Navigating the Transparency–Privacy Paradox in Public Sector Data Sharing

Abstract

Using data from embedded participant-observers and a field experiment at the second largest mobile phone factory in the world, located in China, I theorize and test the implications of transparent organizational design on workers' productivity and organizational performance. Drawing from theory and research on learning and control, I introduce the notion of a transparency paradox, whereby maintaining observability of workers may counterintuitively reduce their performance by inducing those being observed to conceal their activities through codes and other costly means; conversely, creating zones of privacy may, under certain conditions, increase performance. Empirical evidence from the field shows that even a modest increase in group-level privacy sustainably and significantly improves line performance, while qualitative evidence suggests that privacy is important in supporting productive deviance, localized experimentation, distraction avoidance, and continuous improvement. I discuss implications of these results for theory on learning and control and suggest directions for future research.

Intellectual foundations and mainstream research of e-government in public administration

“…E-government should also consider the potential use of ICTs a tool for relationships between networks, regarding data sharing between organizations (Graham et al , 2016), communication between organizations (Hu and Kapucu, 2016) and intra-organizational networks (Lee, 2013), such as the intranet (Welch and Pandey, 2007; Wang and Feeney, 2016).…”

Mapping Personal Data Flow and Regulatory Compliance in Serbian Public Institutions

“…1 The UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 16 on Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (The right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation) 1988. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://ccprcentre.org/doc/ICCPR/General%20Comments/HRI.GEN.1.Rev.9%28Vol.I%29_%28GC16%29_en.pdf Recent advances in computer technology and e-government have provided almost instantaneous transmission of personal data (Huie, Laribee & Hogan, 2002, Graham, Gooden & Martin, 2016 and caused an increased collection and exchange of such data (Stoica & Safta, 2015, Gang-Hoon, Trimi & Ji-Hyong 2014). Consequently, technology still is, and will continue to be, the preeminent driving force behind legal developments in the field of data privacy (Kuner, Cate, Millard & Svantesson, 2014;Schoch, 2016;Zharova, 2016).…”

Transparência de dispensas de licitação em situações de emergência nacional

“…Em governos estaduais, a participação dos gestores públicos, consultores jurídicos e até mesmos normas conflitantes proporcionaram um equilíbrio entre as tensões que envolviam privacidade e transparência de compartilhamento de dados (Graham, Gooden, & Martin, 2016).…”

“…Os agentes públicos que representam o papel da divulgação da informação (que recebem pressões por divulgar) expuseram a evolução da transparência e como tentam resolver as demandas internas e externas relacionadas com o tema (Graham, Gooden, & Martin, 2016). Os atores que exercem o papel de controle e que usariam a informação (exercendo pressão pela divulgação) também mencionam como a abertura dos governos evoluiu, mas criticaram a existência de barreiras que dificultam o avanço da publicização de informações públicas (Luciano, Wiedenhöft, & Santos, 2018).…”

“…; (xx) necessidade de manter reputação (Jezierska & Sörbom, 2020); (xxi) elementos paradoxais de pertencimento e organização (Lannon & Walsh, 2020); (xxii) continuidade de processos internos (Tuckermann, 2018); (xxiii) transição de administradores (Van Helvert-Beugels, Nordqvist, & Flören, 2020); (xxiv) necessidade de resolver tensões simultaneamente (Clark, Tan, Murfett, Rogers, & Ang, 2019); (xxv) privacidade e transparência de dados(Graham, Gooden, & Martin, 2016); (xxvi) divulgação dos riscos sobre a pandemia(Wong & Jensen, 2020).…”