Electronic Performance Monitoring

An estimated 26 million workers are electronically monitored by organizations. Contradictory evidence indicates that such monitoring may lead to either positive or negative outcomes for both organizations and their members. This article applies theories of organizational justice and concertive control to account for these contradictions. It is argued that, when organizations involve employees in the design and implementation of monitoring systems, restrict monitoring to performance-related activities, and use data obtained through electronic means in a concertive manner by emphasizing two-way communication and supportive feedback, they are likely to reap positive results. However, when employees are not involved in the introduction of monitoring, when data gathered through electronic performance monitoring are used to provide coercive, obtrusive feedback, or when monitoring includes nonwork activities, the organization may experience negative results.

[1]  Gary T. Marx,et al.  The Case of the Omniscient Organization , 1995, Computerization and Controversy, 2nd Ed..

[2]  J. R. Aiello,et al.  Electronic performance monitoring and social context: impact on productivity and stress. , 1995, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  Kristen Bell De Tienne,et al.  The Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act: Panacea or Problem? , 1995 .

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

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

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

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

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

[9]  J. R. Aiello,et al.  Computer Monitoring of Work Performance: Extending the Social Facilitation Framework to Electronic Presence1 , 1993 .

[10]  John R. Aiello,et al.  Computer‐Based Work Monitoring: Electronic Surveillance and Its Effects , 1993 .

[11]  S. Clegg.  Narrative, Power, and Social Theory , 1993 .

[12]  D. Mumby.  Narrative and social control : critical perspectives , 1993 .

[13]  J. Brockner,et al.  The Influence of Prior Commitment to an Institution on Reactions to Perceived Unfairness: The Higher They Are, the Harder They Fall , 1992 .

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

[15]  C. Bullis.  Communication practices as unobtrusive control: An observational study , 1991 .

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

[17]  M. Gordon,et al.  Workplace Justice and Job Satisfaction As Predictors of Satisfaction with Union and Management , 1989 .

[18]  Phillip K. Tompkins,et al.  The forest ranger revisited: A study of control practices and identification , 1989 .

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

[20]  R. Folger,et al.  Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions , 1989 .

[21]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Cultivating an Image of Justice: Looking Fair on the Job , 1988 .

[22]  Raymond A. Noe,et al.  Women and Mentoring: A Review and Research Agenda , 1988 .

[23]  Barbara Garson,et al.  The electronic sweatshop , 1988 .

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

[25]  Joel Brockner,et al.  Survivors' Reactions to Layoffs: We Get By with a Little Help for Our Friends. , 1987 .

[26]  Marian N. Ruderman,et al.  The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior , 1987 .

[27]  P. McCarty.  Effects of Feedback on the Self-Confidence of Men and Women , 1986 .

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

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

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

[31]  Linda L. Putnam,et al.  Communication and organizations : an interpretive approach , 1985 .

[32]  P. Tompkins,et al.  Organizational communication : traditional themes and new directions , 1985 .

[33]  George Cheney,et al.  Communication and Unobtrusive Control in Contemporary Organizations , 1985 .

[34]  Angelo S. DeNisi,et al.  A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions , 1984 .

[35]  H. Tajfel.  Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 1982 .

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

[37]  P. Goldman,et al.  Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century , 1980 .

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

[39]  R Roberts.  DON'T LOOK NOW, BUT ... , 1974 .

[40]  S. Lukes.  Power: A Radical View , 1974 .

[41]  K. Weick.  The social psychology of organizing , 1969 .

[42]  H. Kaufman.  The Forest Ranger , 1960 .

[43]  Herbert Kaufman,et al.  The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior , 1960 .

[44]  C. Barnard.  The Functions of the Executive , 1939 .