The effects of performance monitoring and surveillance procedures on procedural justice, privacy invasion, and counterproductive behavioral intentions

Employees in the modern workplace are experiencing a fundamental shift in the nature of supervision with the increased use of performance monitoring and surveillance technologies. Consequently, the increase has led to questions about the impact of various performance monitoring and surveillance procedures on employees. Despite a recent surge in research on employee reactions, no known research links procedural aspects of the work activity and counterproductive behavioral intentions. Therefore, drawing on the extant research on traditional supervisory monitoring and feedback, as well as that of electronic performance monitoring, the purpose of this research is to answer the following questions: With respect to monitoring and surveillance, what factors influence counterproductive behavioral intentions? What is the role of procedural justice and privacy invasion?;The results of two experimental studies using a vignette-based methodology supported predictions that secret performance monitoring, with or without a technological surrogate, affords less control and is therefore perceived as more invasive, less procedurally just, and is more likely to result in rejection than performance monitoring that is not secret. The monitoring approach had a significant effect on the composite dependent variable in MANOVA representing procedural justice, privacy invasion, and counterproductive behavioral intentions. However, participants were no more likely to accept or reject monitoring and surveillance activities based on the simple presence or absence of technology. Also, individuals holding negative global attitudes toward electronic performance monitoring and surveillance reported significantly more privacy invasion and intentions to reject than individuals holding positive global attitudes toward electronic performance monitoring and surveillance. Contrary to hypotheses, results of statistical analyses demonstrated that offering a developmental purpose for monitoring and surveillance does not influence perceptions of procedural justice, privacy invasion, and intentions to reject such activities. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that positive attitudes and willingness to accept monitoring and surveillance activities can be fostered by providing mechanisms that inform people exactly when they are being monitored. In addition, these findings support the notion that perceptions of procedural justice and privacy invasion are important in relation to monitoring and surveillance activities, but may not be sufficient to ensure behavioral compliance and the prevention of counterproductive behavioral intentions.