EPM 20/20: A Review, Framework, and Research Agenda for Electronic Performance Monitoring

Abstract

Electronic performance monitoring (EPM) refers to the use of technological means to observe, record, and analyze information that directly or indirectly relates to job performance. The last comprehensive review of the EPM literature was published in 2000. Since 2000, dramatic advances in information technologies have created an environment in which organizations are able to monitor employees to a greater extent and with greater intensity than was previously possible. Moreover, since that time, considerable research has been devoted to understanding the effects of EPM on individual performance and attitudes. Contradictory findings in the EPM literature exist, suggesting that EPM is a multidimensional phenomenon and one for which contextual and psychological variables are pertinent. Thus, we propose a theory-based typology of EPM characteristics and use this typology as a framework to review the EPM literature and identify an agenda for future research and practice.

An Empirical Assessment of the Intrusiveness and Reasonableness of Emerging Work Surveillance Technologies in the Public Sector

“…Electronic performance monitoring (EPM), broadly speaking, is enabled by the omnipresence of digital devices in modern organizations as well as work patterns such as an increasing number of professional public sector employees who work remotely (Fusi and Feeney 2018). Whereas Taylor was limited to the performance that managers could surveil in person and with considerable human hours devoted to do so, EPM approaches can be continuous, discreet, intrusive, and conducted without warning or consent, and in many cases can be analyzed automatically (Ravid et al 2020). Ajunwa et al (2017) note a shift from what they call the more traditional “authoritarian surveillance” that was imposed from above to the more recent phenomenon of “participatory surveillance” whereby employees are asked or expected to use applications (apps) or digital workspaces that purport to be beneficial to them (e.g., wellness apps, productivity apps).…”

“…EPM has been studied since the 1980s, and whereas early studies were inconclusive on the relationship between the presence of EPM and performance or employee attitudes, contemporary research has discovered that there are many contingencies involved in this equation, in particular that employee effects from EPM depend on an interaction between the purpose, target, intensity, scope, and feedback mechanisms involved in the surveillance as well as individual‐level attributes of the employee, such as the person's trust in management (Ravid et al 2020). Furthermore, the same technology can be seen at times as caring or coercive, depending on the motivations perceived by workers (Anteby and Chan 2018, 248).…”

“…The digital revolution was already transforming traditional forms of surveillance—swinging by office desk, employing secret shoppers, using sign‐out boards—into potentially much more continuous, passive, and all‐encompassing surveillance in a context whereby so much of work exists in cyberspace (Ajunwa, Crawford, and Schultz 2017). This type of digital surveillance falls under the umbrella of electronic performance monitoring (EPM)—even if the purpose is not strictly for performance evaluation or enhancements—for which there is enormous diversity in terms of its frequency, purpose, scope, and transparency to the employee (Ravid et al 2020). The COVID‐19 pandemic has accelerated this trend and thus foists upon public sector work environments important questions about what digital work surveillance practices are reasonable intrusions on the privacy of employees.…”

Achieving Effective Remote Working During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Work Design Perspective

“…For example, participants in Study 1 mentioned the necessity of monitoring in remote working, which might not generalize across countries. Although limited empirical work has examined the potential influences of national culture on individuals’ attitudes toward workplace electronic monitoring (see Ravid et al, 2019 for a systematic review), Panina and Aiello (2005) proposed a theoretical model that emphasized how cultural factors (e.g., individualism‐collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance) are likely to mitigate the acceptance of electronic monitoring. Accordingly, cross‐cultural studies are needed to explore the generalizability of these findings, as well as how cultural factors shape the impacts of virtual work characteristics on remote worker outcomes.…”

Implications of COVID-19 for privacy at work

“…privacy is most intruded upon when monitoring is secretive (e.g., Zweig & Webster, 2003) or is used for surveillance purposes (i.e., monitoring with no clear purpose beyond a desire to collect information or assert control; Ravid et al, 2020). As such, organizations deciding to start using monitoring systems strictly out of fear that their employees will abuse affordances associated with remote work are likely to be perceived as privacy intrusive and may be met with decreased perceptions of procedural justice (McNall & Roch, 2007) and job satisfaction (Thompson et al, 2009) while also creating a more stressful work environment (Mallo et al, 2007) during an already highly stressful time.…”