Electronic monitoring at work: The role of attitudes, functions, and perceived control for the acceptance of tracking technologies

• Author: Kerstin Lorek,Martin Abraham,Kathrin Möslein,Claus Schnabel,Veronika Grimm,Cornelia Niessen,Matthias Wrede
• Date: 01 November 2019
• Published date: 01 November 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12250

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Electronic monitoring at work: The role of

attitudes, functions, and perceived control for the

acceptance of tracking technologies

Martin Abraham

1

| Cornelia Niessen

2

| Claus Schnabel

3

|

Kerstin Lorek

1

| Veronika Grimm

4

| Kathrin Möslein

5

|

Matthias Wrede

6

1

School of Business and Economics, Sociology

and Empirical Research Methods, FAU

Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany

2

Department of Psychology, Work and

Organizational Psychology, FAU Erlangen-

Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

3

School of Business and Economics, Labor

and Regional Economics, FAU Erlangen-

Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany

4

School of Business and Economics, Economic

Theory, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nürnberg,

Germany

5

School of Business and Economics,

Information Systems I, FAU Erlangen-

Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany

6

School of Business and Economics,

Economics and Social Policy, FAU Erlangen-

Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany

Correspondence

Martin Abraham, School of Business and

Economics, Sociology and Empirical Research

Methods, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg,

Findelgasse 7, Nürnberg D-90402, Germany.

Email: martin.abraham@fau.de

Abstract

Organisations increasingly adopt tracking technologies that

allow managers to continuously collect highly detailed

records of employee, performance, and health. On the basis

of the theory of planned behaviour, we aim to identify atti-

tudes, functions of monitoring, and control perceptions that

should strengthen or lower employees' acceptance of these

technologies. Our experimental vignette study among

800 respondents in Germany reveals that acceptance is

more likely if employees have positive attitudes towards

surveillance in general and towards monitoring in private

life and if the technologies enhance labour productivity.

The tendency to reject the technology increases if it is to be

used for monitoring health and performance. The results

indicate that these new technologies will not be accepted

unconditionally and may be subject to bargaining and con-

flicts. In the implementation process, human resources

departments will have to take account of employee inter-

ests and well-being, which in turn may improve acceptance

and performance.

KEYWORDS

acceptance of technology, electronic monitoring, multifactorial

survey, technical change, tracking

Received: 18 July 2017 Revised: 2 June 2019 Accepted: 3 June 2019

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12250

Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29:657–675. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 657

1|INTRODUCTION

In today's increasingly digitised world of work, almost every activity—from the touch of a keyboard to the movement

of a robot—generates information that can be used to permanently track workers and monitor their behaviour.

Electronic monitoring via tracking refers to the continuous gathering, examining, and/or recording of employee

work-related data with technological assistance in real time and can be used, inter alia, to monitor worker behaviour,

performance, safety, and health. For researchers and HR practitioners, it is important to gain insight into which fac-

tors shape employees' acceptance of such new tracking technologies. Investigating these factors and relationships

was the main purpose of the present experimental vignette study.

Starting with telephone monitoring, there has been a constantly increasing interest of firms and their human

resource departments in monitoring, recording, and tracking employee behaviours, work performance, and personal

data at the workplace (Alge & Hansen, 2014; Ball, 2010; Stanton, 2000; US Congress, OTA, 1987). This development

led to an ongoing challenge for management and human resource departments to balance the advantages of surveil-

lance and the negative side effects due to employees' opposing attitudes and decreasing motivation.

Recently, this challenge has multiplied because sensor technology is embedded in smart phones and body-

worn sensors, contains location-sensing technologies (e.g., European Commission, 2016; Wilson, 2013), and is

linked to the internet (Swan, 2012). This provides a multitude of novel possibilities for continuously tracking

workers and brings about a new quality of electronic monitoring at the workplace with far-reaching implications

for line managers and human resource managers. Examples range from well-established technologies such as

tracking truck drivers to optimise logistics (Giaglis, Minis, Tatarakis, & Zeimpekis, 2004) and to prevent accidents

(Ji & Yang, 2002) to more experimental technologies such as implanting employees with an Radio frequency

identification (RFID) chip. This device allows them to make purchases in their break room micromarket, open

doors, log in to computers, or use the copy machine (Three Square Market, 2017). New technologies enabling

tracking are increasingly adopted by organisations and have allowed managers to continuously collect highly

detailed records about workers' locations, performance, and health (e.g., Lucas, Burgett, Hoover, & Gungor,

2016). From a human resource management (HRM) perspective, it is important to note that the collected data

can be integrated into and analysed by electronic human resource information systems (Kavanagh & Johnson,

2017; Marler & Parry 2016; Parry & Tyson 2011).

Although tracking has the potential to improve work performance (e.g., Bhave, 2014; Goomas & Ludwig, 2009),

it brings both risks (e.g., reduced work autonomy, job loss, violated privacy, and data protection) and benefits

(e.g., safety protection and health monitoring) for workers, and it may provoke conflicts between workers and man-

agement (e.g., Alge & Hansen, 2014). If employees do not accept these new technologies, then technological changes

can produce additional costs or even fail (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Parvari, Mansor, Jafarpoor, & Salehi,

2014). Thus, the main purpose of the present study was to investigate which factors shape employees' acceptance

of new tracking technologies, such as sensor technologies and smart wearables (e.g., Bernstein, 2017), which allow

monitoring workers' locations, movements, performance, and health in real time at the workplace. Thereby, our study

contributes to the ongoing debate on the connection between HRM, employee well-being, and organisational per-

formance (e.g., Guest, 2017; Peccei, Van De Voorde, & van Veldhoven, 2013). From a sociological perspective, our

research relates to discussions on self-tracking that may increase acceptance of tracking at the workplace (Lupton,

2016). Moreover, we followed research in the field of organisational behaviour, which has mainly concentrated on

the consequences of electronic monitoring on workers' performance and productivity (e.g., Aiello & Kolb, 1995;

Bhave, 2014), health and well-being (Davidson & Henderson, 2000; Holman, Chissick, & Totterdell, 2002), privacy

concerns (e.g., Alge, 2001), and trust and fairness perceptions (e.g., Douthitt & Aiello, 2001; Zweig & Scott, 2007).

However, very few studies to date have examined employee's acceptance of electronic monitoring (e.g., McNall &

Stanton, 2011; Spitzmüller & Stanton, 2006).

ABRAHAM ET AL.

658