Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Computer-Based Work Monitoring: Electronic Surveillance

and Its Effects

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.

Recent advances in computer technology have radically transformed


todays workplace (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1985,
1987). While early automation was found primarily in the manufacturing
sector, the past two decades have witnessed a tremendous growth in new
office technologies. These advances have enabled management to monitor
employees at a level that was previously unattainable by even the most
diligent of supervisors. The U.S. Congresss Office of Technology Assess-
ment (1987) defined the process of electronic work monitoring as the com-
puterized collection, storage, analysis, and reporting of information about
employees productive activities (p. 27).
Computer-aided supervisory monitoring, performed in real time or on a
delayed basis, can now be constant, unblinking, and pervasive. This
change in technology has the potential of altering not only the balance of
power between employers and employees but also, depending upon how
this technology is used (e.g., for discipline or development), the nature of the
social relations in the workplace as well (cf. Kipnis, 1990, 1991).
The use of computer-based work monitoring has expanded considerably
during the past decade. Estimates of office workers being affected by elec-

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.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1993, 23, 7 , pp. 499-507.


Copyright Q 1993 by V. H.Winston 8, Son, Inc. All rights reserved.
500 JOHN R. AIELLO

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

look in on Sues computer screen. . . . I n fact, Sue doesnt even


know youre there! Hot key again and off you go on your rounds
of the company. Viewing one screen after another, helping some,
watching others. All from the comfort of your chair (Bylinsky,
1991, p. 136).

I t is difficult to identify exactly how many workers are electronically


monitored, but the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the U.S.
Congress in 1987 estimated that more than 6 million U.S. workers were
monitored; and by 1990 this number had apparently grown to more than 10
million (9 to 5 , 1990; Halpern, 1992). There has been a great deal of heated
debate in the popular press and in the trade journals about the effects of
computer monitoring (with headlines like Big Brother Lives; HOWCom-
panies Spy on Employees; The Boss that Never Blinks; and Computer
Monitoring: Mismanagement by Remote Control). There has also been a
small number of published case studies, surveys, and interview studies on
this topic but, published experimental research is virtually nonexistent.
This special issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology is devoted
to the rapidly emerging research area investigating the effects of computer-
based work monitoring. The papers contained herein represent four of the
first experimental studies in the area focusing on the performance of workers
and supervisors in a computer-monitored environment.

Early Research

Although most of the early reports about the consequences of electronic


surveillance for employees and organizations were largely anecdotal, a small
number of empirical research studies were published prior to 1990. Three of
these investigations will be briefly described to provide a flavor for this early
work.
MONITORING AND ITS EFFECTS 501

In one of the earliest published empirical studies of computerized perform-


ance monitoring, Irving, Higgins, and Safayeni (1986) interviewed moni-
tored employees from two organizations that had adopted computerized
monitoring systems (within the two years prior to the study) and nonmoni-
tored employees from three other organizations (without monitoring sys-
tems). They reported that monitored workers experienced increased stress,
decreased satisfaction, and a decline in the quality of relationships with
peers, supervisors, and senior management apparently as a function of the
added control that employees perceived the organizations gained through
the monitoring system and the perceived overemphasis that managers put on
the quantity (as opposed to the quality) of their work. The workers did
report, however, a n increase in their productivity (i.e., a higher quantity of
work) and a closer tie between their organizations reward and evaluation
systems. In a follow-up study of both monitored and nonmonitored em-
ployees within a single (insurance) organization, Grant, Higgins, and Irving
(1988) found that whereas more than 3 / 4 of monitored workers said that
production quantity was the most important factor in their performance
ratings, more than 3 / 4 of nonmonitored workers (performing the same job
as the monitored workers) reported that work quality (customer service and
teamwork) was the most important factor.
Chalykoff and Kochan (1989) report the results of two studies conducted
with Internal Revenue Service employees. The first study consisted of inter-
views with employees, supervisors, and managers, and the second study used
a survey instrument (developed from these interviews) to test a mediational
model of the centrality of computer-based monitoring in the workplace.
They found that employees satisfaction with computer-aided monitoring
had a considerable impact on overall job satisfaction and turnover propen-
sity and that employees predispositions toward monitoring were crucial in
determining whether managerial actions (e.g., feedback, performance ap-
praisal processes) would have an effect on any of the negative consequences
associated with monitoring.

Critical Issues Associated With Monitoring


The public debate about the advantages and disadvantages of electronic
monitoring has been raging for more than a decade (e.g., Gregory & Nuss-
baum, 1982; Marx & Sherizen, 1986). Proponents of computer-based work
monitoring argue that it enhances productivity, provides a more accurate
(and less subjective) assessment of performance, and allows for more timely
feedback. They also suggest that in addition to providing an employer with
greater organizational control and a tool for managing resources, designing
better training programs, and planning workloads, computer monitoring
502 JOHN R. AIELLO

can provide more flexibility in work locations (e.g., telecommuting) and


work hours (e.g., flextime).
Opponents of electronic monitoring contend that it is a n invasion of a
workers privacy, induces higher levels of stress which may then lead to
negative health outcomes, and produces lower levels of job satisfaction,
morale, and teamwork because of the likely emphasis on sacrificing quality
for quantity (e.g., if it isnt counted, it doesnt count). They indicate that
computer monitoring often leads to reductions in employees human contact
(with supervisors and fellow workers), increases in the number of unfair
work speed-ups (e.g., ever-increasing standards of performance to make
employees work harder for the same pay), and often results in an atmosphere
of mistrust and suspicion (with an emphasis on discipline rather than devel-
opment).
My own experience with organizations that have adopted electronic per-
formance monitoring systems leads me to a position that is somewhere
between these two extremes. I began my work in this area in 1985 with a field
study investigating work stress in two large insurance companies where 1
interviewed a large number of VDT workers, some of whom were monitored
by computer.
These workers indicated that they were (for the most part) not as satisfied
with their jobs as they had been, and they described having a greater number
of physical symptoms such as headaches, eyestrain, and musculoskeletal
discomfort, and also experienced more psychological problems, such as anxi-
ety, irritability, and depression. With relatively little probing, many VDT
users indicated that an important component of how they felt was the fact
that they were more lonely at work than they had ever been. Because of the
greater availability of information directly through their terminal, these
workers did not have to leave their desks and walk across the office to a file
cabinet or to consult a reference book. This led to their having less contact
with coworkers (and supervisors), lowered levels of perceived social support,
and higher levels of stress. This pattern was particularly true for monitored
VDT workers. Lower levels of social contact and support were then in turn
associated with a somewhat higher incidence of stress-related illnesses.
A second research project investigating the role of the work measurement
process and goal setting in productivity improvement (with a number of
telecommunication companies the following year) enlightened me further
about the advantages and disadvantages associated with electronic perform-
ance monitoring. One component of the study was to assess the extent of
cheating used by employees at all levels of the organization to reach perform-
ance goals. T o my surprise almost 25% of directory assistance operators
admitted to cheating so as to be able to reach their computer-monitor-based
22-second-per-call standard. By disconnecting customers, particularly when
MONITORING AND ITS EFFECTS 503

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.

Po tent ial Moderating Factors


There are obviously numerous factors that might moderate the effects of a
computer-based work monitoring system. The first is whether employees
participate in any meaningful way in the design and implementation of the
system. If not, d o they at least understand how, when, and why the monitor-
ing will take place? Are they informed about the monitoring at all? Do
workers feel any ownership in the new system or d o they feel that it is being
imposed upon them? Do employees receive any share of productivity gains
realized? Given that less than one quarter of U.S. workers are unionized, the
perceived tilting of the balance of power between employees and employers
could actually open the door t o the white-collar workplace for union
organizing, as workers potentially seek protection from this new threat to
the quality of their worklife (OTA, 1987).
Once the monitoring system is implemented, a variety of other factors
would seem to be important moderators of its effects. For example, what
type of organizational climate currently exists for employees? If the climate
is a heavily control-oriented, Theory X type of environment, electronic sur-
veillance is very likely t o intensify a n already restrictive atmosphere. Are
employees part of a cohesive workgroup or are they detached from their
coworkers? The larger social context of any monitoring system invariably
affects its effectiveness. Similarly, whether monitoring systems are used to
measure hdividual performance (as most often found in the U.S.) o r aggre-
gated group performance (as is most often the case in countries like Norway,
Sweden, and Japan) would be expected t o have profound effects on such
social phenomena as teamwork, competitiveness and conflict among co-
workers, and feelings of social isolation. How rewards associated with pro-
ductivity gains, if any, are shared or otherwise distributed will also moderate
the effects of computer-based work monitoring.
How open or secret the monitoring is and how it is used by supervisors
would also be expected to strongly affect acceptance of the system. If only
the supervisor (not the employee) receives employee performance records
(secret monitoring), if the supervisor begins t o micromanage the employee,
o r if the supervisor provides only negative feedback t o the employee (i.e.,
system used as gotcha), greater employee resentment would seem more
504 JOHN R. AIELLO

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.

Overview of This Special Issue


All four of the manuscripts of this special issue report the results of
experimental studies that have evaluated the impact of computer monitoring
on performance in environments designed to simulate organizational set-
tings. The first three articles focus on employee performance and the fourth
paper focuses on supervisor performance. Each of the papers also attempts
to introduce a theoretical context to facilitate a n integration of existing
findings pertaining to the effects of computer monitoring with those being
presented. Theory-based research in this area has been virtually nonexistent
to date.
In the first article, Nebeker and Tatum report on two studies that manipu-
lated performance standards of a relatively easy typing task under computer-
monitored conditions to examine effects on employee performance, satisfac-
tion and stress. Study 1 compared workers who were not aware that they
were being monitored and who did not receive either feedback about their
performance or a standard (goal) with computer-monitored workers who
received performance feedback (on demand) and who were assigned one of
three levels of performance standards (i.e., no standard, low standard, or
high standard). Study 2 builds on the findings of Study 1, increasing the
506 JOHN R. AIELLO

duration of employment from 2 to 9 weeks, and extending the conditions to


include performance contingent rewards (i.e., money).
The next two papers suggest the use of a social facilitation framework (cf.
Zajonc, 1965) for studying computer-based work monitoring. They argue
that electronic presence (i.e., computer monitoring), just like the physical
presence of an observer or audience, would be expected to result in enhanced
performance on simple tasks and to result in impaired performance on com-
plex (or difficult) tasks.
Aiello and Svecs article reports the results of a study comparing the
effects on complex task performance of a physically present supervisor and
a n electronically present supervisor (remotely monitoring performance in
real time via computer in an adjacent room) with the performance of sub-
jects working alone without any monitoring of their work. Included in the
investigation as well is a n assessment of two interventions designed to reduce
any negative impact of monitoring on performance (i.e., monitoring groups
rather than individuals and providing workers with greater perceived control
over work conditions) and the role of personality in moderating stress experi-
enced as a result of computer-based work monitoring.
Griffiths paper examines a workers simple task performance under three
different conditions: a physically present supervisor; no supervisor present
or remote monitoring, but the worker is informed that a computer record is
being made of their performance (another type of electronic presence); and a
supervisor leaving the worker alone with no mention of monitoring or a
computer record. Also included was a measurement of job satisfaction and a
comparison of two levels of monitoring intensity.
In the fourth article Fenner, Lerch, and Kulik break new ground in this
area of research by focusing on the impact of computer-monitored data on
supervisors performance appraisal process. Simulated employees prior-per-
formance level and their performance during the monitoring period were
manipulated so as to assess the effects of these information sources on
current and future supervisor performance ratings. The number of requests
made by supervisors for performance information, supervisors recall of
prior performance ratings, their level of certainty about their ratings, and
their ratings of current performance variability were also measured.

References

Bylinsky, G. (1991, November). How companies spy on employees. Fortune,


pp. 131-140.
Chalykoff, J . , & Kochan, T. A. (1989). Computer-aided monitoring: Its
influence on employee satisfaction and turnover. Personnel Psychology,
40,807-834.
MONITORING AND ITS EFFECTS 507

Grant, R. A., Higgins, C. A., & Irving, R. H. (1988, Spring). Computerized


performance monitors: Are they costing you customers? Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 29, 39-45.
Gregory, J., & Nussbaum, K . (1982). Race against time: Automation in the
office. Office Technology and People, 1, 197-236.
Halpern, S. (1992, May). Big boss is watching you. Details, pp. 18-23.
Irving, R. H., Higgins, C. A., & Safayeni, F. R. (1986). Computerized per-
formance monitoring systems: Use and abuse. Communications of the
ACM, 29,794-801.
Kipnis, D. ( 1990). Technology and power. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kipnis, D. (199 1). The technological perspective. Psychological Science, 2,
62-69.
Marx, G . T., & Sherizen, S. (1986). Monitoring on the job: How to protect
privacy as well as property. Technology Review, 89, 62-72.
9 to 5, Working Women Education Fund. (1984). The 9 to 5 National Survey
Survey on Women and Stress. Cleveland, OH: Author.
9 t o 5, Working Women Education Fund. (1990). Stories of mistrust and
manipulation: The electronic monitoring of the American workforce.
Cleveland, OH: Author.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1985). Automation of
America5 offices, OTA-CIT-287. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). The electronic
supervisor: New technology, new tensions, OTA-CIT-333. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing office.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai