The Effects of Computer Monitoring, Standards, and Rewards on Work Performance, Job Satisfaction, and Stress¹

Abstract

The effects of automated computer monitoring under different conditions of performance standards and reward were examined in two studies conducted in a simulated organization. In the first study, 37 computer operators were divided into six groups who worked for a 2‐week period under different levels of performance standards. Individual keystrokes per hour and productive time was monitored by the computers for all of the groups (one group was a control group which was monitored but was unaware of the monitoring). Four of the six groups were assigned work standards, and performance against standards was also monitored for these four groups. Feedback reports on the monitored performance were available on demand at the individual consoles for those groups which were informed of the monitoring. The results showed that computer monitoring and feedback led to increased key rate compared to the control group which was not aware of monitoring. There was little effect of monitoring on work quality, satisfaction, and stress. In the second study, 24 operators worked for a 9‐week period under various performance standards and rewards. Individual keystrokes per hour, productive time, and performance against standards were monitored by the computers for all workers. Feedback reports on performance against standards and rewards earned were available on demand at the individual consoles. The results revealed that the feedback from different combinations of standards and rewards had varying effects on performance, satisfaction, and stress. These effects, and the results from the first study, are discussed in terms of goal setting and expectancy theory.

Workload and social support: Effects on performance and stress

“…Employees were hired to work 10 days (5 days per week for 2 weeks) on a data-entry task in a simulated work environment similar to that described in separate studies by Nebeker and Tatum (1993) and Tatum and Nebeker (1995) using different sets of workers. The primary advantage of this setting is that experimental controls can be maintained in a realistic work environment.…”

Can Electronic Performance Monitoring Be Fair? Exploring Relationships Among Monitoring Characteristics, Perceived Fairness, and Job Performance

“…However, the bestfitting path model did not support any linkages to task performance. Electronic performance monitoring (EPM) systems use electronic technologies to collect, store, analyze, or report the actions or performance of individuals on the job (Nebeker & Tatum, 1993). Methods of EPM include telephone call accounting, keystroke or computer time accounting, cards and beepers to monitor locations, computer file monitoring, screen sharing capabilities on networks, telephone call observation, and video camera observation (Alder & Tompkins, 1997).…”

Examining the relationship between feedback and performance in a monitored environment: A clarification and extension of feedback intervention theory

“…This impact of technological advancements is seen clearly in the domain of computer performance monitoring (CPM). CPM is the use of computer hardware and software to collect, store, analyze, and report individual or group actions or performance (Nebeker & Tatum, 1993). Estimates indicate as much as 75% of large companies electronically monitor their employees (American Management Association, 2000).…”