The myth of the algorithmic entrepreneur: how gig platforms quietly close the door on worker learning

Purpose This viewpoint examines how two mechanisms of entrepreneurial identity and opacity in algorithmic management (AM) systems operate jointly to suppress learning and developmental capacity in app-based gig platforms. Design/methodology/approach This viewpoint is based on a review of existing research on gig work, AM, and workplace learning. It draws insights from prior studies and presents them in a practitioner-oriented format. Findings Entrepreneurial framing puts the burden of problem diagnosis on individual workers, which makes learning more difficult. At the same time, algorithmic opacity undermines the conditions under which informal learning can occur. Together, these mechanisms create a system in which workers are not positioned to claim learning and development as a right. Research limitations/implications This viewpoint extends gig work research by bringing workplace learning into the discussion. Future studies can examine how entrepreneurial identity and algorithmic management together shape workers’ learning and developmental outcomes, rather than studying them separately. It also encourages HR and organizational scholars to examine learning as an organizational responsibility in platform work. Practical implications Three interventions are proposed: retiring the entrepreneurial label, redesigning feedback systems, and building developmental infrastructure independent of platform control. Originality/value This viewpoint offers a framework to understand how and what ideological and structural mechanisms hinder workers’ developmental capacity. It goes beyond existing critiques by showing how these mechanisms interact, rather than treating them as separate problems.