CASE STUDY:

Introduction

This article gives readers a broad overview of the most recent developments, critical problems,
and workplace monitoring procedures. In the workplace, surveillance refers to management's
ability to view, record, and track employees' outputs, behaviors, and unique qualities either in
real-time (for example, through the Internet or telephone monitoring) or as part of wider
organizational processes (for example, drug testing in recruitment). Typically, the employment
of surveillance techniques in businesses serves to restrict access to various levels of the
organizational structure and to the organization itself.

In many ways, it is more beneficial to see workplace monitoring as operant at various levels of
analysis, with specific implications for certain employee groups.
Moving on to employer surveillance methods, there are several ways that the data gathered
from watching employees are put to use. Employee performance can lead to conclusions that
sometimes affect not just how they behave at work but also how they live their lives outside of
it. From computer and phone logging to drug testing, mystery shopping, closed-circuit
television, movement tracking, and electronic recruitment, a variety of approaches are used.
Although manufacturing and several basic industries also monitor their personnel, the service
sector employs the most monitoring methods.
The inference is that workplace monitoring is first and foremost a need and thereafter a typical,
accepted aspect of working life. Employees anticipate having their performance evaluated,
having goals established, and having information gathered about their locations and activities;
in fact, this is regarded as excellent managerial practice. First, when employer monitoring of
employees goes beyond what is reasonable or necessary (i.e., when employers use intrusive
monitoring to look into the lives of employees outside of work); second, when employers
demand exact and precise information regarding how employees use their time; and third,
when the use of monitoring compromises working practices and negatively affects current
levels of control, autonomy, and trust.

Workplace monitoring is evolving in three different directions: through the growing use of
personal data, biometrics, and covert surveillance. With the increasing use of human resource
information systems in recent years, the usage of personal data on current and potential
workers has increased. According to survey results, electronic personnel records are utilized in
businesses in a variety of normal ways, and the data isn't exposed to a lot of analysis or
modification. 9 However, as the use of the Internet for recruiting is increasing, some businesses
are already data-mining CV databases and conducting online eavesdropping on potential
applicants and rivals' websites.

These types of searches are now being carried out for employers by third-party suppliers. More
and more covert methods are being utilized to join user chat groups to look for possible
candidates or to get covert access to businesses' intranets (referred to as "flipping"). Although
e-recruitment is expanding in the UK, just 7% of the whole recruiting industry was Internet-
based in 2004. There are 20 million CVs maintained in databases in the US, and the
pornographic business is the second-largest source of revenue for providers in the Internet
recruiting sector.

Email correspondence between employees is another thing that is secretly watched.

Because private conversations may contain sensitive information (such as a credit card
number), because this information may be stored on offshore servers that are subject to
different laws, and because of the relative coverage and broadcast of pertinent policy,
employers' ability to record and store employee communications raises privacy concerns.
Regarding covert surveillance, it might be difficult to determine what is appropriate policy.
There is substantial disagreement over whether businesses must inform employees in general
that they may be affected by it or if this may be avoided completely. For instance, in Australia, a
magistrate must approve any covert employee surveillance before it may be carried out.

In the UK, a company may secretly intercept employee communications if it is defending a

"legitimate interest" under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, provided
that it also complies with the Data Protection Act's provisions. For instance, there are
individuals who contend that mystery shopping is unethical due to the degree of dishonesty,
compromise, and lack of permission involved. Opinions are divided on this issue. 15 Others
contend that businesses must inform employees of the findings of mystery shopping in a way
that does not jeopardize the study.
Practically speaking, there are three basic reasons why businesses keep an eye on their
workers. First, companies want to keep up productivity and keep an eye on how employees are
using resources. They also seek to safeguard business interests and trade secrets.
In order to protect against the hazards of defamation, sabotage, data theft, and hacking, email,
Internet monitoring, and information access control are all used. Finally, monitoring might
shield the business from responsibilities under the law. Employee monitoring findings can be
used as evidence in court cases, and they can also be used as a risk-management tool.
Therefore, businesses utilize personnel monitoring to save expense and risk, safeguard value,
and preserve quality. However, excessive surveillance may be harmful to workers for a variety
of reasons. To start, workers' privacy may be jeopardized if their information is broadcast to
unidentified third parties without their consent. 17
In a study of teleworkers, David Zweig and Jane Webster found that employees believed some
information about their physical presence was off-limits to employers.
18 Employee surveillance technology can display "function creep," like any surveillance
technology, which is the second reason why excessive monitoring could be harmful to workers.
This is due to the fact that monitoring technology may provide more information than
anticipated, and management must resist the urge to expand monitoring practices without first
consulting personnel.

This is crucial if the data will be used to determine compensation or promotion choices. The
third argument is that creative behavior may be diminished if employees are concerned about
being watched and judged if they are aware that their interactions and actions are being
tracked. The fourth argument is that strict supervision gives employees a clear indication of the
kinds of behaviors the employer appreciates or expects. Just by selecting which duties to track,
the company communicates with its employees. According to research, workers will give the
monitored activities more attention and give the reinforced behaviors more weight since they
are seen as more important or useful than the non-monitored ones.

The form that is used to monitor submissions also conveys messages about the value of
teamwork and the preference for quality over quantity. 20 As a result, employees may exhibit
less commitment and motivation because they behave in a docile and accepting manner. This is
known as "anticipatory conformity." 21 Additionally, there is a chance that trust will decline.
For instance, a qualitative study conducted by Alan F. Westin in 1992 found that a lack of
management communication and management's failure to undertake participatory monitoring
harmed trust relationships. 22 However, no systematic studies measuring the effect of
increasing surveillance on trust have yet been conducted. This is primarily due to the challenges
associated with quantifying trust as a variable.

Finally, overzealous surveillance occasionally results in the actions it was intended to curtail. If
employees believe that surveillance methods are getting worse
. It is anticipated that they will attempt to evade and manipulate the restrictions on when,
when, and how they are measured. At: 10:01 April 27, 2010 and extension of control. 23
Studies on call centers show that management non-compliance, resistance, and sabotage rise
with increased surveillance. 24 In this setting, employees are closely observed for both their
quantitative results as well as their overall competence and their telephone manner.

There is widespread agreement in psychological studies that the relative impacts of monitoring
on employees are not predetermined and are influenced by a variety of factors. These elements
have to do with how managers and supervisors structure work to lessen or balance the
emphasis on monitoring, as well as how they interact with their staff while monitoring is taking
place. Task design, supervisory approach, and employee monitoring cognition are all crucial,
according to Jeffrey M. Stanton. He also demonstrates how organizational factors might
influence the manner in which monitoring is done.
Whether the worker has control over the timing and tempo of their duties is one of the job
design considerations.

Furthermore, continuous monitoring is more likely to be harmful than intermittent monitoring

that occurs at regular intervals.
The job must be easily quantifiable in order for monitoring to be effective; any components that
are challenging to measure must be assessed using other metrics. Similar to this, monitoring
will be less unpleasant for the employee if they are evaluated as a member of the group rather
than individually.
More significantly, the observer should pay attention to the psychological and emotional
situations of the workers rather than making a general judgment based just on statistics.

Having a good supervisory style is crucial. It's best to approach performance variations with an
open mind. According to an earlier study by Kulik and Ambrose, supervisors are less inclined to
change their initial assessment of an employee if monitoring yields a poor result. This result is in
line with research that shows that negative information and attitudes receive more attention,
have more effect, and are stronger than positive ones (including impressions). The fact that
employees frequently come to the same conclusions in these circumstances is equally essential
to this. Employee resistance and retribution are possible outcomes of such mistrust. These
processes may lead to an intensifying cycle of surveillance and resistance.