Employee reactions to electronic performance monitoring: A consequence of organizational culture

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(01)00042-6Get rights and content

Abstract

Research recognizes that reactions to monitoring may be moderated by several factors, but ignores the role of organizational culture. This paper argues that bureaucratic cultures will respond more favorably to monitoring than supportive cultures. Involving employees in designing the system, monitoring groups, and restricting monitoring to performance-related activities may improve attitudes toward monitoring in supportive cultures.

Introduction

Organizations are naturally interested in monitoring their employees' performance. Employee performance monitoring permits organizations to assess whether or not the organization is getting what it is paying for. Monitoring also permits supervisors to obtain valuable performance information that can be used for employee development. Thus, organizations have monitored their employees for centuries (US Congress, 1987). However, recent advances in electronic technology are transforming the nature of employee performance monitoring. In contrast to supervisory monitoring, electronic performance monitoring (EPM) is constant, pervasive, and unblinking.

Not surprisingly, an increasing number of organizations are turning to EPM in an effort to increase the effectiveness of their monitoring efforts. In 1987, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) estimated that 6 million US workers were electronically monitored (US Congress, 1987). Recent estimates indicate that at least 40 million US workers may be subject to electronic monitoring (Botan, 1996) and that as many as 75% of large companies electronically monitor their employees (American Management Association, 2000).

It is also not surprising that the extensive and growing use of EPM engenders considerable debate among business groups, employee advocate groups, and politicians Greenlaw & Prundeanu, 1997, Hays, 1999, Kovach et al., 2000. For example, proponents of EPM argue that it is an indispensable tool that benefits both organizations and their employees. There are a number of reasons why organizations view electronic monitoring as an economic necessity. For example, EPM can help increase productivity, improve quality and service, and reduce costs. Organizations may also monitor employees for reasons less directly related to job performance. For example, monitoring may help businesses avoid legal liability, negative publicity, and security breeches Stanton & Weiss, 2000, Williams, 2000. Proponents of monitoring also argue that the practice may benefit employees by producing more objective performance appraisals and improved feedback Angel, 1989, Henriques, 1986a, Henriques, 1986b.

Critics counter that EPM invades consumer and employee privacy, decreases job satisfaction, increases stress, and engenders work environments characterized by diminished trust and negative work relationships Greengard, 1996, Lewis, 1999, Piturro, 1989. They frequently refer to monitoring systems with descriptors like “Big Brother,” “Orwellian,” “electronic sweatshops,” and “electronic whips” Bylinsky, 1991, Garson, 1988, Lewis, 1999, Nussbaum & duRivage, 1986, Schulhof, 1998. As a result of this intense debate over the costs and benefits of EPM, a number of US senators and members of Congress have proposed legislation intended to restrict the amount of monitoring organizations can conduct (see DeTienne & Alder, 1995, Mishra & Crampton, 1998 for reviews).

The wide divergence of opinion concerning EPM suggests that employees may not react the same way to monitoring across all settings. Instead, a number of factors may influence workers' reactions to EPM. Unfortunately, there is little theoretical explanation as to why individuals may respond differently in some cases than in others. I argue that the literature on organizational culture may provide a key piece to this puzzle. Specifically, I argue that employee reactions to EPM will vary as a function of organizational culture and that certain types of organizational cultures will be more receptive to EPM than will other types. I further suggest that EPM will be more successful when organizations design, implement, and utilize EPM systems in a manner consistent with the organization's culture. Below, I first review the literature on EPM. Subsequently, I discuss research on organizational culture. Then, I examine the link between EPM and culture. Finally, I discuss implications of this integration for practice and research.

Section snippets

Electronic monitoring

Although EPM has generated considerable controversy and attention among the public, little empirical or theoretical work has been done on the impact of EPM (Aiello & Svec, 1993). The work that has been done reveals mixed results. A number of case studies and empirical investigations indicate that EPM may prove detrimental to both organizations and their employees. For example, research by Grant, Higgins, and Irving (1988) demonstrated that EPM may hinder organizational performance by inducing

Organizational culture

Organizational culture has emerged as one of the dominant themes in management studies during the last decade (Sheridan, 1992). Although, the concept of organizational culture is difficult to define because of its vast scope (Petrock, 1990), organizational culture may be thought of as a socially constructed, cognitive reality that is rooted in deeply held perceptions, values, beliefs, or expectations that are shared by, and are unique to, a particular organization Hofstede et al., 1990,

Types of organizational cultures

Because the concept of organizational culture is vague and intangible, there are innumerable ways to describe the content of culture (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988). Thus, few writers have attempted to classify or label types of culture (Hood & Koberg, 1989). Hofstede et al. (1990) empirically derived a six-dimensional model of organizational cultures. However, these dimensions may appear in any number of combinations. Thus, Hofstede et al.'s framework does not provide a parsimonious classification of

Culture and EPM

The previous sections suggest that organizational culture may partially determine what employees consider fair and appropriate. Consistent with this logic, Fig. 1 indicates that culture will have a direct influence on the perceived fairness of EPM. Fig. 1 also indicates that culture will moderate the relationship between four monitoring system dimensions (participation, object, amount, and fairness) and fairness perceptions. This section uses Wallach's (1983) typology to identify cultures that

Monitoring system dimensions and organizational culture

Proposition 1 indicates that monitoring is likely to be perceived as fairer in bureaucratic than in innovative or supportive cultures. Recently, however, researchers have identified a number of monitoring system characteristics that, depending on the organization's approach, may increase or diminish fairness perceptions associated with monitoring (Ambrose & Alder, 2000). This section indicates that organizational culture may moderate the relationship between four of these system characteristics

Implications

Extensive and growing use of EPM generates considerable debate. As a result, a growing stream of research attempts to identify the factors that may influence employee reactions to monitoring. Research demonstrates that organizational culture exerts significant influence on employee attitudes and reactions to organizations' practices and procedures. By extension, organizational culture is likely an important factor influencing employees' behavioral and attitudinal reactions to EPM. This paper

References (89)

  • Aiello, J. R., & Shao, Y. (1992). Effects of computer monitoring on task performance. Paper presented as part of...
  • J.R. Aiello et al.

    Electronic performance monitoring and stress: the role of feedback and goal setting

  • J.R. Aiello et al.

    Computer monitoring of work performance: extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1993)
  • G.S. Alder et al.

    Electronic performance monitoring: an organizational justice and concertive control perspective

    Management Communication Quarterly

    (1997)
  • Alge, B. J. (in press). The effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural fairness. Journal...
  • M.L. Ambrose et al.

    Designing, implementing, and utilizing computerized performance monitoring: enhancing organizational justice

    Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management

    (2000)
  • Workplace testing and monitoring

    (2000)
  • N.F. Angel

    Evaluating employees by computer

    Personnel Administrator

    (1989)
  • J.B. Barney

    Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?

    Academy of Management Review

    (1986)
  • C. Botan

    Communication work and electronic surveillance: a model for predicting panoptic effects

    Communication Monographs

    (1996)
  • N. Brewer

    The effects of monitoring individual and group performance on the distribution of effort across tasks

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1995)
  • G. Bylinsky

    How companies spy on employees

    Fortune

    (1991)
  • P. Carayon

    Effects of electronic performance monitoring on job design and worker stress: review of the literature and conceptual model

    Human Factors

    (1993)
  • J. Chalykoff et al.

    Computer-aided monitoring: its influence on employee job satisfaction and turnover

    Personnel Psychology

    (1989)
  • D.R. Comer

    A model of social loafing in real work groups

    Human Relations

    (1995)
  • Culture is key to how organizations respond, IABC research foundation study shows

    Communication World

    (1991)
  • CWA calls monitoring “menace”

    Communications Daily

    (1993)
  • R.A. Cooke et al.

    Behavioral norms and expectations: a quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture

    Group and Organization Studies

    (1988)
  • T.E. Deal et al.

    Corporate cultures: the rights and rituals of corporate life

    (1982)
  • D.R. Denison

    Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness

    (1990)
  • K.B. DeTienne et al.

    Developing an employee centered electronic panacea or problem?

    Managerial Law

    (1993)
  • K.B. DeTienne et al.

    The privacy for consumers and workers act: panacea or problem?

    Managerial Law

    (1995)
  • P.J. DiMaggio et al.

    The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and work performed on systems that allow electronic monitoring (OTA-CIT-333)

    (1983)
  • E. Eisenman

    Employee perceptions and supervisory behaviors in clerical VDT work performed on systems that allow electronic monitoring (OTA-CIT-333)

    (1986)
  • C.A. Enz

    The role of value congruity in intraorganizational power

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1988)
  • D.B. Fenner et al.

    The impact of computerized performance monitoring and prior performance knowledge on performance evaluation

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1993)
  • B. Garson

    The electronic sweatshop

    (1988)
  • Gerdelman, J. (1993). Statement before the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity. Committee on Labor and Human...
  • R. Grant et al.

    Monitoring service workers via computer: the effect on employees, productivity, and service

    National Productivity Review

    (1989)
  • R.H. Grant et al.

    Computerized performance monitors: are they costing you customers?

    Sloan Management Review

    (1988)
  • Greengard, S. (1996). Privacy: entitlement or illusion? Personnel Journal, 75 (5), 74–76+(8...
  • P.S. Greenlaw et al.

    The impact of federal legislation to limit electronic monitoring

    Public Personnel Management

    (1997)
  • T.L. Griffith

    Monitoring and performance: a comparison of computer and supervisor monitoring

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1993)
  • S.R. Hawk

    The effects of computerized performance monitoring: an ethical perspective

    Journal of Business Ethics

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text