Electronic monitoring of employee s job performance would almost certainly not be protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There is no guarantee of a right to privacy provided within the U.S. Constitution. In 1986 the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed to prohibit the interception of telephone or other oral, wire, or electronic communication, though there are exceptions both to prior consent and business use . In 1994 a proposed federal bill, The Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act, cleared the House Education and labor subcommittee, though restrictions found in the bill would have made it difficult for telemarketing organizations to maintain quality control so this act failed passage.
So how do we motivate our employees if the argument is that use of electronic monitoring creates an atmosphere of distrust (Vaught, 2000)? We first need to clarify the relationship between computerized performance monitoring (CPM) and ethics. According to Stephen Hawk, there is an ethical theory that provides the basis for evaluating the morality of a given CPM. The first is the Utilitarianism approach which suggests that the morality of acts can be judged ethical to the extent that it results in the greatest good for all concerned parties (Hawk, 1994). This way everyone would benefit from CPM. Employees could potentially benefit if such profitability resulted in increased wages and stability; customers could benefit if monitoring brought about improvements in service/product quality, or lower prices; and society could benefit from increased efficiency and effectiveness of the workforce (Hawk, 1994). Utilitarianism suggests that decisions need to evaluate both the benefits and harms and choose the option that results in the greatest net good (Hawk, 1994). The second is the Kantian approach, which suggests that the inherent features of an action make it right or wrong (Hawk, 1994). Furthermore, this perspective places importance on the intrinsic worth of individuals, emphasizing the obligation of business to respect the right of privacy, the dignity and the autonomy of their employees (Hawk, 1994). Monitoring systems would be unethical to the extent that implementing them violated these obligations. The purpose in pursuing this issue was to shed some light on the ethical implications of the CPM system and provide our intent to inform management of the ethical considerations of using an electronic monitoring system and how their motivation can be inhibited.
Aside from the ethical implications of privacy, critics of EM maintain that many of the more obtrusive systems can lead to increased levels of stress, decreased job satisfaction and quality of work life, decreased levels of customer service and poor quality (Vaught, 2000). Also, by imposing excess control over employee behavior, EM can lead to worker alienation and the perception that they are working in a modern sweatshop (Vaught, 2000). Current applications of electronic performance monitoring (EPM) are based on job design theories that do not consider worker stress; hence we need an approach to EPM that considers job design and worker stress theories that will conclusively define the critical job elements of stress in an electronic monitoring context. According to Pascale Carayon, a conceptual model is proposed which states that electronic performance monitoring has direct and indirect effects on worker stress. She states that job demands, job control, and social supports are major risk factors of work stress and health effects which we will now examine.
Two categories of job design are examined when we research job demands: the amount of work to be done during a specific period and the amount of work pressure exhibited. According to Carayon, EPM has the potential to increase job demands if it is used to increase workload and work pressure (1993). EPM systems can put additional demands on workers and such a system can induce workers to work longer and harder to prove something to their supervisor. Sometimes EPM systems are equipped with standards to follow and if these standards are excessive they will produce stress by increasing workload and work pressure (Carayon, 1993).
Incentive pay systems can be stressful also. Computer based incentive systems led to an increase in self-ratings of hurry and tension, an increase in blood pressure, and a decrease in heart rate variability (Carayon, 1993). It forces workers to push themselves to work harder and faster. Inevitably, electronically monitored workers indicated that quantity was overemphasized at the expense of quality (Carayon, 1993). Conclusively the nature of the EPM system sets up a competitive lifestyle among employees and can be an additional source of stress, especially if the poor performers can be directly identified.
EPM systems that provide direct feedback to the employee may reduce work pressure because the employee is able to recognize his or her workload accordingly and this may lead to decreased workload in terms of the time it takes to perform each task.
Job control examines how people strive for control over their environment, and decreased control can result in individual and organizational adverse effects (Carayon, 1993). According to Carayon, there are three levels of control: instrumental, conceptual, and organizational (1993). Instrumental control provides workers with the opportunity to use tools to change their work environment or product. EPM systems that provide feedback and knowledge of performance results can help the employee obtain instrumental control over the task (Carayon, 1993). Another facet is work pace. Workers who are able to decide at what pace to work experience less stress (Carayon, 1993). If organizations use performance standards and incentive pay systems, workers may lose control over work pace because the pace will be defined for them (Carayon, 1993).
Conceptual control concerns the control over how tasks are carried out and how work is scheduled. This type of control may be reduced if employees do not know exactly when monitoring is taking place and have a hard time deciding in what order to do things in (Carayon, 1993). Also in many situations overemphasizing on quantity at the expense of quality may not allow workers to change working methods or try to do tasks in a different order (Carayon, 1993). Organizational control is employee involvement and participation. Under high organizational control, negative characteristics of EPM will be less stressful than under low organizational control (Carayon, 1993). Workers will be less stressed if they have a say in decisions that affect their job.
Social support has been defined in terms of the functional content of relationships. In a monitoring system that is highly intensive, frequent, continuos, and irregular, social support from one s supervisor and coworkers can be critical in reducing stress (Carayon, 1993). The effects of negative characteristics of EMP on worker stress will be reduced when workers have high levels of social support or coworkers (Carayon, 1993).
The conceptual model just described can now be used to understand the work organization and management implications of an EMP system. This model has indicated that the stress effects of EMP could be reduced if the EPM system is designed and used well. This means a system should be relevant to the purpose it intends to achieve, complete, and not intensive.
The above discussion analyzed the negative implications of monitoring systems and how these various issues can reduce employee work motivation. Though with every negative implication there is a beneficial implication. The most intrinsic factor that will encompass and support the others is this idea of a fair and equitable system of EM. According to Vaught, with proper design it should be possible to gain the benefits of increased productivity, increased satisfaction and reduced stress all at the same time; if not far all at least for the majority (Vaught, 2000).
Management has always monitored their employee s behavior in one form or another. Supervision is an important factor in improving the quality and productivity of their employee s operations. According to research done by Vaught, there are several reported case examples of companies that have successfully used EM to improve employee productivity and customer service (Vaught, 2000). The key to doing so is how computer monitoring is practiced. One component is job enrichment, modifying a job such that an employee has the opportunity to experience achievement, recognition, stimulating work, responsibility, and advancement through electronic monitoring systems. Herzberg labeled these factors as motivators because each was associated with strong effort and good performance. On the flip side, hygiene factors specially company policy and administration, technical supervision, salary, interpersonal relations with one s supervisor, and poor working conditions were related with dissatisfaction by employees. Rather than giving employees additional tasks of similar difficulty, give workers more responsibility. In table () there are seven principles managers are advised to follow to motivate individuals by incorporating motivators into an individual s job.
A direct outgrowth of job enrichment that relates to supervisors can monitor their employees and still maintain their motivation is the job characteristic model. This contingency approach attempts to pinpoint those situations and those individuals for which job design is most effective (Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998). Two researchers Richard Hackman and Greg Oldman worked with this job characteristics approach for the sole purpose to determine how work can be structured so that employees are internally motivated. As shown in Figure (), internal work motivation is determined by three psychological states. In turn, these psychological states are fostered by the presence of five core job dimensions. The overall method of this approach is to promote high internal motivation by designing jobs that posses the five core job characteristics. Going back to what we said earlier, job design is the specific component that if designed correctly will significantly effect workers general attitudes and reduce the negative affects of monitoring.
Conclusively according to Vaught, research has found that perceived procedural fairness of EM positively related to satisfaction with the system (Vaught, 2000). The best recommendation would be to have a monitoring system that is consistent, flexible, accurate, and compatible with employee moral and ethical values (Vaught, 2000). It all comes down to making a fair and equitable system of EM. How computer monitoring is used in practice has the most significant effect on workers attitude and behaviors, and even managerial attention to recognize standards for performance appraisal, feedback, and good supervision (Vaught, 2000). In turn, managers will significantly reduce the otherwise negative effects of monitoring.
How employees are monitored is very important, though we must also consider our how our employees are motivated. That is why we must consider Adam s equity theory of motivation along with distributive and procedural justice. Adam s model recognizes how people strive for fairness and justice in social exchanges or give-and-take relationships (Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998). There are three major categories of relevant others that people use when making equity comparisons: others inside or outside the organization in similar jobs; self-comparisons over time and against one s ideal ratio; and based on exchanges between and individual and the organization (Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998). There are three different equity relationships that people can perceive comparing ratios of outcomes to inputs: equity, negative inequity, and positive inequity. The crucial component that managers need to be concerned with is inequity. If an electronic monitoring system is used and the comparison person enjoys greater outcomes for similar inputs as a result of the EM system, negative inequity will be perceived. Eventually their motivation will also decrease significantly. Table () lists eight possible way to reduce inequity. It is important to note that equity can be restored by altering one s equity ratios behaviorally and/or cognitively (Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998).
Equity definition has recently been expanded to include two separate components. The first, distributive justice, reflects the perceived fairness of how resources and rewards are distributed or allocated (Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998). The second is called procedural justice and is defined as the perceived fairness of the process and procedures used to make allocation decisions (Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998). In other words, if employees believe the system from which they are judged is procedurally fair, then they are more likely to view the system as positive (Vaught, 2000). It is imperative that managers know the importance of perceived fairness in regard to the implementation of EM. Table () lists some considerations that managers need to take into account.
The question that is left to be understood is not whether or not management should monitor their employees; rather the question is how? It is apparent that EM systems must be designed and implemented with the concept of fairness in mind (Vaught, 2000). According to Vaught, an EM system must be consistent, free from bias, relevant, provide feedback, be job-related, and above all perceived as fair if both the employee and employer are to receive the benefits of EM (Vaught, 2000).
Conclusively our paper has shown the intent to provide management with the implications of an EM system and how it affects employee work motivation. It is estimated that from 6 to 20 million employees are effected by one type or another of electronic monitoring (Vaught, 2000). It is a controversial topic such that we have shown. Managers believe strongly in them, but they need to understand the implications involved. EM systems must be designed and implemented with consistency, fairness, and keeping in mind employee s moral and ethical values. Until this happens, employee motivation will continue to decrease and with that productivity and customer service will suffer. The organizations and the employees will be restrained from their full potential unless sufficient knowledge can be gained from these merging issues