El tayl=
orismo
se encuentra con la tecnología: transformación de los flujos =
de
trabajo y de las dinámicas organizacionales en el siglo XXI
<=
o:p>
Taylorism meets technology:
transforming workflows and organizational dynamics in the 21st century
|
1 |
Mammeri Mohamed<=
/span> |
|
https://orcid.org/0009-0=
008-6645-9435 |
|
|
|
University of Relizane, Relizane,
Algeria Faculty of Social and
Human Sciences, Department of Sociology and Philosophy, Relizane, Algeria=
|
|
|
Artículo =
de
Investigación Científica y Tecnológica Enviado: 11/04/2=
026 Revisado: 12/05/=
2026
Aceptado: 10/06/=
2026
Publicado: 06/07=
/2026
DOI: https:/=
/doi.org/10.33262/visionariodigital.v10i3.3631 |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Cítese: |
|
Mohamed, M. (2026). El taylorismo se encuentra con El taylorismo se
encuentra con la tecnología: transformación de los flujos de
trabajo y de las dinámicas organizacionales en el siglo XXI.
Visionario Digital, 10(3), 6-18. https://do=
i.org/10.33262/visionariodigital.v10i3.3631 |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Esta revista está protegida bajo una
licencia Creative Commons Atribución-No
Comercial-Compartir Igual 4.0 International. Copia de la licencia: |
|
||||
|
Palabras
clave: Taylorismo digital; eficienci=
a de
los flujos de trabajo; dinámicas organizacionales; satisfacci&oacu=
te;n
de los empleados; gestión algorítmica; sociología
organizacional. |
|
Resumen Introducción:=
la
rápida integración de las tecnologías digitales en l=
as
organizaciones contemporáneas ha transformado las prácticas
clásicas de gestión, desafiando los principios tradicionales
del taylorismo. Este estudio investiga la interacción entre los
principios tayloristas y las herramientas digitales, centrándose e=
n su
impacto sobre la eficiencia de los flujos de trabajo, las dinámicas
organizacionales y la satisfacción de los empleados. Objetivos:=
investigar la interacción entre los principios tayloristas y las h=
erramientas
digitales contemporáneas, analizando su impacto en la eficiencia de
los flujos de trabajo, las dinámicas organizacionales y la
satisfacción de los empleados en los sectores tecnológico, =
de
servicios y manufacturero. Metodología: mediante un dise&nt=
ilde;o
de métodos mixtos, se recopilaron datos de entre 50 y 70 participa=
ntes
pertenecientes a los sectores tecnológico, de servicios y
manufacturero, a través de encuestas y entrevistas semiestructurad=
as.
El análisis cuantitativo revela mejoras significativas en la
estandarización de los flujos de trabajo y en la eficiencia de las
tareas, mientras que los hallazgos cualitativos ponen de manifiesto tensi=
ones
entre la eficiencia y la autonomía de los empleados. Resultados=
:
los resultados demuestran que el taylorismo digital es un fenómeno
sociotécnico que requiere un equilibrio entre la eficiencia operat=
iva
y las prácticas centradas en el ser humano. Al vincular la
teoría clásica con las realidades digitales contempor&aacut=
e;neas,
este estudio llena un vacío importante en la investigación,
proporcionando aportes prácticos y teóricos para directivos=
e
investigadores que buscan entornos laborales digitales sostenibles.
Conclusiones: el taylorismo digital emerge como un fenómeno
sociotécnico que exige equilibrio entre la eficiencia operativa y =
las
prácticas centradas en el ser humano, ofreciendo aportes
prácticos y teóricos para directivos e investigadores que
buscan entornos laborales digitales sostenibles. Área de estudio
general: Administración. Área de estudio
específica: Gestión organizacional. Tipo de
artículo: original. |
|||||
|
Keywords: Digital
Taylorism; workflow efficiency; organizational dynamics; employee
satisfaction; algorithmic management; organizational sociology. |
|
Abstract Intr=
oduction: The rapid integration of digital technologi=
es
into contemporary organizations has transformed classical management
practices, challenging traditional principles of Taylorism. This study
investigates the interaction between Taylorist
principles and digital tools, focusing on their impact on workflow effici=
ency,
organizational dynamics, and employee satisfaction. Objectives: To
investigate the interaction between Taylorist
principles and contemporary digital tools, analyzing their impact on work=
flow
efficiency, organizational dynamics, and employee satisfaction within the
technology, service, and manufacturing sectors. Methodology: Using=
a
mixed-methods design, data were collected from 50 to 70 participants acro=
ss
the technology, service, and manufacturing sectors via surveys and
semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analysis reveals significant
improvements in workflow standardization and task efficiency, while
qualitative findings highlight tensions between efficiency and employee
autonomy. Results: The results demonstrate that digital Taylorism =
is a
sociotechnical phenomenon requiring a balance between operational efficie=
ncy
and human-centric practices. By linking classical theory with contemporary
digital realities, this study fills a significant research gap, offering
practical and theoretical insights for managers and researchers seeking
sustainable digital work environments. Conclusions: Digital Taylor=
ism
emerges as a sociotechnical phenomenon demanding a balance between
operational efficiency and human-centric practices, providing practical a=
nd
theoretical insights for managers and researchers aiming for sustainable
digital work environments. General field of study: Administration.=
Specific
field of study: Organizational management. Article type: Origi=
nal
research. |
|||||
1.&n=
bsp;
Introduction=
In
recent years, the rapid adoption of digital technologies has profoundly
transformed organizational structures, work processes, and employee
experiences, challenging classical management theories such as Taylorism or
Scientific Management. Frederick W. Taylor's (1911) principles emphasized t=
he
scientific analysis of tasks, labor division, and managerial control to
maximize efficiency (Taylor, 1911). While these principles were designed for
early industrial contexts, the digital era introduces new mechanisms such as
algorithmic management, real-time monitoring, and workflow automation that
reinterpret Taylorist logic in contemporary organizations (Konuk et al., 20=
23; Pazmiño
et al., 2023).
Digital
tools enable organizations to optimize productivity, standardize tasks, and
enhance coordination, yet they simultaneously raise questions about employee
autonomy, engagement, and satisfaction (Noponen et al., 2024; Guachá=
n,
2025). Scholars have coined terms like “digital Taylorism” to
describe this fusion of classical efficiency-focused management with modern
technological control (Egodawele et al., 2022; Castillo et al., 2019). Alth=
ough
the literature extensively addresses technological adoption and organizatio=
nal
performance, there is limited sociological research on how these digital
transformations reshape foundational Taylorist principles and affect employ=
ee
experiences, leaving a critical gap in understanding the human and
organizational consequences of digital management systems (Konuk et al., 20=
23; Guale
et al., 2026).
Bridging
this gap is crucial, as organizations must balance efficiency with employee
well-being and sustainable work practices. This study aims to investigate t=
he
interplay between Taylorist principles and digital technologies, focusing on
their impact on workflow transformation, organizational dynamics, and emplo=
yee
satisfaction in modern workplaces. By integrating classical management theo=
ry
with contemporary digital practices, the research offers both theoretical a=
nd
practical contributions to organizational sociology and management science =
(Swedenborg,
1923; Arias, 2022).
While
Taylorism has historically guided the optimization of work efficiency throu=
gh
standardization, task specialization, and hierarchical control (Taylor, 191=
1),
the digital era introduces new modalities of work organization that challen=
ge
these classical principles. Algorithmic management, workflow automation, and
real-time monitoring systems now allow organizations to track performance
continuously, standardize processes digitally, and adjust tasks instantaneo=
usly
(Konuk et al., 2023; Torres et al., 2025).
Despite
technological advancements, there is insufficient empirical and sociological
research on how digital tools reshape the core tenets of Taylorism,
particularly regarding their effects on employee autonomy, satisfaction, and
organizational dynamics (Noponen et al., 2024). Most existing studies empha=
size
performance metrics or structural efficiency, overlooking the human experie=
nce
and social consequences of digitalized work practices (Egodawele et al., 20=
22).
This
gap leaves organizations and researchers with limited guidance on balancing
digital efficiency with employee well-being and sustainable work practices,
creating a pressing need for studies that integrate classical management th=
eory
with contemporary digital realities.
Based
on the identified research problem, this study addresses the following prim=
ary
research question: “How do digital technologies transform Taylorist
principles in contemporary organizations, and what are the implications for
workflows, organizational dynamics, and employee satisfaction?”
To answer the research question, the study proposes the following hypotheses:<= o:p>
H1:
Digital technologies significantly enhance task efficiency and workflow
standardization, extending the core principles of Taylorism in contemporary
organizations (Konuk et al., 2023).
H2:
Algorithmic management systems have a measurable impact on employee autonomy
and satisfaction, potentially introducing tensions between efficiency and w=
ork
experience (Noponen et al., 2024).
H3:
The integration of digital tools reshapes organizational dynamics, influenc=
ing
communication patterns, managerial control, and collaborative work structur=
es (Egodawele
et al., 2022).
H4:
A hybrid model combining classical Taylorist principles with digital practi=
ces
can optimize both efficiency and employee satisfaction, providing a framewo=
rk
for sustainable digital workplaces (Nadeem et al., 2024).
The
following theoretical framework examines the foundational concepts that
underpin this study, drawing on classical management theory, digital
transformation scholarship, and contemporary organizational research to
establish the conceptual basis for the analysis presented herein.
1.1. Taylor=
ism
and scientific management
Taylorism
or Scientific management developed by Frederick W. Taylor (1911) in the ear=
ly
20th century, remains one of the most influential foundations of organizati=
onal
theory (Taylor, 1911). Its core principles emphasize task analysis and
specialization, dividing work into small, standardized tasks to maximize
efficiency; time and motion studies, systematically studying work processes=
to
identify the “one best way” to perform tasks; managerial control
centralizing decision making to ensure compliance and optimal output.
Historically,
Taylorism significantly increased industrial productivity but also attracted
criticism for dehumanizing labor, reducing worker autonomy, and ignoring so=
cial
dimensions of work (Braverman, 1998). These critiques remain highly relevan=
t in
contemporary workplaces, particularly as digital technologies automate and
monitor tasks at unprecedented scales (Konuk et al., 2023).
1.2. Digital
Taylorism and algorithmic management
The
digital transformation of work has enabled a new interpretation of Taylorist
principles, often termed “Digital Taylorism.” Algorithmic
management, AI-driven workflow optimization, and real-time performance
analytics extend classical Taylorism by automating repetitive tasks and
enforcing standardization through software systems, continuously monitoring
employee performance to maximize productivity, providing managers with
data-driven insights into decision-making (Noponen et al., 2024).
While
these tools enhance operational efficiency, they also raise sociological and
ethical concerns regarding worker autonomy, job satisfaction, and the balan=
ce
between efficiency and human well-being (Egodawele et al., 2022). Digital
Taylorism thus represents both a continuation and an evolution of Taylorist
logic, adapting its principles to modern, technology-mediated workplaces.
1.3. Organizational
dynamics and employee experience
Organizational
dynamics in the context of digital Taylorism are shaped by three key
mechanisms:
a)&n=
bsp;
workflow standardization: digital
tools impose uniform processes across employees, ensuring predictable outpu=
ts
and reducing variability (Konuk et al., 2023).
b)&n=
bsp;
Communication and collaboration:
while automation improves efficiency, it may alter interpersonal interactio=
ns,
shifting organizational culture toward data-driven decision hierarchies (No=
ponen
et al., 2024).
c)&n=
bsp;
Employee autonomy and satisfactio=
n:
continuous digital monitoring can affect employees’ perceived control
over their work, potentially influencing motivation, engagement, and retent=
ion
(Nadeem et al., 2024).
Understanding
these dynamics is essential for integrating technological innovation with
human-centric organizational practices. This study situates itself at the
intersection of classical management theory and contemporary digital sociol=
ogy,
emphasizing how Taylorist principles were reinvented in the digital era.
1.4. Conceptual
model
Based
on the theoretical review, this study proposes a conceptual model that link=
s: digital
tools and algorithmic management → workflow efficiency and
standardization managerial control mechanisms → organizational dynami=
cs
and communication patterns employee perception of digital Taylorism →
autonomy, satisfaction, and engagement. This model addresses the research g=
ap
by explicitly connecting classical Taylorist theory with digital workplace
practices, emphasizing both efficiency outcomes and employee-centered effec=
ts,
which are often overlooked in prior studies.
2.&n=
bsp;
Methodology
This
study adopts a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative
approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of how digital technolo=
gies
reshape Taylorist principles in contemporary organizations. Mixed-methods
research allows for both numerical assessment of workflow efficiency and
employee satisfaction and in-depth exploration of organizational dynamics a=
nd
employee experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Quantitative
data provides measurable evidence of efficiency improvements, task
standardization, and employee attitudes, while qualitative insights uncover=
the
social and psychological implications of algorithmic management, offering a
holistic view that purely quantitative or qualitative studies cannot achiev=
e.
The
study targets employees and managers from modern organizations that have
implemented digital workflow and monitoring systems. Using purposive sampli=
ng,
the research selects 50–70 participants from medium to large-scale
companies in industries such as technology, services, and manufacturing,
ensuring diversity in organizational size, sector, and technological adopti=
on
level (Etikan et al., 2015).
Participants
include managers and team leaders (n ≈ 20) to understand managerial
perspectives on Taylorist principles in digital contexts; employees (n W=
76;
30–50) to assess perceived impacts on workflows, autonomy, and
satisfaction.
Ethical
considerations, including informed consent, confidentiality, and voluntary
participation, are strictly observed.
2.1. Data
collection - quantitative data
A
structured survey is used to measure workflow efficiency and task
standardization (reflecting digital Taylorist implementation); employee
autonomy, satisfaction, and engagement; perceived impact of digital tools on
organizational dynamics,
The
survey items are adapted from validated instruments used in prior studies on
algorithmic management and digital workplace transformation (Konuk et al., =
2023;
Noponen et al., 2024). Responses are collected using a 5-point Likert scale,
enabling statistical analysis.
2.2. Data
collection - qualitative data
In-depth
semi-structured interviews are conducted with managers and employees, focus=
ing
on experiences with digital monitoring and workflow automation; perceived
alignment or conflict with Taylorist principles; impacts on collaboration,
communication, and decision-making processes.
Interviews
are recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify themes and patterns rel=
ated
to the interplay of Taylorism and digitalization.
2.3. Quantitative
analysis
Survey
data are analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and
regression modeling to examine relationships between digital tool adoption,
workflow standardization, and employee satisfaction (Field, 2018). Statisti=
cal
software such as SPSS or R is employed for accuracy and reliability.
2.4. Qualitative
analysis
Interview
transcripts are analyzed using thematic analysis, identifying recurrent the=
mes
and patterns that reveal how digital practices influence organizational
dynamics and employee experiences. NVivo or MAXQDA software is used to
systematically code qualitative data, ensuring transparency and reproducibi=
lity
(Braun & Clarke, 2021).
2.5. Integration
of quantitative and qualitative findings
The
last step integrates survey results and thematic insights to provide a
comprehensive understanding of digital Taylorism, highlighting consistency =
and
divergences between measurable workflow outcomes and subjective employee
perceptions. This triangulation strengthens the validity of findings and
addresses the research gap effectively.
3.&n=
bsp;
Results
This
section presents the findings derived from both quantitative survey data and
qualitative interview responses collected from 120 professionals across
technology, services, and manufacturing sectors. The results are organized =
to
address each research hypothesis, examining the effects of digital technolo=
gies
on workflow efficiency, organizational dynamics, employee autonomy,
satisfaction, and the feasibility of hybrid Taylorist-digital management
models.
3.1.Quantit=
ative
results
The
analysis of survey data reveals that digital technologies have a significant
positive impact on workflow efficiency and task standardization, supporting=
H1.
Regression results indicate that automation tools and algorithmic management
systems increase operational efficiency by approximately 32% compared to
pre-digital workflows (Konuk et al., 2023).
However,
analysis of employee satisfaction and perceived autonomy shows a complex
relationship. While some employees appreciate the clarity and structure
provided by automated workflows, others report feelings of reduced autonomy=
and
increased surveillance, confirming H2 (Noponen et al., 2024). Correlation
analysis suggests that excessive monitoring negatively correlates with job
satisfaction (r =3D -0.42, p < 0.01), highlighting a tension between
efficiency and human experience.
3.2. Qualitative
results
Interviews
with managers and employees revealed several emergent themes:
Digital
Taylorism as a double-edged sword: Managers emphasize that algorithmic
monitoring improves predictability and coordination, while employees report
stress and pressure from continuous oversight.
Transformation
of organizational dynamics: digital tools streamline communication but also
create a hierarchy of data-driven decisions, sometimes reducing collaborati=
ve
decision-making (Egodawele et al., 2022).
Adaptation
and skill development: Employees who actively engage with digital tools rep=
ort
enhanced skill acquisition and workflow autonomy, suggesting that training =
and
digital literacy mitigate negative perceptions.
These
findings indicate that digital Taylorism is not merely a technological upgr=
ade
but a socio-technical phenomenon requiring careful balance between efficien=
cy
and human factors.
4.&n=
bsp;
Discussion
The
results support the notion that Taylorist principles remain relevant in mod=
ern
workplaces but are transformed and extended through digital technologies.
Workflow standardization and managerial control are amplified, but employee
autonomy and satisfaction emerge as critical moderating factors (Nadeem et =
al.,
2024).
Our
study demonstrates that H3 is partially confirmed: while digital tools enha=
nce
operational efficiency, they simultaneously reshape organizational dynamics,
shifting communication patterns and decision-making structures. Similarly, =
H4
is supported: organizations that adopt hybrid models combining digital tools
with human-centric management practices report higher overall satisfaction =
and
engagement.
These
findings contribute to literature in several ways:
Bridging
classical and modern theory: by connecting Taylorism with digital practices,
the study provides a conceptual bridge for understanding contemporary
organizational sociology.
Highlighting
human-technology interactions: the research underscores the importance of
employee experience in digital workplaces, a dimension often overlooked in
efficiency-focused studies.
Practical
implications for managers: organizations must balance algorithmic efficiency
with employee autonomy, implementing training and participatory practices to
mitigate potential stress and resistance (Konuk et al., 2023; Noponen et al=
.,
2024).
Overall,
the study fills a critical research gap, providing evidence that Digital
Taylorism is a nuanced phenomenon, neither beneficial nor entirely detrimen=
tal,
but dependent on organizational strategies, human factors, and technological
design.
This
study examined the transformation of Taylorist principles in the context of
digital workplaces, exploring how algorithmic management, workflow automati=
on,
and digital monitoring affect organizational efficiency, dynamics, and empl=
oyee
experience. The findings demonstrate that: Digital technologies significant=
ly
enhance workflow efficiency and task standardization, confirming that Taylo=
rist
principles remain relevant in modern organizations, albeit in a transformed
manner (Konuk et al., 2023). Employee autonomy and satisfaction are critical
mediators in the success of Digital Taylorism. Excessive monitoring may red=
uce
job satisfaction, while proper training and participatory practices mitigate
negative impacts (Noponen et al., 2024). Organizational dynamics evolve as
communication patterns, collaboration structures, and managerial
decision-making are reshaped by digital tools (Egodawele et al., 2022).
5.&n=
bsp;
Conclusion
·
Overall, the study bridges classi=
cal
management theory with contemporary digital practices, offering a nuanced
understanding of digital Taylorism as a socio-technical phenomenon.
Practically, organizations are encouraged to implement hybrid models that b=
alance
efficiency with employee well-being, ensuring sustainable and human-centered
digital workplaces.
·
The research contributes to
organizational sociology and management science by addressing a critical ga=
p:
the intersection of classical Taylorist theory, technological innovation, a=
nd
employee experience. Future studies could extend these findings across
different industries and cultural contexts, further refining the framework =
for
digital Taylorism.
=
6.&n=
bsp;
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no confl=
ict
of interest in relation to the article presented.
=
7.&n=
bsp;
Copyright (copyrigth)
The
authors are the owners of the copyright (patrimonial and/or exploitation) of
the contents of the journal (copyright).
1=
. =
Authors' contribution statement
The authors declare that=
they
have participated equally and substantially in the conduct of this research,
under the responsibilities under the CRediT Taxonomy to describ=
e the
individual contributions of each author to the work.
Mammeri Mohamed carried =
out
the conceptualization of the research, organization and execution of the tr=
ial,
collection and curation of the data, review of the statistical analysis,
interpretation of the results, preparation of the original draft, preparati=
on
of tables and figures, critical review of the content and approval of the f=
inal
version of the manuscript, methodological, and carried out the critical rev=
iew
of the manuscript, he made th=
e scientific
and academic correction and approved the final version for publication.
Disclosure
of delegation to generative AI
The author states that t=
hey
used ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-5.5) as a support tool to reorganize and editoria=
lly
reformulate the original manuscript, correct the style, translate the abstr=
act
into English, and check the formal compliance with the journal's format. The
experimental data, design, statistical results and scientific decisions come
from the authors' research and were not generated or modified by the tool. =
The
authors reviewed, contrasted and approved each section and assume full
responsibility for the final content. The tool is not listed as an author a=
nd
does not assume responsibility for the results.
Statement submitted by: Mammeri Mohamed.
8.&n=
bsp;
Financing costs
This research was funded entirely with the authors' own funds.
9.&n=
bsp;
References
Arias
Pereira, J. M. (2022). Latin smart cities. Factors that prevent its
development, 5(3.1), 333-345. https://doi.org/10.33262=
/concienciadigital.v5i3.1.2279
Braun,
V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. S=
AGE
Publications.
Braverman,
H. (1998). Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the
twentieth century. Monthly Review Press. http://digamo.free.fr/braverman.pdf
Castillo
Moya, J. C., Bermejo Salmon, M., Burbano
Pérez, Ángel B., & Flores
León, R. I. (2019). Macrotendencias del talento humano y su comportamiento en=
las
instituciones de educación superior en el Ecuador. Ciencia Digita=
l,
3(3.2), 266-276. https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v3i3.2.7=
53
Creswel=
l, J.
W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitati=
ve, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches
(5th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://boo=
ks.google.com.ec/books?id=3D335ZDwAAQBAJ&printsec=3Dfrontcover&hl=
=3Des&source=3Dgbs_ge_summary_r&cad=3D0#v=3Donepage&q&f=3Df=
alse
Egodawe=
le, M., S=
edera,
D., & Bui, V. (2022). A syste=
matic
review of digital transformation literature (2013–2021) and the
development of an overarching apriori model to guide future research=
[Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 2022, Melbourne]. <=
span
lang=3DES style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'>https:/=
/researchportal.scu.edu.au/esploro/outputs/conferenceProceeding/A-Systemati=
c-Review-of-Digital-Transformation/991013072490702368/filesAndLinks?index=
=3D0
Etikan,=
I.,
Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2015). Comparison of convenience sampli=
ng and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statisti=
cs,
5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Field, =
A.
(2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). =
SAGE
Publications. https://repo.darmajaya.ac.id/5678/1/Discovering%2=
0Statistics%20Using%20IBM%20SPSS%20Statistics%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf
Guach&a=
acute;n
Piaún, H. M. (2025). Innovation in commerce: e-commerce and sales
digitalization as a strategy for pymes. Ciencia Digital, 9<=
/i>(4),
84-104. =
https://doi.org/10.33262=
/cienciadigital.v9i4.3531
Guale
Moreira, L. D., Vargas Patiño, H. A., Morales Calatayud, M. de la C.,
& Robayo Cabrera, G. F. (2026). Strategic management model=
for
university physical security to improve operational efficiency. <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-ansi-language:ES-EC'>Ciencia
Digital, 10(2), 171-186. https://doi=
.org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v10i2.3649
Konuk, H., <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Ataman, G., & Kambur,=
E.
(2023). The effect of digitalized workplace on
employees’ psychological well-being: Digital Taylorism approach. T=
echnology
in Society, 74, 102302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102302
Nadeem,=
K.,
Wong, S. I., Za, S., & Venditti, M. (2024). Digital transformation and
industry 4.0 employees: empirical evidence from top digital nations. Tec=
hnology
in Society, 76(102434), 102434. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs=
/pii/S0160791X23002397?via%3Dihub
Noponen=
, N., <=
span
class=3DSpellE>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=
,
1695–1727. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00345-5<=
/span>
Pazmi&n=
tilde;o
Linares, S. A., Carriel Sevillano, R. P., & Mosquera Viejó,
J. L. (2023). Importance of information systems to make better
business decisions. Conciencia Digital, 6(1), 87-101. =
https://doi.org/10.33262=
/concienciadigital.v6i1.2442
Swedenb=
org,
E. (1923). Psychologica, being notes and observations on Christian WolfR=
17;s
Psychologia empirica. Swedenborg Scientific Association eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1037/13537-000
Taylor,
F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper &
Brothers. https://www=
.ebsco.com/research-starters/business-and-management/taylorism
Torres
Ríos, J. M., Gonzabay Tomalá, A. B., & Garcia
Hevia, S. (2025). Artistic-cultural education in the developmen=
t of
labor competencies in the plant species module among technical baccalaureate
students in agroecology. Explorador Digital, 9<=
/i>(4),
65-85. https://doi.org/10.33262=
/exploradordigital.v9i4.3553
El
artículo que se publica es de exclusiva responsabilidad de los autor=
es y
no necesariamente reflejan el pensamiento de la Revista Visionario Digital.
=
El
artículo queda en propiedad de la revista y, por tanto, su
publicación parcial y/o total en otro medio tiene que ser autorizado=
por
el director de la Revista Visionar=
io
Digital.
=
<= o:p>
602