From the wave-0 evidence ledger
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
In an OECD survey of more than 6,000 mid-level managers across six countries, reported algorithmic-management use was widespread but varied sharply by region, with roughly 90% of US managers, 79% in surveyed European countries, and 40% in Japan reporting at least one covered tool.
Scope: Surveyed countries, workplaces, and definition of algorithmic management; not GenAI-only adoption.
About two-thirds of surveyed managers reported worker concerns, with unclear accountability among the most common; the report treats worker consultation and clear governance as responses but does not establish their causal effectiveness.
Scope: Covered algorithmic-management systems across surveyed countries.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- More than 6,000 mid-level managers across six countries
- Broad algorithmic-management definition includes some non-AI tools
- Manager reports may not match worker experience
- Cross-sectional and noncausal
Source independence
OECD employer survey independent of a single vendor; respondent managers report adoption and effects.