JOHN
R. AIELLO
Rutgers- The State University
Substantial developments in new office technologies over the past two decades
have dramatically transformed todays white-collar workplace. One of these devel-
opments, computer-based work monitoring, has enabled employers to continually or
intermittently monitor employees in real time or on a delayed basis, with or without
their knowledge or permission, at levels and in a manner previously unattainable.
This introductory article to this special issue outlines the current status of computer
monitoring in the U.S., delineates its major advantages and disadvantages, and
provides examples of early research on the topic by the author and others. Factors
likely to moderate the acceptance and effectiveness of computer monitoring systems
are discussed and implications for work and social relationships in the workplace are
considered. An overview of the four special issue articles reporting the results of
experiments assessing the effects of computer monitoring on the performance of
workers and supervisors is then provided.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. John R. Aiello, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Tillett Hall-Kilmer Campus, Rutgers-The State University, New Bruns-
wick, NJ 08903.
tronic monitoring have doubled from about 20% in 1984 to about 40% more
recently (Bylinsky, 1991; Halpern, 1992; 9 to 5 , 1984; OTA, 1985, 1987).
Between 1990 and 1992 more than $500 million was spent on surveillance
software by more than 70,000 U.S. companies (Bylinsky, 1991; Halpern,
1992). The total expenditure on monitoring software in this country is
expected to exceed $1 billion by 1996.
In addition t o simply accumulating performance information, this soft-
ware enables supervisors to look in on employees as they work-in some
cases with the employees awareness a n d / o r approval and in other cases
without it. One California company that sells networking software advertises
in trade journals urging employers to
Early Research
the transaction might have taken longer than the allotted time (e.g., custo-
mer had a strong accent or hearing problem), they were able t o reach their
goal and were rewarded by their supervisor for their shorter average call
record. Those who did not cheat resented those who did and lamented that
they really enjoyed being helpful t o customers but, given the stringent stand-
ard, often could not provide the high-quality service they wanted to give.
likely. If employees have their performance posted for all to see, if they are
not allowed access potentially t o correct any inaccuracies in their records, or
if the computer systems downtime (or other difficulties) is not factored into
performance assessment, negative reactions from all but the top-performing
employees will almost certainly result. Clear and effective supervisor com-
munication about these issues is probably necessary, but may not be suffi-
cient, to reduce these negative reactions.
Exactly what gets measured, for what period(s) of time, and toward what
type of comparison with established standard(s) in the computer-based work
monitored environment will probably be the crucial components of any
monitoring system. Are the products produced by employees (e.g., key-
strokes, policies typed) monitored o r are employee activities (e.g., bathroom
breaks, time logged-off)? If workers feel that their most important and
appropriate tasks are being fairly measured and comparisons of their per-
formance with reasonable standards are being made, resistance is apt t o be
minimized. On the other hand, if close surveillance is made of nonwork
activities, such as bathroom trips, problems are likely, as employees will
probably feel that their privacy has been invaded, their autonomy has been
eroded, and even that their dignity has been compromised (see 9 to 5, 1990,
for numerous examples).
Organizations that adopt monitoring systems have to decide whether
work monitoring will be performed in a constant or a n intermittent manner
for those employee tasks that are measured. This is a very complex issue.
Constant monitoring may reinforce the image of big brother continually
watching employees in a n unblinking fashion. On the other hand, re-
search is needed t o establish whether intermittent monitoring may be per-
ceived by employees as less fair and possibly more stressful because the
work-sampled periods may not be perceived as truly reflective of their
total performance.
How salient the computer-based monitoring is t o employees may also be a
key variable in moderating both productivity and stress. Pending federal
legislation (H.R. 1218), if enacted by Congress, would require that organiza-
tions provide written notice of their electronic monitoring practices t o cur-
rent and prospective employees, and provide affected workers who are
intermittently monitored with a signal light or some other periodic notice
when monitoring is taking place. Both of these requirements (but particu-
larly the latter) would invariably increase the salience of monitoring.
The sheer amount of information generated by computer-based work
monitoring may itself be a double-edged sword for supervisors. Chalykoff
and Kochan (1989) reported that supervisors experienced a dramatic
increase in supervisory workload when a monitoring system was installed in
their organization and that they resented this time-consuming part of their
MONITORING AND ITS EFFECTS 505
job. My experience has been quite consistent with these results. I have ob-
served in a number of organizations adopting monitoring systems an
increased pressure on supervisors to provide more and more information to
employees about their performance (i.e., to say something), because they
have so much more data available to them. Expectations of workers for
feedback from supervisors clearly rises with the onset of computer moni-
toring.
How performance feedback information is transmitted by supervisors is
critically important as well. Does face-to-face contact with ones supervisor
increase as a result of the (in some cases shared) employee performance
information received or does it decrease? Does the supervisor use the new
resource to find opportunities for catching the employee doing something
right and to more immediately reinforce the occasions of the positive per-
formance? Does the supervisor retreat to his/ her office to remotely look in
on employees rather than manage by walking around to allow for a t least
some personal contact? Does he/ she communicate via computer-generated
reports rather than initiating face-to-face contact? These questions related to
the quality of the relationships between employees and their supervisors are
likely to be heavily affected by the personality of the supervisors, the existing
organizational climate, and the training programs available to supervisors to
properly and effectively use the computer-based monitoring system.
References