Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Organizational Studies
http://jlo.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Monitoring Be Fair?
Exploring Relationships Among Monitoring
Characteristics, Perceived Fairness, and Job
Performance
Robert H. Moorman
Deborah L. Wells
was
of contextual performance. However, the bestfitting path model did not support any linkages to
task performance.
Electronic performance monitoring (EPM)
systems use electronic technologies to collect,
store, analyze, or report the actions or performance
of individuals on the job (Nebeker & Tatum,
1993). Methods of EPM include telephone call
presented
at the 2003
Meetings of the
Midwest
Academy of
Bennett, 1994; Stanton, 2000b; Stanton & BamesFarrell, 1996). This study is designed to provide at
least a partial answer to the question, &dquo;What
features can be built into EPM systems so that they
seem fair to employees, and how might those
features impact employee performance?&dquo;
Study Setting
We assessed the perceived fairness of a call
monitoring system used to assess customer service
performance in a call center. This system was set
up to
of EPM
of
design the call
used
at
our
research site, we
monitoring system
were able to assess employee perceptions of four of
these proposed system characteristics: feedback
tone, opportunities to challenge, link to incentive
systems, and amount of monitoring.
measure
monitoring system.
Link to Incentive Systems assesses the
the
degree
employees believe the information
the
call monitoring system is used to
gathered by
determine performance-based rewards.
4.
Amount of Monitoring assesses the
employees judgment as to whether the amount of
monitoring is sufficient. Too little monitoring does
not give enough information to render fair
judgments; too much monitoring may be too
invasive and may set up what they cited as an
&dquo;atmosphere of suspicion&dquo; (Alder, 2001; Ambrose
3.
&
Alder, 2000).
system fairness.
Perceived Characteristics of
Performance Monitoring Systems and
Job Performance
We defined and measured job performance
using Borman and Motowidlos (1993)
Task
are
context in
performed (Van
performance.
However, Julian and Stanton (2001) report
that performance monitoring can also influence
task performance even if the information gathered
is not used in motivation efforts. Drawing on the
work of Larson and Callahan (1990), they used
social information processing theory to explain
how the practice of monitoring could influence
performance by providing social cues as to which
aspects of performance are most important and
most deserving of effort (Salancik &
Pfeffer,
be
The
could
related
to the
monitoring
1978).
certain
of
behaviors
because
performance
simply
the monitoring could affect the salience and
importance of those behaviors in the eyes of
employees.
Characteristics of
monitoring such
as
the
performance
performance.
H2b:
by the call
Although
between
relationship
and
task
social
information
performance,
processing theory
does not imply that EPM characteristics should
necessarily influence contextual performance.
Unlike task performance, the monitoring system
may not provide cues for contextual performance
because such performance may not be directly
monitored. Contextual performance is not part of
the core requirements of the job, nor is its
performance directly related to the organizations
reward system (Organ, 1988). In other words,
monitoring may have a direct effect on task
performance, but would not be expected to have a
direct effect on contextual performance.
However, lack of a direct effect does not
necessarily mean that EPM characteristics would
have no effect on contextual performance. The
effect could be indirect through its relationship
with perceived fairness.
Past research on
organizational citizenship behaviors has
established a robust and positive relationship
between perceptions of fairness and OCB (Farh,
Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990; Konovsky & Pugh,
1994; Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Blakely, &
Niehoff, 1998; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Organ
& Moorman, 1993). Organ (1988) and others have
explained this relationship as the result of the norm
of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) where employees
would seek to reciprocate fair treatment with some
form of increased participation and performance.
If employees believe the use of a performance
monitoring system is fair, they may reciprocate
such fair treatment with increased contextual
performance. In fact, given the constraints on task
performance found in the types of jobs that are
typically monitored electronically, employees in
such jobs may have more freedom to vary their
levels of contextual performance as a response to
the perceived fairness or unfairness of the EPM
system. Thus, it is possible that there will be
stronger relationships with contextual performance
than with task performance.
To test these ideas, our third hypothesis is that
the perceived fairness of the EPM system will be
related to contextual performance and our fourth
hypothesis is that characteristics of EPM systems
will predict dimensions of contextual performance
indirectly through perceptions of system fairness.
H3:
Perceptions of EPM system fairness
will be related to contextual performance.
H4:
Characteristics of an EPM system
will only be indirectly related to contextual
performance through perceptions of system
fairness.
Methods
Subjects
Three hundred
N=251.
Measures
Electronic Performance Monitoring
System Characteristics
Four of the ten possible dimensions of an
electronic performance monitoring system
developed by Ambrose and Alder (2000) and
described above served as the basis for our
measure of EPM characteristics.
7
Feedback Tone: Four items: &dquo;The feedback I
received from the call monitoring system was clear
and understandable,&dquo; &dquo;I received feedback from
the call monitoring system in a timely fashion,&dquo; &dquo;I
receive useful feedback from the call monitoring
system,&dquo; and &dquo;The feedback I receive from the call
monitoring system does not help me improve my
performance (reverse scored).&dquo; Coefficient alpha
.73.
Opportunities to Challenge: Four items:
&dquo;There is no way for me to appeal how the
information collected by the call monitoring
system is interpreted by the quality assurance
representative&dquo; (reversed scored), &dquo;There are
informal mechanisms in place that allow me to
appeal the information collected by the call
monitoring system,&dquo; &dquo;If I disagree with how the
information collected by the call monitoring
system is interpreted, the company will respond to
my concerns,&dquo; and &dquo;My quality assurance
representative listens to any concerns I might have
about the information collected by the call
monitoring system.&dquo; Coefficient alpha = .73.
Link to Incentive Systems:
Two items:
&dquo;Information gathered by the call monitoring
system is linked to my compensation, such as
annual pay raises,&dquo; &dquo;Information gathered by the
call monitoring system is used by my supervisor
when determining rewards that I may receive.&dquo;
Coefficient alpha = .68.
Amount of Monitoring: Select one of three
statements that best represents your opinion about
the amount of monitoring. &dquo;The amount of call
monitoring done by the company is sufficient to
get an accurate assessment of my work.&dquo; &dquo;The
amount of call monitoring done by the company is
too little to get an accurate assessment of my
work.&dquo; &dquo;The amount of call monitoring done by
the company is more than necessary to get an
accurate assessment of my work.&dquo; We recoded
these responses so that &dquo;too little&dquo; or &dquo;too much&dquo;
would be a &dquo;1&dquo; and &dquo;sufficient&dquo; would be scored a
&dquo;2.&dquo; In order to determine whether &dquo;too much&dquo;
monitoring would predict different results than
&dquo;too little,&dquo; we also report the results of a one-way
ANOVA.
We assessed the fit of our data to a model that
included three characteristics measured with
multiple indicators using confirmatory factor
analyses from AMOS 4 (Arbuckle & Wothke,
1999). The three-factor model included feedback
=
system
perceived
was
Job Performance
Job performance was measured by asking the
of each employee who completed a
survey to assess his or her task and contextual
performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Task
performance was measured specific to the jobs
being sampled following the methods described by
Van Scotter et al. (2000). Seven items were drawn
from the performance appraisal form used by the
company to assess employee behaviors that were
associated with the core technical aspects of the
job (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). These seven
items were: identifies the customers needs and
responds appropriately, delivers the correct
supervisors
being
Sample items for Job Dedication
in
include, &dquo;puts extra hours to get work done on
time,&dquo; &dquo;asks for a challenging work assignment,&dquo;
and &dquo;persists in overcoming obstacles to complete
a task.&dquo; The coefficient alpha for Interpersonal
Facilitation was .91 and the coefficient alpha for
Job Dedication was .92. A confirmatory factor
analysis of the measurement model that included2
the three performance dimensions resulted in a X
score of 839.1 for 206 degrees of freedom (p <
.001 ), indicating a good fit. The NFI was .96; the
TLI was .97; the CFI was .97; and the RMSEA
Results
asked.&dquo;
was
.094.
Analyses
We used AMOS 4 (Arbuckle & Wothke,
1999) to assess the fit of three models that would
allow us to test our hypotheses. We first tested the
fully saturated model (Model 1 ) containing paths
among all included variables. We then assessed a
model (Model 2) that represents our hypothesized
model. This model constrained the direct paths
from the EPM characteristics to the two contextual
performance dimensions, the path from
opportunities to challenge to task performance, and
the path from perceived fairness to task
performance . The hypothesized model maintained
the paths from EPM characteristics and perceived
fairness (HI), the three hypothesized paths from
113
83
.~
:11:~
......
-0
C,3
(D
(1)
&dquo;;j
U
en
7J
ae
t0T
.9
ne
tS
<u
a)
..0 0
Cd
&
as
U
©
&dquo;0
8
T3
51
0
U
N
II
ai
00
51
09
...
-0
-~8
9
#
/jII
Q)
;:I
C-1)
-qf
t%
w
:: r/)
0
; CO
o~
~U
)Z )o #s~s
O
)tififl,
c~n ~ M . b4 4 -., .~ U
s S ~ ~ !&dquo;~8
.s S-5
IIn oE -5x: s
I~~=
OO
~x U ::
s©
z ii *oI o
,00.c - ~
10
Structural Model
Comparisons
the ~
on x
significant paths.
Table 2
Model Comparisons
111
The third and final model evaluated
was
the
NFI
well.
for both
in
Table
3. The
reported
significant paths in the fully mediated model
support both hypotheses 1 and 3. Significant paths
in the fully mediated model include the path from
feedback tone to perceived fairness (standardized
are
Table 3
Path Coefficients for Hypothesized Relationships
;:,to;:nr1o;:rr117pr1 Rpto;:
***
p <.001 1
1
**p<.O1
*p<.05
12
Figure
Amount of
1: Standardized Paths in
Monitoring
On the other
To
assess
further the hypothesized
relationships among amount of monitoring,
perceived fairness of the monitoring system, and
job performance, we also conducted a one-way
ANOVA comparing the means of the job
performance dimensions and perceived fairness for
the three categories of amount. A sufficient
amount of monitoring was category 1, too little
monitoring was category 2, and too much
monitoring was category 3.
For perceived fairness, the overall F test
suggesting that the means are different was
significant (F (2,296) 16.37, p < .001). The
mean fairness score for category 1 (sufficient) was
3 .51; the mean fairness score for category 2 (too
little) was 2.91; and the mean fairness score for
category 3 (too much) was 3.11. Planned
comparisons using SNK were significant at alpha
categories
categories
13
characteristics to fairness.
monitoring performance.
These results are consistent with those of Alge
(2001), who found that the system characteristics
of participation and relevance influenced the
degree subjects perceived the system to be fair.
Similarly, Alge, Ballinger, and Smithson (2001)
showed that the degree of notice subjects received
about whether their behavior was being monitored
influenced whether they perceived the system as
fair. Alder and Ambrose (2000) reported that
whether participants could control when they
received the feedback, whether the feedback was
constructive, and whether the feedback came from
a supervisor or the computer all influenced the
perceived fairness of the computer monitoring
system.
Taken together, our results and the results of
other studies suggest that monitoring systems can
be designed and implemented in ways that
employees consider fair. Research results cited
earlier that suggest that electronic monitoring
would increase employee stress and reduce privacy
(Aiello & Kolb, 1995; Aiello & Shao, 1993; Alge,
2001; Irving, Higgins, & Safayeni, 1986; Nebeker
& Tatum, 1993) may reflect more the manner in
which the monitoring is performed than the nature
of the monitoring itself. Electronic systems can be
designed and implemented that collect needed
information and communicate that information
back to employees constructively and fairly.
We also found support for our hypotheses that
EPM characteristics would influence contextual
performance, but only indirectly through
perceptions of fairness. We hypothesized no direct
link between EPM system characteristics and
contextual performance because the monitoring
system did not directly assess contextual
performance and thus would not provide any social
cues as to the importance of such performance.
However,
14
amount to be
upon
workplace.
Although not intended, our discrepant
findings concerning task and contextual
performance demonstrate the value of tapping both
types of measures when evaluating individual
employee performance (Wemer, 1994). Although
related to
one
Contributions
resource
of various human
management practices to increase the
perceived fairness and acceptance of electronic
performance monitoring by employees. Since we
assessed perceptions of the characteristics, our
results suggest that managers might find value in
making even greater efforts to communicate the
design and purpose of electronic monitoring
systems. For instance, realistic job previews might
use
15
the &dquo;fair&dquo; characteristics of the EPM
system. Also, orientation and training programs
could include explanations of the reasons why
monitoring is conducted and how the information
that is collected will be used.
In conclusion, our findings suggest that it is
possible to design EPM systems that will be seen
as fair by the employees subject to them. It is also
likely that in the presence of a fair system,
employees will engage in desirable contextual
performance, such as assisting colleagues, showing
concern and care, and putting in extra hours to get
an important job done. Given the value of creating
workplaces that motivate contextual performance,
we encourage managers who use electronic means
to assess performance to continue to work to
ensure the fair design and implementation of these
highlight
systems.
Ambrose, M. L. &
in
Personnel
and
Human
Resources
Management, 18,187-219.
American
American Management Association (2001).
Management Association survey of workplace
monitoring and surveillance: Policies and practice.
AMA, New York.
Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988).
equation modeling
in
practice:
two-step approach.
recommended
Structural
A review and
Psychological
References
J. R. (1993). Computer-based work monitoring:
Electronic surveillance and its effects. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 23, 499-507.
Aiello, J. R. & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance
monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity
and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 339353.
Aiello, J. R. & Shao, Y. (1993). Electronic performance
monitoring and stress: The role of feedback and goal
setting. In: M. J. Smith, & G. Salvendy (Eds.), HumanComputer Interaction: Applications and Case Studies
(pp. 1011-1016). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Alder, G. S. (1998). Ethical issues in electronic performance
monitoring: A consideration of deontological and
teleological perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics,
Aiello,
17, 729-743.
Alder, G. S. (2001).
performance.
Cheung,
G. W. &
Rensvold,
R. B.
(2002).
Evaluating
goodness-of-fit
16(8), 43-45.
DeTienne, K. B. (1993). Big brother or friendly coach?
st century. The Futurist,
Computer monitoring in the 21
27,33-37.
Douthitt, E. A., & Aiello, J. R. (2001). The role of
(1992). A
Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R.
due process metaphor for performance appraisal.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 129-177.
16
A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A
preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,
Gouldner,
25, 161-179.
Ilgen,
Taylor, M. S. (1979).
Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349371.
Marsh,
H.
MacDonald,
R. P.
(1988).
organizational justice
and
organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee
citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845855.
Moonnan,
10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior:
The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA:
Books.
Lexington
Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and
organizational citizenship behavior: What are the
connections? Social Justice Research, 6, 5-18.
Parenti, C. (2001). Big brothers corporate cousin. The
Nation, 273(5), 26-31.
Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information
processing approach to job attitudes and task design.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 223 - 253.
Schleifer, L. M., Galinsky, T. L., & Pan, C. S. (1995). Mood
disturbance and musculoskeletal discomfort effects of
electronic performance monitoring in a VDT data entry
task. In: S. L. Sauter & L. R. Murphy (Eds.),
Organizational risk factors for job stress (pp. 195203). Washington D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Stanton, J. M. (2000a). Reactions to employee performance
Framework, review and research
monitoring:
directions. Human Performance, 13, 85-113.
Stanton, J. M. (2000b). Traditional and electronic monitoring
from an organizational justice perspective. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 15, 129-146.
Stanton, J. M. & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (1996). Effects of
electronic performance monitoring on personal control,
task satisfaction, and task performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 738-745.
Thibaut, J. W. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: a
psychological analysis. New York: Erlbaum/Halstead.
Van Scotter, J. R., Motowildo, S. J, & Cross, T. C. (2000).
Effects of task performance and contextual performance
on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 526-535.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference:
Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole
behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied