Introduction

Friedman (2014) comments that the ‘gig economy’ is a term that has attracted increasing
attention in recent years, particularly so in light of a number of high-profile legal cases
seeking to define precisely what working in ‘the gig economy’ means. A simple definition is
offered by Scheiber (2015, p.12) suggesting that the gig economy is “a labour market
characterised by the prevalence of short-term contracts and/or freelance work”, as opposed
to permanent and/or full-time employment. Popular examples include couriers and agency
workers, and according to a study commissioned by the UK Government (Gov.uk, 2018)
approximately 2.8 million people in the UK – equivalent to 4.4% of the workforce - are
currently directly employed in such work, either on a part time or full-time equivalent basis.

At face value, the gig economy has been popularised as a flexible working environment, ideal
for those employees seeking freedom and autonomy in their working conditions (Aloisi,
2015). Aloisi (2015) also notes, however, that the reality is rather more complicated, as whilst
on the one hand the advantages of a gig economy would indeed be aligned with known
employee motivational levers, in practice as the recent legal cases have shown, the gig
economy is in fact far more precarious for many, meaning that they are not motivated by
freedom and autonomy, but instead by ‘hard’ factors such as fear of not being offered more
work (Manyika et al., 2016). This creates a paradox within Human Resource Management
(HRM) literature. This essay seeks to shine a spotlight on this paradox, unpacking the
contradictions and tensions in the literature and empirical evidence to understand how
employees in the gig economy are motivated.

The Fundamentals of Employee Motivation

The fundamental premise of employee motivation is grounded in the widely recognised work
of Abraham Maslow (1943) and his Hierarchy of Human Needs. In essence, Maslow
established that grounding needs of safety and shelter must be the foundation of more
advanced principles of human and employee motivation, as without basic needs being
satisfied, people cannot direct their attention towards more sophisticated motivational
principles. However, assuming such basic needs are satisfied, Maslow and later a clutch of
other famous scholars such as McGregor (1960), Vroom (1964), Hertzberg (1968), and
Hackman and Oldham (1976) examined various facets of employee motivation reaching
broadly similar conclusions that people are motivated when they are appropriately rewarded
and recognised for the work that they have undertaken. The detail of these various
motivational theories has been carried forward to the present day and the widely established
notions that the most effective way to motivate employees is via ‘intrinsic’ motivational
levers (Lazaroiu, 2015). These include amongst others, recognition, personal autonomy,
intellectually stimulating work, and flexibility to manage workload. 

On paper, the gig economy offers all of these intrinsic levers, and as explained by Fernet et
al., (2017), such intrinsic levers are regularly espoused as being one of the main reasons that
employees elect to join the gig economy. The same scholars recognise that organisations
benefit from a flexible labour workforce meaning that they are not carrying one of the most
expensive overheads – employees - on the profit and loss account, but much greater attention
is always directed towards the many perceived ‘benefits’ to employees (Kanfer et al., 2017).
Certainly, some employees within the gig economy do benefit from flexible, autonomy and
intellectual stimulating work. Such employees however, are typically highly skilled, in
possession of valuable knowledge or experience, and also possessed of a network of
professional contacts enabling them to find such work on an ongoing basis (Steinberger,
2017). For employees within the gig economy lacking these transferable skills, their
motivational levers are likely to be very different, much more towards the lower levels of
Maslow’s hierarchy. In plain terms, they work in precarious ‘gig economy’ employment,
because there are no viable alternatives and they have no certainty of any other form of
employment (Manyika et al., 2016). This represents the paradox of the gig economy,
suggesting that much greater nuance and more careful interpretation of motivation within this
context is necessary.

The Paradox of the Gig Economy

The Taylor Review of 2017 sought to better understand the paradox of the gig economy,
defining and examining what is understood to be ‘good’ work, that is to say intellectually and
financially rewarding employment which is stable leading to productive and ultimately
‘healthier and happier citizens’ (Taylor Review, 2017). There is a wider case for ‘good work’
when looking beyond hard financial measures, as employees in jobs that they enjoy and in
which they feel comfortable and confident are more productive and creative. Often, according
to Milkman and Ott (2014), when people perceive that there is value and meaning in their
work then they are more engaged, and happy and healthy employees are also less reliant on
state support, suffer less ill-health, and ultimately work more. From a governmental
perspective, this also offers the benefit of increased tax receipts, meaning that from all
viewpoints, ‘good’ work is to be actively sought.

The assumed converse ‘bad work’ is the rather one-sided relationship crystallised at the lower
end of the gig economy, with those employees lacking the skills to negotiate longer term
contracts, and instead finding themselves waiting desperately to hear if they will be working
that day (Aloisi, 2015). This exploitative dynamic is demoralising and ultimately counter-
productive, offering much greater benefits to the employer than the employee. Whilst UK
employment levels may be at some of the highest levels for decades (Gov.uk, 2018), this
topline figure masks a much higher proportion of precarious or ‘bad work’ with all of the
associated disadvantages that this brings. As prosaically expressed by Behr (2017, p.1), it
leaves more than 1.6 million people of working age in the UK with the choice of “crap job or
no job”. As Behr (2017, p.1) goes on to note, “not a very enticing choice”,but it is a reality of
the gig economy for many.

Discussion and Closing Thoughts

The technological advantages which have allowed the gig economy to thrive cannot easily be
undone, nor indeed is anyone advocating that as the solution (Martin, 2016). However, there
does need to be a careful consideration of how to establish a much higher level of ‘good’
work within the gig economy that protects employee rights, or at the very least rebalances the
inherently unstable employment dynamic in its current form. Managed properly, flexible
employment is shown in empirical research to be one of the most effective motivational
levers or workplace benefits (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010). As far back as 2004, Guest and
Conway revealed in a report commissioned for that CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development) that flexible working is the single most asked for benefit when negotiating
employment contracts. Organisations that have adopted the principles of flexible working
have found much greater productivity and much higher levels of employee engagement (De
Menezes and Kelliher, 2017). As such, this reaffirms the recognition that on paper, flexible
working is highly motivational and can certainly be characterised as one of the main
indicators of ‘good’ work. The question therefore becomes, how can those employees at the
lower end of the gig economy spectrum benefit from the same principles of ‘good’ flexible
working as their more skilled counterparts.

Platforms that bring together those with skills for hire, and those needing work completed
have mushroomed over the last decade as technology has accelerated opportunities for
flexible working (Deloitte Insights, 2016). Some research suggests that certain people thrive
in this flexible environment, enjoying meeting a vast range of people and having a huge
variety in their working lives (Brown, 2018). The same research suggests however that these
people are inherent with particular personality traits or a personal outlook meaning that they
are more responsive and comfortable in a flexible environment and, are better able to adapt to
the inherent uncertainty associated with flexible, gig-economy working. This suggests that
alongside a tighter framework for gig working recognising the need for at least some stability
in gig-work contracts, mental attitude and approach is also important. Once again however,
the research in this field tentatively suggests that it is individuals with high-calibre skills and
the capacity to reposition their skill set that marks them out as benefiting from the gig
economy (Lemmon et al., 2016). Potentially, therefore, supporting those less inclined towards
such a mindset to understand its value or perhaps even necessity in this environment could be
a partial solution.

Unfortunately, however, the Taylor Review and other leading HRM scholars recognise that
there is no simple fix to the arguably unstoppable growth of the gig economy principle.
Unless those offering such flexible work are in some ways compelled to offer greater security
and fairness, or their HRM strategies move them away from paring down their labour force to
the least possible cost, then the precarious nature of the gig economy will continue. What
could well become the next challenge in HRM literature is the growing dichotomy between,
increasing drives for labour efficiency aligned with organisational strategy, and, recognition
in that treating employees as ‘resources’ rather than people, is inherently dehumanising, and
is ultimately leading to, in the words of Deloitte (2016, p.1) “contingent workforce
management” even at senior levels. It is concluded therefore, that there is also a responsibility
upon the HRM profession more widely to decide for itself how good practice ought to look in
terms of establishing ‘good work’ and also, how organisations should embrace this if they
wish to have a happy, healthy, and productive but flexible workforce.

References

Aloisi, A., 2015. Commoditized workers: Case study research on labor law issues arising
from a set of on-demand/gig economy platforms. Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J., 37, p.653.

Behr, R., 11th July 2017. The gig economy can be exploitative – but there is no easy path to
Good Work [online] available
at https://www.theguardian.com/money/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/gig-economy-good-work-
matthew-taylor-jobs-review  accessed 04/06/2018.

Brown, D., 2018. Fairness, flexibility and affordability. [online] available

at https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/op27-Fairness
%2C_flexibility_and_affordability-Duncan_Brown-Institute_for_Employment_Studies.pdf 
accessed 04/06/2018.
De Menezes, L.M. and Kelliher, C., 2017. Flexible Working, Individual Performance, and
Employee Attitudes: Comparing Formal and Informal Arrangements. Human Resource
Management, 56(6), pp.1051-1070.

Deloitte Insights. 29th Feb 2016. The Gig Economy: Distraction or Disruption [online]

available at https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/human-capital-trends/2016/gig-
economy-freelance-workforce.html  accessed 04/06/2018.

Fernet, C., Chanal, J. and Guay, F., 2017. What fuels the fire: Job-or task-specific motivation
(or both)? On the hierarchical and multidimensional nature of teacher motivation in relation
to job burnout. Work & Stress, 31(2), pp.145-163.

Friedman, G., 2014. Workers without employers: shadow corporations and the rise of the gig
economy. Review of Keynesian Economics, 2(2), pp.171-188.

Gov.uk. Feb 2018. The Characteristics of the Gig Economy [online] available
at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d
ata/file/687553/The_characteristics_of_those_in_the_gig_economy.pdf   accessed
04/06/2018.

Guest, D. and Conway, N., 2004. Employee well-being and the psychological contract: A
report for the CIPD. CIPD Publishing.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), pp.250-279.

Herzberg, F., (1968) One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business
Review, 46(1), 53–62.

Kanfer, R., Frese, M. and Johnson, R.E., 2017. Motivation related to work: A century of
progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), p.338.

Kelliher, C. and Anderson, D., 2010. Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and
the intensification of work. Human relations, 63(1), pp.83-106.

Lazaroiu, G., 2015. Employee motivation and job performance. Linguistic and Philosophical
Investigations, 14, p.97.

Lemmon, G., Wilson, M.S., Posig, M. and Glibkowski, B.C., 2016. Psychological Contract
Development, distributive justice, and performance of independent Contractors: the role of
negotiation behaviors and the fulfillment of resources. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 23(4), pp.424-439.

Manyika, J., Lund, S., Bughin, J., Robinson, K., Mischke, J. and Mahajan, D., 2016.
Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy. McKinsey & Company. October.

Martin, C.J., 2016. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form
of neoliberal capitalism?. Ecological Economics, 121, pp.149-159.

Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), p.370.

McGregor, D., (1960) The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Milkman, R. and Ott, E. eds., 2014. New labor in New York: Precarious workers and the
future of the labor movement. Cornell University Press.

Scheiber, N., 2015. Growth in the ‘gig economy’fuels work force anxieties. New York
Times, 12.

Steinberger, B.Z., 2017. Redefining Employee in the Gig Economy: Shielding Workers from
the Uber Model. Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L., 23, p.577.

Taylor Review. July 2017. Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working
Practices [online] available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-the-
taylor-review-of-modern-working-practices accessed 04/06/2018.

Vroom, V.H., (1964) Work and motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.