Email this article 
OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH FOR GIG ECONOMY IN VUCA TIMES - A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Abstract
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
Article visualizations:
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
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
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejhrms.v10i1.2116
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 European Journal of Human Resource Management Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.
Copyright © 2017-2026. European Journal Of Human Resource Management Studies (ISSN 2601-1972) is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.
This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.
