Abstract
Performance monitoring was reviewed from an organizational justice perspective. Several predictors of perceived fairness were derived from this review and tested using employed respondents from eight different organizational settings (N = 301). Analyses confirmed that the predictors accounted for significant variance in perceived fairness in both electronically monitored and traditionally monitored work environments. These predictors were labeled monitoring consistency, knowledge of performance from monitoring, monitoring control, and justifications for monitoring.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Amick, B. C., & Smith, M. J. (1992). Stress, computer-based work monitoring and measurement systems: A conceptual overview. Applied Ergonomics, 23, 6–16.
Attewell. P. (1987). Big brother and the sweatshop: Computer surveillance in the automated office. Sociological Theory, 5, 87–99.
Bedeian, A. G., & Marbert, L. D. (1979). Individual differences in self-perception and the job-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 111–118.
Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings, and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. Baxerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. I, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199–218.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational conflict: Is it enough to say it's not my fault? Communication Research, 15, 381–399.
Chacko, T. I. (1983). Job and life satisfactions: A causal analysis of their relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 163–169.
Chalykoff, J., & Kochan, T. A. (1989). Computer-aided monitoring: Its influence on employee job satisfaction and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 42, 807–829.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
DeTienne, K. B. (1993). Big brother or friendly coach? Computer monitoring in the 21st century. The Futurist, 27, 33–37.
DiTecco, D., Cwitco, G., Arsenault, A., & Andre, M. (1992). Operator stress and monitoring practices. Applied Ergonomics, 23, 29–34.
Fulk, J., Brief, A. P., & Barr, S. H. (1985). Trust-in-supervisor and perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 13, 299–313.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.
Grant, R. A., Higgins, C. A., & Irving, R. H. (1988). Computerized performance monitors: Are they costing you customers? Sloan Management Review, 29, 39–45.
Greenberg, J. (1986a). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.
Greenberg, J. (1986b). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 25–41.
Greenberg, J. (1986c). The distributive justice of organizational performance evaluations. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations, pp. 337–351. New York: Plenum Press.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals. Social Justice Research, 1, 219–234.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Griffith, T. L. (1993). Monitoring and performance: A comparison of computer and supervisor monitoring. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 549–572.
Irving, R. H., Higgins, C. A., & Safayeni, F. R. (1986). Computerized monitoring systems: Use and Abuse. Communications of the ACM, 29, 794–801.
Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 270–279.
Koys, D. J., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human Relations, 44, 265–283.
Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J., & Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355–356.
Larson, J. R., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performance monitoring: How it affects work productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 530–538.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What is to be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, and R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.
Nebeker, D. M., & Tatum, B. C. (1993). The effects of computer monitoring, standards and rewards on work performance, job satisfaction and stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 508–536.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pearson, C. A. L. (1991). An assessment of extrinsic feedback on participation, role perceptions, motivation and job satisfaction on a self-managed system for monitoring group achievement. Human Relations, 44, 517–537.
Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 346–368.
Silverman, M. K., & Smith, C. S. (1995). The effects of human versus computer monitoring of performance on physiological reactions and perceptions of stress. In S. L. Sauter, & L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk factors for job stress (pp. 181–193). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Smith, M. J., Carayon, P., Sanders, K. J., Lim, S-Y., & LeGrande, D. (1992). Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics, 23, 17–27.
Stanton, J. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (1996). Effects of computer monitoring on personal control, satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 738–745.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Turnage, J. J. (1990). The challenge of new workplace technology. American Psychologist, 45, 171–178.
Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655.
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice upon satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72–81.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). The electronic supervisor: New technology, new tensions, OTA-CIT-333. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office.
Westin, A. F. (1992). Two key factors that belong in a macroergonomic analysis of electronic monitoring: Employee perceptions of fairness and the climate of organizational trust or distrust. Applied Ergonomics, 23, 35–42.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stanton, J.M. Traditional and Electronic Monitoring from an Organizational Justice Perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology 15, 129–147 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007775020214
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007775020214