Effects of Electronic Monitoring Types on Perceptions of Procedural Justice, Interpersonal Justice, and Privacy

Electronic performance monitoring and control systems (EPMCSs) are raising fairness and privacy concerns in many organizations. Researchers typically have treated different types of EPMCSs as equal, yet various EPMCS types (e.g., computer monitoring, eavesdropping, surveillance) may exert differential influences on fairness and privacy perceptions. In this study, 246 participants read scenarios describing different technologies for evaluating performance. Results indicated that EPMCS types significantly influenced perceptions of procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and privacy. Computer monitoring was perceived as the most procedurally just; but traditional direct observation by a supervisor without electronic monitoring was perceived as the most interpersonally just, and the least invasive in terms of privacy. These findings suggest that employers should be cautious in the type of monitoring used. Consumers often hear “this call may be monitored or taped for quality commitment purposes,” or “this call may be recorded so we can serve you better.” The obsession with monitoring is reflective of the exponential growth in technological capability in the past decade (Griffith, Northcraft, & Fuller, 1998). Electronic performance monitoring and control systems (EPMCSs) can be defined as systems in which electronic technologies are used to collect, store, analyze, and report the actions or performance of workers (Alge, 2001; Nebeker & Tatum, 1993). In 2001, the American Management Association reported that more than three quarters of major U.S. firms (77%) record and review employee communications and activities on the job. A more recent survey found that a wide variety of techniques are being used for monitoring. In particular, 36% of organizations track content keystrokes, and time spent at the keyboard; 50% store and review computer files; 51% monitor telephone use; and 51% engage in video monitoring (American Management Association & The ePolicy Institute, 2005). Critics argue that the proliferation of

[1]  Nathan Bennett,et al.  Employee Reactions to Electronic Control Systems , 1994 .

[2]  J. Colquitt.  On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  Pascale Carayon,et al.  Effect of Electronic Performance Monitoring on Job Design and Worker Stress: Review of the Literature and Conceptual Model , 1993 .

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

[5]  S. Hawk.  The effects of computerized performance monitoring: An ethical perspective , 1994 .

[6]  D. Stone,et al.  Effects of job Applicant Drug Testing Practices on Reactions to Drug Testing. , 1989 .

[7]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[8]  Jeffrey M. Stanton,et al.  Traditional and Electronic Monitoring from an Organizational Justice Perspective , 2000 .

[9]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  G. Stoney Alder,et al.  Electronic Performance Monitoring , 1997 .

[11]  Erik R. Eddy,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT POLICIES ON REACTIONS TO HUMAN RESOURCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS: AN INTEGRATION OF PRIVACY AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVES , 1999 .

[12]  Paul D. Tolchinsky,et al.  A Survey of Employee Perceptions of Information Privacy in Organizations , 1982 .

[13]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. , 1996 .

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

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

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

[17]  Christopher A. Higgins,et al.  Monitoring service workers via computer: The effect on employees, productivity, and service , 1989 .

[18]  Kevin J. Williams,et al.  Perceived Invasiveness and Fairness of Drug-Testing Procedures for Current Employees , 1993 .

[19]  L. Strickland.  Surveillance and trust. , 1958, Journal of personality.

[20]  R. Bies.  Privacy and procedural justice in organizations , 1993 .

[21]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? , 1987 .

[22]  Paul D. Tolchinsky,et al.  Employee perceptions of invasion of privacy: A field simulation experiment. , 1981 .

[23]  Bradley J. Alge,et al.  Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[24]  Nathan Bennett,et al.  Electronic Surveillance as Employee Control: A Procedural Justice Interpretation , 1994 .

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

[26]  V. duRivage,et al.  Computer monitoring: Mismanagement by remote control , 1986 .

[27]  Carol T. Kulik,et al.  The Impact of Computerized Performance Monitoring and Prior Performance Knowledge on Performance Evaluation1 , 1993 .

[28]  L. Strickland.  Surveillance and trust1 , 1958 .

[29]  G. Leventhal.  What Should Be Done with Equity Theory , 1980 .

[30]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  J. Thibaut,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[32]  G. Stoney Alder,et al.  Electronic Performance Monitoring: A Consideration of Rights , 1998 .

[33]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow , 1990 .