OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH FOR GIG ECONOMY IN VUCA TIMES - A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejhrms.v10i1.2116Kata Kunci:
gig economy, outcome-based approach, flexi work, framework, implicationsAbstrak
The gig economy has revolutionized traditional employment structures, emphasizing flexibility and autonomy for workers. However, the absence of a standardized framework often leads to uncertainties regarding work arrangements and outcomes. In response, this paper proposes an outcome-based flexi-work approach tailored to the unique dynamics of the gig economy in an era marked by high volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. Drawing from an extensive literature review and industry insights, a comprehensive framework is developed, highlighting the integration of key elements such as task clarity, performance evaluation, and incentive mechanisms. Moreover, this framework considers the implications for various stakeholders, including gig workers, platform operators, and regulatory bodies. By aligning work expectations with measurable outcomes, this approach seeks to enhance efficiency, accountability, and satisfaction within the gig economy ecosystem. The implications of adopting such a framework are discussed in terms of its potential to foster mutual trust, mitigate conflicts, and promote sustainable growth in the evolving landscape of flexible work arrangements.
JEL: J41 – Contracts: Principal–Agent Problems; J24 – Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity; L86 – Information and Internet Services; Computer Software; J81 – Working Conditions; D81 – Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; M52 – Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
Referensi
Benkler, Y., & Faris, R. (2018). Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/41492384/Principled_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Bollerslev, T., & Todorov, V. (2021). Tails, fears, and risk premia. Journal of Econometrics, 213(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2019.08.004
Bradley, L., & Nolan, R. (1998). Sense and respond: Capturing value in the network era. Harvard Business Review Press. Retrieved from https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=6617
Chen, L., Wang, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Dynamic resource allocation strategy of the supply chain considering market demand volatility. Sustainable Production and Supply Chain Management, 7(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1863-5_7
Cheng, M., Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2021). Agility and resilience in a post-COVID-19 environment: The case of small tourism businesses in Australia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 4(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-04-2020-0058
Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. (2022). Decision-making and adaptability. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-080320-141757
De Stefano, V., & Aloisi, A. (2019). Just a gig? The digitalization of work and human capital. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsy032
Garcia, J., de Sa, A. M., & Mendonça, J. F. (2020). Complexity in supply chains: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Economics, 230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107879
Jaskyte, K., & Lebedeva, N. (2021). Ambiguity in nonprofit management. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21544
Johnson, M., & Lee, J. (2018). Uncertain regulatory environments and organizational responses: The case of U.S. healthcare. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(3), 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22117
Kachaner, N., Volini, E., & Seo, J. (2021). Organizing for the future: Six strategies for organizational success. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/organizing-for-the-future
Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2016). The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995–2015. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w22667
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. Basic Books. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/171/Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/171/
Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2021). Entrepreneurship and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Routledge.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tett, R. P. (2020). Organizational climate: Past, present, and future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-082119-110214
Smith, J., & Brown, A. (2021). Adaptability and agility: Key determinants of organizational resilience in the face of uncertainty. Journal of Change Management, 21(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2020.1847350
Smith, J., Johnson, M., & Brown, A. (2022). Managing volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous times: The role of leader humility. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101642
Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT Press. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1c2cqh3
Wang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2017). Navigating technological disruptions: Interpreting ambiguous signals in the telecommunications industry. Strategic Management Journal, 38(9), 1875–1892. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2627
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Contingent and alternative employment arrangements. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.nr0.htm


