Private Eyes Are Watching You: Reactions to Location Sensing Technologies

PurposeThis study explored reactions to location sensing technologies (LSTs) which enable organizations to track the location and movements of employees, even off-site. In particular, we examined the relationships among two monitoring characteristics (i.e., purpose and control), perceptions of privacy invasion, and monitoring fairness.Design/Methodology/ApproachThis study employed a 2 (purpose) × 2 (control) factorial design using 208 college students. Study hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression.FindingsThe ability to control the location sensing device was related to monitoring fairness via privacy invasion, but no support was found for monitoring purpose.ImplicationsThe results underscore the importance of giving employees a sense of control over monitoring and providing them with “protected spaces” where monitoring can be avoided.Originality/ValueThis study offers the first examination of attitudes toward location sensing technologies.

[1]  G. Alder.  Ethical Issues in Electronic Performance Monitoring: A Consideration of Deontological and Teleological Perspectives , 1998 .

[2]  Yang Shao,et al.  Electronic Performance Monitoring and Stress: The Role of Feedback and Goal Setting , 1993, Interacción.

[3]  Elayne W. Coakes,et al.  Socio-Technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems , 2002 .

[4]  Audra D. Hovorka‐Mead,et al.  WATCHING THE DETECTIVES: SEASONAL STUDENT EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO ELECTRONIC MONITORING WITH AND WITHOUT ADVANCE NOTIFICATION , 2002 .

[5]  G. Stoney Alder,et al.  Towards understanding fairness judgments associated with computer performance monitoring: An integration of the feedback, justice, and monitoring research , 2005 .

[6]  John C. Turner,et al.  Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorizing perspective. , 1999 .

[7]  Kirsten Martin.  Information technology and privacy: conceptual muddles or privacy vacuums? , 2012, Ethics and Information Technology.

[8]  J. R. Aiello,et al.  The role of participation and control in the effects of computer monitoring on fairness perceptions, task satisfaction, and performance. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  Elizabeth M. Weiss,et al.  Electronic monitoring in their own words: an exploratory study of employees' experiences with new types of surveillance , 2000 .

[10]  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 .

[11]  Michael E. Enzle,et al.  Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation. , 1993 .

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

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

[14]  Jeffrey M. Stanton,et al.  Information technology and privacy: a boundary management perspective , 2003 .

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

[16]  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.

[17]  Terri L. Griffith.  Teaching Big Brother to be a team player: computer monitoring and quality , 1993 .

[18]  A. Treviño,et al.  The Social Psychology , 2012 .

[19]  G. Stoney Alder,et al.  Clarifying the effects of Internet monitoring on job attitudes: The mediating role of employee trust , 2006, Inf. Manag..

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

[21]  S. Robinson,et al.  Trust that binds: the impact of collective felt trust on organizational performance. , 2008, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  M. Brewer.  The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time , 1991 .

[23]  C. Cooper,et al.  International review of industrial and organizational psychology , 1986 .

[24]  Sylvia G. Roch,et al.  Effects of Electronic Monitoring Types on Perceptions of Procedural Justice, Interpersonal Justice, and Privacy , 2007 .

[25]  Sylvia G. Roch,et al.  A Social Exchange Model of Employee Reactions to Electronic Performance Monitoring , 2009 .

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

[27]  Chang-tseh Hsieh,et al.  Some Potential Applications of Artificial Neural Systems in Financial Management , 1993 .

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

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

[30]  Jeffrey M. Stanton,et al.  Reactions to Employee Performance Monitoring: Framework, Review, and Research Directions , 2000 .

[31]  Jon M. Werner,et al.  The Impact of the Perceived Purpose of Electronic Performance Monitoring on an Array of Attitudinal Variables. , 2007 .

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

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

[34]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  An Identity-Based Model of Organizational Monitoring: Integrating Information Privacy and Organizational Justice , 2006 .

[35]  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.

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

[37]  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.

[38]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  The Psychology of the Social Self , 2001 .

[39]  Maureen L. Ambrose,et al.  The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation. , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

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

[42]  Michael J. Smith,et al.  Electronic Performance Monitoring, Job Design and Psychological Stress , 1990 .

[43]  William P. Smith,et al.  Privacy and Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace: A Model of Managerial Cognition and Relational Trust Development , 2005 .

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

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