Monitoring what and how: psychological implications of electronic performance monitoring

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12039
• Date: 01 March 2015
• Published date: 01 March 2015

Monitoring what and how: psychological

implications of electronic

performance monitoring

Debora Jeske and Alecia M. Santuzzi

Implementing electronic performance monitoring in the work-

place might improve the efficiency and quality of employee

data that are collected. These intended benefits might be dis-

counted or even eliminated if employees have a negative reac-

tion to the monitoring process. The goal of this exploratory

study was therefore to investigate which electronic perfor-

mance monitoring techniques and monitoring characteristics

are associated with negative employee reactions using survey

responses from 190 student workers. Results showed that close

performance monitoring (via cameras, data entry, chat and

phone recording) had significant negative effects on job atti-

tudes such as job satisfaction and affective commitment.

Similar effects were observed for employee self-efficacy and

perceived control. Attitudes were furthermore negatively

impacted when the monitoring was focused on individuals and

unpredictable, which also reduced organisational citizenship

behaviour while continuous monitoring reduced self-efficacy.

These findings suggest that the benefits of close monitoring

may be overshadowed by negative employee reactions.

Keywords: performance management, electronic performance

monitoring, job attitudes, employee development, organisa-

tional citizenship behaviour, computer monitoring.

Electronic performance monitoring (EPM) is now commonplace in the modern work-

place. Using EPM enables managers to assess employee behaviours that directly or

indirectly relate to job performance. Nebeker and Tatum (1993) described EPM as the

use of electronic instruments or devices to collect, store, analyse and report individ-

ual (or group) actions or performance (see Rafnsdóttir and Gudmundsdottir, 2011).

EPM information is used to draw inferences about how effective and productive

individuals, teams or larger departments perform their work (Stanton and Julian,

2002). It therefore represents a very important tool for how managers collect data

about employee performance.

Debora Jeske is a Research Associatein the Psychology and Communication Technology (PaCT) Lab

at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne. Her research interests include e-learning, virtual

work, employee security behaviors, and technology at work. Alecia M. Santuzzi is an Associate Pro-

fessor in the Social-Industrial/Organizational Area of the Department of Psychology at Northern

Illinois University in the United States.Her research expertise includes social perceptions in face-to-face

and technology-mediated contexts and the role of demographic differences in those contexts. She also

specializes in quantitative methods for psychology and management research. She assisted with

conceptualization and writing the manuscript for this project.

New Technology, Work and Employment 30:1

ISSN 0268-1072

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd62 New Technology, Work and Employment

The increased demand for electronic tools to support the assessment of employee

performance has been met with fast-developing advances in technology features and

flexibility. With new developments in monitoring technologies (including video,

motion detection and user tracking), many new features are becoming available. This

gives employers multiple options to incorporateinto their EPM systems. The American

Management Association (2008) reported that common EPM tools included email

monitoring, phone tapping, tracking computer content and usage times, video moni-

toring and Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking. The specific monitoring tech-

niques used in an EPM system will depend on the job in question and on the legal

regulations in place.

The general purpose of EPM is similar to the purpose of traditional monitoring:

ensuring a desired level of employee performance including work pace and accuracy.

However, EPM incorporates a number of unique characteristics thatare not common in

traditional monitoring, some of which might have unintended negative consequences

for employees. First of all, EPM can provide more detailed, permanent records and can

quickly list the minutiae information captured by the system (Aiello and Kolb, 1995).

With EPM, employers have the flexibility to monitor their employees randomly, con-

tinuously (Chen and Ross, 2007; Wells et al., 2007), intermittently, in an unobtrusive or

intrusive manner, and with or without warning and employee consent (Stanton, 2000).

Thus, employers can flexibly meet their assessment needs by manipulating specific

EPM features. EPM can have indirect influences on the extent to which employees are

able to organise work activities according to their own preference (Schleifer et al., 1995)

which might have negative effects on employee reactions and performance outcomes

(Aiello and Kolb, 1995). Thus, the informationalbenefits of implementing EPM features

must be considered in light of potential unexpected costs in performance due to

negative psychological reactions from employees. The purpose of this study is to

examine the impact thatvarious features and uses of EPM might have for employeesso

that employers and managers can make informed decisions about what features and

uses to implement in light of the expected effects on employees.

The following section provides an overview of issues pertaining to EPM in the

workplace, including past research examining the psychological and work design

effects associated with EPM. We then discuss the importance of the current research

examining how employees will psychologically react to EPM practices depending on

what behaviours are monitored and how the EPM tools are implemented.

Psychological and work design effects of EPM

Unlike general surveillance to managesecurity and other risks, EPM specifically focuses

on performance and productivity behaviours among employees (Lyon, 2001; Ball and

Margulis, 2011; Ellway,2013). Ideally,employers, managers and employees are involved

in the decision processes regarding which employee behaviours are indicative of per-

formance and should be monitored electronically to support performance appraisals

and ensure performance standards are being met. Past research evidence suggests that

covert and continuous monitoring results in more negative attitudes on the job and

towards the organisation(Wells et al., 2007). In addition, if EPM involves close monitor-

ing, employees report higher job demand and workloadas well as less control over how

they work and organise their work activities (Smith et al., 1981). Close monitoring of

email, phone and computer monitoring have been described as micromanagement

trends (Lyon,2001), which will only further undermine employees sense of task control

and discretion. EPM is likely to affect autonomy and control over job activities, thus

creating a more intensive work environment (Smith et al., 1981; Aiello and Kolb, 1995).

Other evidence suggests that in order to use the monitoring technology, task alloca-

tion and complexity were necessarily reduced, leading to more deskilling and lower

job discretion (Carter et al., 2011). These changes reduce an employee’s perceptions of

challenge, required skills, job completeness and meaningfulness (Smith et al., 1992).

Machine-paced work and lower-level tasks are also usually associated with greater

dissatisfaction (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005).

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Electronic performance monitoring of employees 63