Does Electronic Monitoring Pay Off?
Influences of Electronic Monitoring Purposes on Organizational Attractiveness
Abstract
Abstract. Applicants often take great care in deciding where to apply and may refrain from applying or accepting a job offer if they hear about privacy-invading practices at a future workplace. Based on communication privacy management theory, the present work examines how applicants react to different purposes of electronic monitoring. In a scenario study, we found higher privacy concerns and lower organizational attractiveness in a situation with controlling monitoring procedures as compared to supportive monitoring procedures. Furthermore, competitive participants evaluated only noncontrolling monitoring procedures more positively. This demonstrates that organizational attractiveness is harmed by controlling monitoring procedures, and decision makers should keep in mind how electronic monitoring is implemented, used, and may be perceived within and outside the organization.
References
(2016). The role of privacy invasion and fairness in understanding job applicant reactions to potentially inappropriate/discriminatory interview questions. Personnel Review, 45(2), 392–418. 10.1108/PR-11-2014-0264
(1995). Electronic performance monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 339–353. 10.1037/0021-9010.80.3.339
(2001). Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 797–804. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.797
(2007). Workplace surveillance and managing privacy boundaries. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(2), 172–200. 10.1177/0893318907306033
(2014). Mapping and analysing bottleneck vacancies in EU labour markets. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/eures/downloadSectionFile.do?fileId=8010
(2018). papaja: Create APA manuscripts with R Markdown. https://github.com/crsh/papaja
(2010). Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History, 51(1), 87–106. 10.1080/00236561003654776
(2008). Einflussfaktoren auf das Bewerberverhalten von Studierenden: Ergebnisbericht einer experimentellen Untersuchung [Factors influencing the application behavior of undergraduates: Report of an experimental survey]. http://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/uni/fakultaeten/sowi_lehrstuehle/unternehmensfuehrung/Download-Bereich/BBB_148_Experiment_CFA_ungeschuetzt.pdf
(2016). Technology in the employment interview: A meta-analysis and future research agenda. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 2(1), 12–20. 10.25035/pad.2016.002
(1998). Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 88–98. 10.2307/1252289
(2014). Gender, competitiveness, and career choices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1409–1447. 10.1093/qje/qju009
(2018). Organizing and collective bargaining in the digitized “tertiary factories” of Amazon: A comparison between Germany and Italy. In E. AlesY. CurziT. FabbriO. RymkevichI. SenatoriG. Solinas (Eds.), Working in digital and smart organizations (pp. 141–164). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978-3-319-77329-2_8
(2013). Big Brother or big bother? E‐monitoring the salesforce. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(4), 288–302. 10.1108/08858621311313893
(2013). Friend or not to friend: Coworker Facebook friend requests as an application of communication privacy management theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2257–2264. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.006
(2018). Work and organizational psychology looks at the fourth industrial revolution: How to support workers and organizations? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2365. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02365
(2017). Pay-for-performance and interpersonal deviance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16(2), 77–90. 10.1027/1866-5888/a000181
(1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695–702. 10.1016/S0024-6301(98)00074-0
(1993). Monitoring and performance: A comparison of computer and supervisor monitoring. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(7), 549–572. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01103.x
(2018). Are manipulation checks necessary? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 998. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998
(2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986–1001. 10.1177/0013164403258403
(1976). Filler items and social desirability in Rotter’s locus of control scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40(2), 162–168. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4002_7
(2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134. 10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002
(2017). Examining digital interviews for personnel selection: Applicant reactions and interviewer ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(4), 371–382. 10.1111/ijsa.12191
(2004). Regulation of electronic employee monitoring: Identifying fundamental principles of employee privacy through a comparative study of data privacy legislation in the European Union, United States and Canada. Stanford Technology Law Review, 2004, 4–77.
(2019). insight: A unified interface to access information from model objects in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(38), 1412. 10.21105/joss.01412
(2011). Still fighting the “war for talent”? Bridging the science versus practice gap. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 169–173. 10.1007/s10869-011-9220-y
(2011). Private eyes are watching you: Reactions to location sensing technologies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 299–309. 10.1007/s10869-010-9189-y
(2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. 10.1037/a0028085
(1966). The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 3(1), 1–18. 10.1016/0022-2496(66)90002-2
(1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 1(4), 311–335. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1991.tb00023.x
(2015). Communication privacy management theory. In C. R. BergerM. E. RoloffS. R. WilsonJ. P. DillardJ. CaughlinD. Solomon (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–9). Wiley.
(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. 10.3102/10769986031004437
(2019). EPM 20/20: A review, framework, and research agenda for electronic performance monitoring. Journal of Management, 46(1), 100–126. 10.1177/0149206319869435
(2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 934–961. 10.5465/amr.2006.22527466
(2017). To reveal or conceal: Using communication privacy management theory to understand disclosures in the workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 429–446. 10.1177/0893318917692896
(2000). Reactions to employee performance monitoring: Framework, review, and research directions. Human Performance, 13(1), 85–113. 10.1207/S15327043HUP1301_4
(2003). Effects of workplace monitoring policies on potential employment discrimination and organizational attractiveness for African Americans in the technical professions. Journal of Black Psychology, 29(3), 257–274. 10.1177/0095798403254210
(2011). High reliability organizations (HROs). Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 25(2), 133–144. 10.1016/j.bpa.2011.03.001
(2014). mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(1), 1–38. 10.18637/jss.v059.i05
