğu zaman esneklik ve katılımcılığı artıran bir kopuş olarak sunulsa da bu çalışmada dijital teknolojilerin emek sürecinde kontrolü çözmekten ziyade ölçüm, standartlaştırma ve denetim mantığını daha yoğun, daha sürekli ve daha az görünür biçimlerde yeniden örgütlediği ileri sürülmektedir. Dijital Taylorizm kavramı, klasik Taylorizm’in emek üzerindeki denetim ilkelerinin algoritmik yönetim, gerçek zamanlı izleme ve veri temelli karar alma pratikleri aracılığıyla güncellenmiş ve derinleştirilmiş biçimlerini tanımlamak üzere kullanılmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda dijitalleşmenin ölçüm ve izleme kapasitesini nasıl genişlettiği; algoritmik karar alma mekanizmalarının işin örgütlenmesi, performans değerlendirmesi ve davranış yönlendirme üzerindeki etkileri analiz edilmektedir. Ayrıca işin yeniden tasarımı, tasarım-uygulama ayrımı ve kontrol-otonomi gerilimi, dijital üretim rejimleri bağlamında ele alınmakta; platform emeği, lojistik ve eğitim gibi alanlarda görülen standartlaştırma ve sayısallaştırma pratikleri üzerinden süreklilik hattı somutlaştırılmaktadır. Sonuç olarak dijitalleşmenin kontrol-otonomi gerilimini çözmekten ziyade bu gerilimi daha karmaşık, dolaylı ve içselleştirilmiş biçimler altında yeniden ürettiği; esneklik ve teknik yeterlilik söylemlerinin artan ölçüm ve denetim pratiklerini görünmez kılabildiği ortaya konulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dereli, S. (2026). Digital Taylorism: The Continuity Of Control As Capitalism’s Silent Constant. Nazilli İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1. https://doi.org/10.59113/niibfd.1884344

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (84)

  1. Altenried, M. (2019). On the last mile: Logistical urbanism and the transformation of labour. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 13(1), 114-129.
  2. Altenried, M. (2020). The platform as factory: Crowdwork and the hidden labour behind. Capital & Class, 1-14.
  3. Bal, F., & Yılmaz, E. S. (2025). A bibliometric study on digital Taylorism and digital sustainability. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(2), 349-369.
  4. Ball, K. (2010). Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History, 51(1), 87-106.
  5. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408-437.
  6. Beer, D. (2016). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 1-13.
  7. Bostancı, M., & Yılmaz, Ö. (2025). Labour and exploitation processes in artificial intelligence: Example of digital Taylorism in data labelling. Toplum ve Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, (15), 24-48.
  8. Braverman, H. (2008). Emek ve tekelci sermaye yirmi birinci yüzyılda çalışmanın değersizleşmesi. İstanbul: Kalkedon Yayınları.
  9. Brown P., Lauder, H., & Cheung, S. Y. (2020). The death of human capital? Its failed promise and how to renew it in an age of disruption. New York: Oxford University Press.
  10. Brown, P. (2024). Education, opportunity and the future of work in the fourth industrial revolution. British Journal of Sociology of Education.
  11. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  12. Chesta, R. E. (2021). A new labor unionism in digital Taylorism? Explaining the first cycle of worker contention at Amazon logistics. In M. Klumpp & C. Ruiner (Eds.), Digital supply chains and the human factor (pp. 181-198). New York: Springer.
  13. Delbridge, R. (1998). Life on the line in contemporary manufacturing: The workplace experience of Lean production and the Japanese' model. New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. Delfanti, A., & Frey, B. (2020). Humanly extended automation or the future of work seen through Amazon patents. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1-28.
  15. Duggal, H. K., Khatri, P., Thomas, A., & Pironti, M. (2024). Changing learning paradigms: An interplay of digital Taylorism and technostress on perceived employability. Journal of Management History, 30(2), 166-194.
  16. Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.
  17. Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019). Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 210, 15-26.
  18. Friedman, A. L. (1977). Industry and labour class struggle at work and monopoly capitalism. London: The Macmillan Press.
  19. Gandini, A. (2018). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039-1056.
  20. Gerber, C., & Krzywdzinski, M. (2019). Brave new digital work? New forms of performance control in crowdwork. In Work and labor in the digital age (pp. 121-143).
  21. Guerrero-Valle, J., Jorge-Barbuzano, E., Antolínez-Domínguez, I., & Roca, B. (2025). Embodied narratives of Amazon workers: A critical cartography of the warehouse. Geoforum, 166.
  22. Gundhus, H. O. I., Talberg, N., & Wathne, C. T. (2022). From discretion to standardization: Digitalization of the police organization. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 24(1), 27-41.
  23. Güler, M. A., & Tutar, K. (2025). Dijital çağın yeni emeği: Platform çalışmaya sendikal bakış. Ankara: HAK-İŞ Konfederasyonu Yayınları.
  24. Günsel, A., & Yamen, M. (2020). Digital Taylorism as an answer to the requirements of the new era. In B. Akkaya (Ed.) Agile business leadership methods for industry 4.0 (pp. 103-119). Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited.
  25. Head, S. (2014). Mindless: Why smarter machines are making dumber humans. New York: Basic Books.
  26. Henaway, M. (2023). Amazon’s distribution space: Constructing a ‘labour fix’ through digital Taylorism and corporate Keynesianism. ZFW - Advances in Economic Geography, 67(4), 202-216.
  27. Holford, W. D. (2018). The future of human creative knowledge work within the digital economy. Futures.
  28. Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the global digital economy: The cybertariat comes of age. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  29. Hyman, R. (1987). Strategy or Structure? Capital, Labour and control. Work, Employment & Society, 1(1), 25-55.
  30. Jarrahi, M. H., Newlands, G., Lee, M. K., Wolf, C. T., Kinder, E., & Sutherland, W. (2021). Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data & Society, 8(2).
  31. Jones, N. (2013). Quantification and substitution: The abstract space of virtual cinematography. Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 253-266.
  32. Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative industrie 4.0. National Academy of Science and Engineering.
  33. 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.
  34. Klur, K., & Nies, S. (2023). Governed by digital technology? Self-perpetuation and social domination in digital capitalism. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 17(1), 12-33.
  35. Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (2000). The reengineering revolution? An introduction. David Knights & Hugh Willmott (Eds.). The Reengineering Revolution? Critical Studies of Corporate Change (pp. 1-25). London: SAGE Publications.
  36. Koşar, A. (2025). Dijital teknolojiler ve emek denetimi. Toplum ve Hekim, 40(4), 268-276.
  37. Kunda, G. (1986). Engineering culture: Culture and control in a high-tech organization (Doctoral Dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  38. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1603-1612).
  39. Littler, C. R. (1982). The development of the labour process in capitalist societies. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
  40. Liu, H. Y. (2023). Digital Taylorism in China’s e-commerce industry: A case study of internet professionals. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 44(1), 262-279.
  41. Lopez, T., Riedler, T., Köhnen, H., & Fütterer, M. (2022). Digital value chain restructuring and labour process transformations in the fast-fashion sector: Evidence from the value chains of Zara & H&M. Global Networks, 22, 684-700.
  42. Lyon, D., Haggerty, K. D., & Ball, K. (2012). Introduction: Understanding surveillance. Kirstie Ball & David Lyon (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies (ss. 1-11). Oxford: Routledge.
  43. Mantello, P., & Ho, M. T. (2024). Emotional AI and the future of wellbeing in the post-pandemic workplace. AI & Society, 39, 1883-1889.
  44. Marglin, S. A. (1974). What do bosses do?: The origins and functions of hierarchy in capitalist production. Review of Radical Political Economics, 6, 60-112.
  45. Marx, K. (2020). Kapital I. cilt. İstanbul: Yordam Kitap.
  46. McCabe, D., & Knights, D. (2000). 'Such stuff as dreams are made on': BPR up against the wall of functionalism, hierarchy and specialization. David Knights & Hugh Willmott (Eds.). The Reengineering Revolution? Critical Studies of Corporate Change (pp. 63-87). London: SAGE Publications.
  47. Meijerink, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2023). The duality of algorithmic management: Toward a research agenda on HRM algorithms, autonomy and value creation. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1).
  48. Merchant, K. A., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2017). Management control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation, and incentives. Edinburgh: Pearson.
  49. Meyer, U., Schaupp, S., & Seibt, D. (Eds.). (2019). Digitalization in industry: Between domination and emancipation. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  50. Milanez, A., Lemmens, A., & Ruggiu, C. (2025). Algorithmic management in the workplace: New evidence from an OECD employer survey. OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers.
  51. Montgomery, D. (1987). The fall of the house of labor: The workplace, the state, and American labor activism, 1865-1925. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Moore, P. V., Upchurch, M., & Whittaker, X. (2018). Humans and machines at work: Monitoring, surveillance and automation in contemporary capitalism. In Humans and Machines at Work: Monitoring, Surveillance and Automation in contemporary Capitalism (pp. 1-16). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  53. Moore, P., & Robinson, A. (2015). The quantified self: What counts in the neoliberal workplace. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2774-2792.
  54. Moorkens, J. (2020). “A tiny cog in a large machine”: Digital Taylorism in the translation industry. Translation Spaces, 9(1), 12-34.
  55. Noponen, N., Feshchenko, P., Auvinen, T., Luoma-aho, V., & Abrahamsson, P. (2024). Taylorism on steroids or enabling autonomy? A systematic review of algorithmic management. Management Review Quarterly, 74, 1695-1721.
  56. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
  57. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
  58. Ouma, S., & Premchander, S. (2022). Labour, efficiency, critique: Writing the plantation into the technological present-future. EPA: Economy and Space, 54(2), 413-421.
  59. Parfitt, H., & Çelik, E. (2025). Logistics platforms’ ‘new’ mode of appropriation? An analysis of four trends from inside Germany’s Q-commerce sector. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 19(2), 261-277.
  60. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The Secret algorithms that control Money and information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  61. Pons-Vignon, N. (2025). Power resources and the last-mile problem in logistics: Reflections on a Swiss labour struggle. New Political Economy, 30(3), 403-417.
  62. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  63. Prause, L. (2021). Digital agriculture and labor: A few challenges for social sustainability. Sustainability, 13(11).
  64. Rani, U., Pesole, A., & Vázquez, I. G. (2024). Algorithmic Management practices in regular workplaces: case studies in logistics and healthcare. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  65. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758-3784.
  66. Scolari, C. (2009). The sense of the interface: Applying semiotics to HCI research. Semiotica, 177(1-4), 1-27.
  67. Scott, A. J., Lucarelli, S., Peters, M. A., & Vercellone, C. (2013). Cognitive-cultural production, digital labour and the new frontiers of knowledge: A conversation with Allen J. Scott. Knowledge Cultures, 1(4), 167-178.
  68. Sennett, R. (2014). Karakter aşınması: Yeni kapitalizmde işin kişilik üzerindeki etkileri. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  69. Taylor, F. W. (2014). Bilimsel yönetimin ilkeleri. Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
  70. Thompson, P. (1983). The nature of work: An introduction to debates on the labour Process. London: The Macmillan Press.
  71. Thompson, P., & Ackroyd, S. (1995). All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in British industrial sociology. Sociology, 29(4), 615-633.
  72. Thompson, P., & Smith, C. (2010). Introduction: Labour process theory in retrospect and prospect. Paul Thompson & Chris Smith (Eds.). Working Life Renewing Labour Process Analysis (ss. 1-11). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  73. Townley, B. (1993). Performance appraisal and the emergence of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(2), 221-238.
  74. Tulunay, S., & Türköz, T. (2025). Elektronik izlemenin çalışanların iş güvencesizliği algısı ve işten ayrılma niyetlerine etkisinde psikolojik sağlamlığın aracı rolü. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 12(28), 535-563.
  75. Vallas, S. P. (1999). Rethinking post-Fordism: The meaning of workplace flexibility. Sociological Theory, 17(1), 68-101.
  76. Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 273-294.
  77. Veen, A., Barratt, T., & Goods, C. (2020). Platform-capital’s ‘app-etite’ for control: A labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 34(3), 388-406.
  78. Webb, S. (2012). Online tutoring and emotional labour in the private sector. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(5), 365-388.
  79. Wilkesmann, M., & Wilkesmann, U. (2018). Industry 4.0 - organizing routines or innovations? VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems.
  80. Wood, A. J. (2021). Algorithmic management consequences for work organisation and working conditions (No. 2021/07). JRC Working Papers Series on Labour, Education and Technology.
  81. Wood, S. (1989). The transformation of work?. Stephen Wood (Ed.). The Transformation of Work: Skill, Flexibility and the Labour Process (ss. 1-43). London: Unwin Hyman.
  82. Woodcock, J. & Graham, M. (2020). The gig economy: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  83. Yılmaz, Ö. (2023). Digital capitalism and individualization of labour: The case of remote work. Journal of Human and Social Sciences (JOHASS), 6(1), 99-125.
  84. Yılmaz, Ö. (2025). Digital Taylorism and reification: A literature review on the recolonization of life. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science, 8(1), 79-88.