Employee reactions to electronic performance monitoring: A consequence of organizational culture
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)
- et al.
Finding the culture of productivity
Organizational Dynamics
(1986) - et al.
Stress, computer-based work monitoring and measurement systems: a conceptual overview
Applied Ergonomics
(1992) Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations
- et al.
Electronic monitoring systems: an examination of physiological activity and task performance within a simulated keystroke security and electronic performance monitoring system
International Journal of Human–Computer Studies
(1998) - et al.
Organizational culture relationships with creativity and other job-related variables
Journal of Business Research
(1987) - et al.
Electronic communication in the workplace — something's got to give
Business Horizons
(2000) - et al.
Matching corporate culture and business strategy
Organizational Dynamics
(1981) - et al.
Electronic monitoring in their own words: an exploratory study of employees' experiences with new types of surveillance
Computers in Human Behavior
(2000) Computer-based work monitoring: electronic surveillance and its effects
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
(1993)- et al.
Electronic performance monitoring and social context: impact on productivity and stress
Journal of Applied Psychology
(1995)