Does the Experience of Organizational Justice Mitigate the Invasion of Privacy Engendered by Random Drug Testing? An Empirical Investigation

249

176

This article examines the relationship of employee perceptions of information privacy in their work organizations and important psychological and behavioral outcomes. A model is presented in which information privacy predicts psychological empowerment, which in turn predicts discretionary behaviors on the job, including creative performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Results from 2 studies (Study 1: single organization, N=310; Study 2: multiple organizations, N=303) confirm that information privacy entails judgments of information gathering control, information handling control, and legitimacy. Moreover, a model linking information privacy to empowerment and empowerment to creative performance and OCBs was supported. Findings are discussed in light of organizational attempts to control employees through the gathering and handling of their personal information.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a Dimension/items are from Eddy et al (1999), D. L. Stone & Kotch (1989), D. L. Stone (1981), and Tepper & Braun (1995), or based on the conceptual work in these studies.…”

Section: Study 1: Initial Analysis For Information Privacy Measuremen...mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance.

Alge¹,

Ballinger²,

Tangirala³

et al. 2006

249

176

“…Job safety sensitivity is the perceived danger that impaired performance on the job can have on oneself, one's coworkers, or the public (e.g., Murphy, Thornton, & Prue, 1991; Tepper, 1994). In terms of drug testing, safety sensitivity has been associated with more positive perceptions of organizational drug-testing fairness (Tepper, 1994; Tepper & Braun, 1995). In two separate studies, Murphy and colleagues (Murphy et al, 1991; Murphy et al, 1990) found that the danger associated with the job (i.e., safety sensitivity) was related to the acceptability of testing.…”

Section: Reactions To Drug Testing and Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, issues of invasiveness may be more salient (cf. Tepper & Braun, 1995). Second, reactions to treatment may differ from testing reactions because treatment implies that one has already tested positive for drug use.…”

Section: Drug Testing Versus Drug Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug testing, drug treatment, and marijuana use: A fairness perspective.

Paronto¹,

Truxillo²,

Bauer³

et al. 2002

The authors conducted a random statewide telephone survey of 1,484 individuals to study the relationship between marijuana use (in terms of participants' history of marijuana use) and reactions to drug testing and to study 2 hypothetical drug-treatment policies. Job safety sensitivity was related to perceived fairness of drug testing for the participant's job, and more recent marijuana use was associated with more negative reactions. Safety sensitivity was related to perceived fairness of drug treatment. Organizations with voluntary treatment were more attractive than ones with monitored treatment. Marijuana use interacted with drug treatment policy type in predicting reactions to drug treatment. Results suggest that organizations should consider job and employee characteristics when developing a drug treatment policy.

Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice.

Alge¹

2001

197

160

Electronic workplace surveillance is raising concerns about privacy and fairness. Integrating research on electronic performance monitoring, procedural justice, and organizational privacy, the author proposes a framework for understanding reactions to technologies used to monitor and control employees. To test the framework's plausibility. temporary workers performed computer/Web-based tasks under varying levels of computer surveillance. Results indicated that monitoring job-relevant activities (relevance) and affording those who were monitored input into the process (participation) reduced invasion of privacy and enhanced procedural justice. Moreover, invasion of privacy fully mediated the effect of relevance and partially mediated the effect of participation on procedural justice. The findings are encouraging for integrating theory and research on procedural justice and organizational privacy.