Fundamental Rights in Competition: Privacy vs. Fairness

For decades, research has demonstrated that both privacy and fairness concerns have independent effects on monitored employees. Recent investigations have shown that privacy and fairness play a dual role in determining employee reactions to EPM. However, if privacy rights at work continue to erode, we may reach the point where this fundamental right becomes eclipsed by a warped desire to maintain fairness in the degree of privacy invasion. Specifically, if employees have no privacy, they may be concerned with ensuring that no one else has privacy. For example, if my actions are monitored electronically , I want to know that all of my colleagues are monitored with the same level of consistency and with equal intensity to ensure that monitoring procedures and the distribution of outcomes are fair. Thus, maintaining equity in the pervasiveness of monitoring is more important to me than maintaining my right to privacy.

It is not difficult to envision what this skewed desire for fairness in the workplace might look like. Employees whose every action is monitored, will be focused on determining if their fellow co-workers are monitored with the same level of intensity. Outcomes are compared, and perceptions of fairness are established. Privacy is no longer important because no one has any. In this workplace, where nothing is private, employees might even monitor each other to maximize the distribution of outcomes. Does this sound far- fetched ? Below is a quote from an electronically monitored worker expressing her experiences with a recently implemented EPM system:

Some of the workers have begun to monitor other workers. One staff member is particularly fond of pointing out errors made by her co-workers. I think this type of thing will probably increase ” and will continue to erode trust and cooperation in the department. I find myself conscious of trying to avoid making mistakes now, not because I want to do a great job or satisfy the customer, but because my colleague may discover something I ve done wrong and run to the managers with it. (Personal communication with an electronically monitored employee, 2003)

There is something fundamentally wrong when workplace relationships with colleagues are reduced to this. But this might be the inescapable reality of electronic performance monitoring. It should not be surprising, then, that employees working in monitored environments are unlikely to engage in any behaviours other than those rewarded by the monitoring system. Furthermore, they might begin to engage in counterproductive behaviours designed to escape the constant gaze of monitoring.