Conclusion

We have presented the results of three separate pieces of research, all of which indicate a degree of acceptance (within certain limits) of the employer s right to use various forms of surveillance in the workplace. We have reviewed the reasons why surveillance may be considered to be problematic , and we have speculated as to why the subjects of the three studies do not appear to be aware of the negative potential of workplace surveillance. There remains the question that if employees are not concerned , what is the relevance of the findings of academics working in this area?

The fact that employees are not concerned, or have not experienced an abuse of information gathered about them, does not mean that a problem does not exist or that abuse might not happen in the future. At the same time, academics that have raised concerns need to understand better why these concerns are not shared by the individuals involved. There are a number of fruitful avenues for further research.

First, we need to know the answer to the question How representative are the findings of the three studies reported here? The last study suggests that attitudes towards workplace surveillance may be context-dependent and may be moderated by age and experience. Work within a variety of organisations with different levels of employee surveillance could help determine whether, and to what extent, this is the case. It would be helpful to discover what other factors may affect employee attitudes; for example, the effect of organisational culture, the country of employment, nationality or religion of the employee, or specific incidents in the workplace where data gathered about employees has been used to their detriment or advantage. There may be differences of views between employees working at different levels of seniority , within particular functional areas, or in various industries.

Should an apparent lack of concern be discovered to be widespread, the reasons for this need to be determined. If surveillance is accepted within certain limits, as suggested by the studies reported here, then a debate is required concerning what those limits are, who has the right to determine them, and whether limits are situationally specific (e.g., whether they might vary between a financial institution, a branch of the defence industry, a retail outlet). If employees are unaware of the potential negative effects of being subjected to surveillance, these effects could be brought to their attention and their attitudes subsequently revisited to examine whether lack of awareness is an influencing factor.

Among possible negative effects is the threat to the autonomy of the individual. Given the levels of surveillance within society at large and in the workplace, the individual living in a developed country has lost control of who holds data about them and how it is being used. There is evidence of high levels of stress in contemporary Western society in general and in the workplace in particular. There is likely to be a complex set of reasons for this phenomenon , but it may well be that surveillance is a contributing factor. Another prevalent issue is the erosion of social trust (O Neill, 2002), already well underway before, but exacerbated by the events of September 11, 2001 (Lyon, 2003). Whether a society where every individual is seen as a potential threat until checked out, and a workplace where every employee is considered to be potentially untrustworthy, are psychologically healthy environments is open to serious question. There is an irony in the apparent trust that some employees place in their employers not to abuse the data that they gather about them, yet the lack of trust of the employer is evidenced by the level of surveillance.

If the philosophical, psychological, and sociological arguments against surveillance are not accepted, there is the pragmatic argument that it is not good for business. Many organisations depend on the creativity of their employees; subjecting them to surveillance may inhibit the very qualities for which they have been hired . An interesting area for investigation would be to examine whether the most innovative and successful organisations are, indeed, those where levels of trust and mutual respect between groups of employees are high and levels of electronic surveillance low.

A feature of the various electronic networks that gather data about the citizen and the employee is that they capture a snippet of information at a given moment in time, which is far from capturing a complete picture of a complex human individual. These snippets are used to categorise people for particular purposes; for example, to determine to what level of insurance (if any) they are entitled (Lyon, 2003). In the workplace, such snippets could be used to unfairly categorise an employee as someone who is under-performing because of time spent away from a workstation, when, in fact, there may be a number of explanations for the observed behaviour.

Observing snapshots of isolated aspects of an individual diminishes his or her human dignity . However, a part of respecting human individuals is to acknowledge their right to their own opinion and not to impose on them a particular point of view. Academics concerned about the negative effects of workplace surveillance need to engage in debate with those involved, to raise awareness of the negative potential to counterbalance the prevalent attitude of acceptance, and to further research this rich and complex area.