واکنش کارکنان به نظارت عملکرد الکترونیکی : نتیجه فرهنگ سازمانی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3996||2001||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2001, Pages 323–342
Research recognizes that reactions to monitoring may be moderated by several factors, but ignores the role of organizational culture. This paper argues that bureaucratic cultures will respond more favorably to monitoring than supportive cultures. Involving employees in designing the system, monitoring groups, and restricting monitoring to performance-related activities may improve attitudes toward monitoring in supportive cultures.
Organizations are naturally interested in monitoring their employees' performance. Employee performance monitoring permits organizations to assess whether or not the organization is getting what it is paying for. Monitoring also permits supervisors to obtain valuable performance information that can be used for employee development. Thus, organizations have monitored their employees for centuries (US Congress, 1987). However, recent advances in electronic technology are transforming the nature of employee performance monitoring. In contrast to supervisory monitoring, electronic performance monitoring (EPM) is constant, pervasive, and unblinking. Not surprisingly, an increasing number of organizations are turning to EPM in an effort to increase the effectiveness of their monitoring efforts. In 1987, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) estimated that 6 million US workers were electronically monitored (US Congress, 1987). Recent estimates indicate that at least 40 million US workers may be subject to electronic monitoring (Botan, 1996) and that as many as 75% of large companies electronically monitor their employees (American Management Association, 2000). It is also not surprising that the extensive and growing use of EPM engenders considerable debate among business groups, employee advocate groups, and politicians Greenlaw & Prundeanu, 1997, Hays, 1999 and Kovach et al., 2000. For example, proponents of EPM argue that it is an indispensable tool that benefits both organizations and their employees. There are a number of reasons why organizations view electronic monitoring as an economic necessity. For example, EPM can help increase productivity, improve quality and service, and reduce costs. Organizations may also monitor employees for reasons less directly related to job performance. For example, monitoring may help businesses avoid legal liability, negative publicity, and security breeches Stanton & Weiss, 2000 and Williams, 2000. Proponents of monitoring also argue that the practice may benefit employees by producing more objective performance appraisals and improved feedback Angel, 1989, Henriques, 1986a and Henriques, 1986b. Critics counter that EPM invades consumer and employee privacy, decreases job satisfaction, increases stress, and engenders work environments characterized by diminished trust and negative work relationships Greengard, 1996, Lewis, 1999 and Piturro, 1989. They frequently refer to monitoring systems with descriptors like “Big Brother,” “Orwellian,” “electronic sweatshops,” and “electronic whips” Bylinsky, 1991, Garson, 1988, Lewis, 1999, Nussbaum & duRivage, 1986 and Schulhof, 1998. As a result of this intense debate over the costs and benefits of EPM, a number of US senators and members of Congress have proposed legislation intended to restrict the amount of monitoring organizations can conduct (see DeTienne & Alder, 1995 and Mishra & Crampton, 1998 for reviews). The wide divergence of opinion concerning EPM suggests that employees may not react the same way to monitoring across all settings. Instead, a number of factors may influence workers' reactions to EPM. Unfortunately, there is little theoretical explanation as to why individuals may respond differently in some cases than in others. I argue that the literature on organizational culture may provide a key piece to this puzzle. Specifically, I argue that employee reactions to EPM will vary as a function of organizational culture and that certain types of organizational cultures will be more receptive to EPM than will other types. I further suggest that EPM will be more successful when organizations design, implement, and utilize EPM systems in a manner consistent with the organization's culture. Below, I first review the literature on EPM. Subsequently, I discuss research on organizational culture. Then, I examine the link between EPM and culture. Finally, I discuss implications of this integration for practice and research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Extensive and growing use of EPM generates considerable debate. As a result, a growing stream of research attempts to identify the factors that may influence employee reactions to monitoring. Research demonstrates that organizational culture exerts significant influence on employee attitudes and reactions to organizations' practices and procedures. By extension, organizational culture is likely an important factor influencing employees' behavioral and attitudinal reactions to EPM. This paper indicates that employee reactions to EPM may differ depending on the organization's culture. Specifically, monitoring may run counter to supportive organizational cultures. Thus, the implementation of EPM may be expected to produce negative attitudes and behaviors in organizations with supportive cultures. However, electronic technology may still provide supportive organizations with a valuable monitoring tool provided these organizations consider four critical system dimensions. First, supportive organizations can reinforce the spirit of collaboration by involving employees in the design and implementation of the monitoring system. Second, supportive organizations may similarly reinforce attitudes of cooperation by monitoring groups rather than individuals. Third, supportive organizations will ensure optimum perceptions of fairness when they strike a balance between too little and too much monitoring. Monitoring in these cultures should collect enough information to assist employee development efforts without becoming excessive. Finally, employees of supportive organizational cultures will respond more favorably when monitoring is restricted to activities that are clearly linked to task performance. Inasmuch as these actions are consistent with a supportive culture, they may be expected to enhance fairness, improve employees' attitudes toward monitoring, and thereby enable organizations to reap the potentially powerful positive benefits associated with monitoring. Although this paper focuses on the relationship between organizational culture and the perceived fairness of electronic monitoring, another intriguing potential implication concerns the necessity for monitoring in the first place. The behavioral norms and expectations underlying strong organizational cultures exert powerful influences on employee behaviors and attitudes Cooke & Rousseau, 1988 and Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983. Consequently, when an organization's culture is sufficiently strong and productive (Akin & Hopelain, 1986), that culture may effectively serve a self-monitoring role and render electronic monitoring nugatory. In such instances, it may be preferable for management to refrain from electronically monitoring employees and thus altogether avoid the risk of negative attitudinal and behavioral reactions to electronic monitoring.