Traditional and Electronic Monitoring from an Organizational Justice Perspective

Performance monitoring was reviewed from an organizational justice perspective. Several predictors of perceived fairness were derived from this review and tested using employed respondents from eight different organizational settings (N = 301). Analyses confirmed that the predictors accounted for significant variance in perceived fairness in both electronically monitored and traditionally monitored work environments. These predictors were labeled monitoring consistency, knowledge of performance from monitoring, monitoring control, and justifications for monitoring.

[1]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  Explanations: What Factors Enhance Their Perceived Adequacy , 1994 .

[2]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts , 1987 .

[3]  T I Chacko.  Job and life satisfactions: a causal analysis of their relationships. , 1983, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[4]  R. Lewicki.  Research on Negotiation in Organizations , 1990 .

[5]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[6]  J. Greenberg,et al.  The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. , 1993 .

[7]  Paul Attewell,et al.  Big brother and the sweatshop: computer surveillance in the automated office , 1987 .

[8]  J. Greenberg,et al.  The Distributive Justice of Organizational Performance Evaluations , 1986 .

[9]  Jeffrey M. Stanton,et al.  Effects of electronic performance monitoring on personal control, task satisfaction, and task performance , 1996 .

[10]  R. H. Willis,et al.  Social Exchange: Advances In Theory And Research , 1981 .

[11]  Jeanette N. Cleveland,et al.  Perceived Fairness and Accuracy of Performance Evaluation: A Follow-Up. , 1980 .

[12]  Christopher A. Higgins,et al.  Computerized performance monitoring systems: use and abuse , 1986, CACM.

[13]  Janet Fulk,et al.  Trust-in-supervisor and perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluations , 1985 .

[14]  S. Gilliland,et al.  Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. , 1994 .

[15]  A. Westin,et al.  Two key factors that belong in a macroergonomic analysis of electronic monitoring: Employee perceptions of fairness and the climate of organizational trust or distrust. , 1992, Applied ergonomics.

[16]  Steven L. Sauter,et al.  Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress , 1995 .

[17]  P Carayon,et al.  Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. , 1992, Applied ergonomics.

[18]  R. Bies,et al.  The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. , 1987 .

[19]  T. Tyler,et al.  The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. , 1981 .

[20]  Stuart S. Nagel,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[21]  R. Bies.  Interactional justice : communication criteria of fairness , 1986 .

[22]  G. Leventhal.  What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships. , 1976 .

[23]  Daniel J. Koys,et al.  Inductive Measures of Psychological Climate , 1991 .

[24]  M J Smith,et al.  Stress, computer-based work monitoring and measurement systems: a conceptual overview. , 1992, Applied ergonomics.

[25]  D. Nebeker,et al.  The Effects of Computer Monitoring, Standards, and Rewards on Work Performance, Job Satisfaction, and Stress1 , 1993 .

[26]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. , 1985 .

[27]  T. Kochan,et al.  COMPUTER-AIDED MONITORING: ITS INFLUENCE ON EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND TURNOVER , 1989 .

[28]  Janet J. Turnage,et al.  The challenge of new workplace technology for psychology. , 1990 .

[29]  D DiTecco,et al.  Operator stress and monitoring practices. , 1992, Applied ergonomics.

[30]  S. Gilliland.  The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective , 1993 .

[31]  Carlla S. Smith,et al.  The effects of human versus computer monitoring of performance on physiological reactions and perceptions of stress. , 1995 .

[32]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations , 1986 .

[33]  Christopher A. Higgins,et al.  Computerized performance monitors: are they costing you customers? , 1994 .

[34]  R. H. Moorman,et al.  JUSTICE AS A MEDIATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METHODS OF MONITORING AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR , 1993 .

[35]  J. Komaki.  Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. , 1986 .

[36]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Performance monitoring: How it affects work productivity. , 1990 .

[37]  Individual Differences in Self-Perception and the Job-Life Satisfaction Relationship , 1979 .

[38]  C. Pearson,et al.  An Assessment of Extrinsic Feedback on Participation, Role Perceptions, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction in a Self-Managed System for Monitoring Group Achievement , 1991 .

[39]  Terri L. Griffith.  Monitoring and Performance: A Comparison of Computer and Supervisor Monitoring , 1993 .

[40]  J. Greenberg.  Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals , 1987 .

[41]  Russell Cropanzano,et al.  Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. , 1993 .

[42]  Larry L. Cummings,et al.  Causal Accounts and Managing Organizational Conflict , 1988 .