Overview of Electronic Performance Monitoring Research

Each day we are given a record of our individual stats “ the primary indicators are calls taken, average talk time, percent of time in not ready, adherence to appropriate login and logout times at the start and end of the day and on lunches and breaks. (Personal communication with an electronically monitored employee, 2003)

Employees expect some form of supervision of their daily activities. However, as described above, when daily supervision is transformed into second-by-second tracking of behaviour, it is difficult to imagine that any monitoring system, regardless of its design, will lead to positive outcomes for employees. Nonetheless, research over two decades has revealed that adherence to system design characteristics that offer some respect to employees will lead to less negative outcomes.

Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to present a comprehensive review of the literature (for an excellent review, see Stanton, 2000), research evidence investigating electronically monitored employees versus non-monitored employees over the years suggests direct and indirect negative relationships among EPM use, attitudes such as job satisfaction, and health outcomes such as stress (Aiello & Kolb, 1995; Chalykoff & Kochan, 1989; Turner & Karasek, 1984). Furthermore, investigations that have considered the specific characteristics of EPM systems have found that certain system design factors can differentially influence monitored worker outcomes. For example, Stanton and Barnes-Farrell (1996) found that giving participants control over when monitoring takes place resulted in more favourable attitudes. Larson and Callahan (1990) demonstrated that workers could identify whether speed was valued over quality depending on the tasks being monitored, which influenced task performance. Finally, Niehoff and Moorman (1993) demonstrated that frequent monitoring led to fewer extra-role behaviours.

Taken together, the research examining monitored versus non-monitored employees and EPM system design factors suggests that organizations engaging in EPM should expect their employees to experience negative outcomes. However, the negative effects of EPM on employees can be mitigated if EPM systems are designed to offer employees some respect and control.

As evidence about the effects of EPM on employees mounted, efforts were made to develop a guiding framework to better understand the interactive effects of system design characteristics on employee outcomes. For example, Carayon (1993) integrated the existing research to propose 12 dimensions on which monitoring systems differ and can both directly and indirectly influence employee stress. Each of the 12 dimensions relates to a specific process such as characteristics of the information gathered (e.g., intensiveness), the method for gathering information (e.g., continuousness), and the use of information (e.g., comparisons among workers). Carayon suggested that based on this framework, monitoring systems could be designed to fall on a continuum of negative to positive consequences for stress. For example, EPM systems will be more stressful for employees if employers monitor every activity continuously (e.g., call pickup times and conversation recording) and make individual performance public.

Stanton (2000) offered a framework for examining employee reactions to monitoring that identified how organizational context factors (e.g., performance standards, justifications for monitoring) are related to monitoring characteristics (e.g., frequency, consistency). The monitoring characteristics, in turn , lead employees to form cognitions about monitoring (e.g., satisfaction, fairness perceptions). These monitoring cognitions result in reactions to the monitoring (e.g., acceptance) to create long- term outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, performance, intentions to quit). Stanton also posited that individual differences, such as locus of control and trust in management and supervisors, would moderate the relationships in his framework. He further identified a number of propositions for future research needed to fully address all of the elements in his framework. For example, Stanton suggested that more research was needed to understand the relationship between system characteristics and perceptions of invasiveness (privacy invasion). Yet, with the exception of a few recent studies that have examined some of Stanton s propositions (Alge, 2001; Zweig & Webster, 2002) and one study described below, no research has examined EPM using a comprehensive model that captures many of the relevant variables that influence reactions to monitoring.

As indicated, only one study has examined a combination of EPM system characteristics to determine their differential effects on employee attitudes. Grant and Higgins (1989) characterized EPM systems along four key dimensions: object (who is monitored), recipient (who receives monitoring data), tasks (what activities are monitored), and frequency of monitoring (continuous or intermittent). Using this framework, Grant and Higgins (1991) found that monitoring design characteristics did influence employee perceptions of the importance of production and service. Specifically, they found that EPM did not necessarily compromise service in favour of quantitative performance. Rather, a well-designed monitoring system that is accepted by employees will lead to higher levels of production and service. However, despite using a comprehensive framework, Grant and Higgins (1991) did not examine the influence of design characteristics on commonly investigated mediating variables such as fairness and privacy or outcomes such as satisfaction or stress.

In summary, the accumulated research evidence suggests that although electronic performance monitoring can enhance quantitative performance, it does have negative effects on employee stress, satisfaction, and ultimately turnover . Furthermore, adherence to certain system design characteristics that respect employees will lead to less negative outcomes for employees. However, many questions remain to be addressed. Primary among them is whether it is possible to design an EPM system that allows for the accomplishment of organizational goals while fully mitigating the negative effects on employees. Recent examinations of the importance of protecting the privacy and maintaining perceptions of fairness for monitored employees offer some answers.