Monitoring Online Training Behaviors: Awareness of Electronic Surveillance Hinders E‐Learners¹

Abstract

Web‐based training programs commonly capture data reflecting e‐learners' activities, yet little is known about the effects of this practice. Social facilitation theory suggests that it may adversely affect people by heightening distraction and arousal. This experiment examined the issue by asking volunteers to complete a Web‐based training program designed to teach online search skills. Half of participants were told their training activities would be tracked; the others received no information about monitoring. Results supported the hypothesized effects on satisfaction, performance, and mental workload (measured via heart rate variability). Explicit awareness of monitoring appeared to tax e‐learners mentally during training, thereby hindering performance on a later skills test. Additionally, e‐learners reported less satisfaction with the training when monitoring was made salient.

Fostering support for work floor energy conservation policies: Accounting for privacy concerns

“…On the contrary, as already noted by Altman (), privacy is an inherently valuable good worth protecting. Extensive monitoring of employee behavior bears the risk of decreased employee satisfaction (Moore, ; Spinello, ), impeded performance (Thompson et al, ), and loss of creativity (Alge et al, ). Organizations that value both sustainable development and employee well‐being should therefore carefully balance the benefits of electronic monitoring with potential risks before deciding upon implementation (Bies, ; Culnan & Bies, ; Kenneth, Jordan, Tansey, & Framinan, ; Milberg et al, ).…”

“…Although the utilization of electronic monitoring technologies may—by enabling specific incentives and feedback—help the organization in reducing its environmental footprint, one barrier preventing their implementation is concerns about privacy. Extensive monitoring of employee behavior (e.g., recording keystrokes, emails, or employee availability) has been argued to create unpleasant psychological states in employees (e.g., fear, stress, distraction, loss of control, feelings of unfairness), making the organization a less satisfying and stimulating place to work in (Moore, ; Smith & Tabak, ; Spinello, ; Thompson, Sebastianelli, & Murray, ; Zweig & Webster, ). Likewise, it is conceivable that employees will not accept electronic monitoring of specific conservation behaviors.…”

“…It is pivotal for organizations to take employees' privacy concerns seriously: a lack of employee privacy may result in adverse consequences, including decreased employee performance (Thompson et al, ), a loss of creativity, and decreased willingness to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala, & Oakley, ). Organizations thus need to consider whether gathering information on employee conservation behaviors is appropriate and legitimate, given that extensive monitoring could negatively affect employee well‐being and performance (cf.…”

Watch Out-Its My Private Space! Examining the Influence of Technology Driven Intrusions on Employee Performance

“…Research on evaluation apprehension suggests that individuals often become worried when their work is being evaluated by others, more so if they are trying out new things. Thus, from a control perspective, the employees may not have a private creative space, and continuous evaluation may cause performance stress and inhibit them from taking risks [47]. Because the locus of control in the case of visibility is external to the employees, they may not be motivated to try new ideas.…”

“…The non-support of this hypothesis is possibly because even though better learning of standardized jobs is facilitated by visibility, employees may experience cognitive overload causing stress, thus limiting employees' learning outcomes, increasing mistakes and hampering productivity [47]. The possibility of close evaluation and monitoring, due to visibility may weaken the employees' initiative, and thus negatively influence productivity [48].…”