Assessing the effects of ‘big brother’ in a workplace: The case of WAST
Introduction
It has been estimated that the average person in a major UK city is seen on closed circuit television (CCTV) between 8 and 300 times every day (Biressi & Nunn, 2003). Though there is nothing new in individual or societal surveillance, the intensity and the way surveillance or monitoring is carried out often draws in a lot of concerns. In recent years, many workers have also been subjected to high levels of monitoring (Smith, 2007). Early accounts of large-scale organisations emphasis how the development of information ‘systems’ gave businesses the ability to police their internal structures on a grand scale and gain competitive advantage (Ball, 2010). The monitoring, as Sewell (1999) argues, may be couched in the language of performance monitoring, and annual appraisals. In spite of that, it is invariably dependent on some form of surveillance. ‘big brother’ which metaphorically denotes a term for surveillance, represents the tremendous capabilities technology has provided for employers to keep track of what their work force is up to these days.
The paper begins with a discussion on the controversy surrounding the terms, ‘monitoring and surveillance’. These have been used interchangeably although many writers now tend to draw a distinction between them. The paper also uses the term, ‘big brother’, which is perhaps the most popular contemporary metaphor used to describe surveillance. The use of that expression in popular culture as a term for shadowing, scrutinising or tailing cannot be overstated. The methodology adopted for the study and the findings follow next in order followed by a conclusion.
Section snippets
Employee monitoring or surveillance?
Employee monitoring is the act of watching and monitoring employees’ actions during working hours using employer equipment/property (Raposa & Mujtaba, 2003). Yet, if such monitoring were being done to uncover specific wrongdoing, then it can be classified as surveillance (D’Urso, 2006). Hence, monitoring can be seen as surveillance to others as the lines between the two are seemingly blurred. Although both terms ‘employee monitoring’ or ‘employee surveillance’ have been used interchangeably, it
An overview
The use of technology in workplaces for the protection and monitoring of staff has increased over the past years and this has particularly been helped by organisational computer networks and the use of hidden ‘clickstream data’ derived from internet browsing where control aspects are disguised (Haggerty and Gazso, 2005, Regan, 2002). According to the American Management Association (AMA, 2001) electronic surveillance of employees has been increasing every year. The resort to technology has
Employers’ rationale for surveillance
Indeed, employers have always gathered information about their employees over many years. In recent years, however, advances in technology have been dramatic, and have facilitated information gathering in ways that in the past employers could never have imagined possible (Hoffman et al., 2003). Kizza and Ssanyu (2005) have attributed the growth of employee monitoring to the plummeting price of and sophistication of technology, the diminishing size of monitoring products making them easier to
Effects of monitoring
Notwithstanding a number of persuasive justifications for monitoring in the workplace there remain several reasons to limit monitoring (Hoffman et al., 2003).
There is also the issue of fairness. Usually, it is those down the corporate ladder like line workers who are subject to monitoring and not the bosses. Trust also remains as a major ethical issue. Monitoring of employees, as has been canvassed by some researchers, can have an ill-effect upon some workers them since it injects an air of
Monitoring at Welsh Ambulance Service Trust (WAST)
WAST has four main control rooms/call centres based in Swansea, Carmarthen, Bangor and Cwmbran. It is a major employer and part of the UK’s National Health Service. The call centres offer a nurse triage, dental assessment and health information service and relies on technology to provide the services it offers. All staff have access to the intranet, internet and emails. Other digital technology in this workplace includes CCTV, electronic door-swipes and digital software that record all incoming
Methodology
We looked at the possible effects of ‘big brother’ style electronic monitoring of staff and management within The Welsh Ambulance Services Trust (WAST). The key objectives involved determining whether employees are micromanaged through the use of technology, establishing whether technology is used as a powerful weapon of control; discovering if the high level use of technology has created any ethical dilemmas for managers; identifying and evaluating any areas of good practice.
The methodology
Examining the effects of the use of monitoring technology in the workplace, with particular reference to the WAST
This was one of the key objectives of the study and hence many of the questions were tailored towards it. We sought to find out what monitoring systems were in place and how conscious the staff were of these systems. Respondents were asked how often they thought about them and whether they had any concerns about their use. They were also asked about any negative experiences they might have had and whether the use of the devices was in anyway an invasion of their privacy. The following
Summary of results
- •
87% of respondents (seven management and six non-management staff) did not feel too conscious about being monitored.
- •
87% of respondents (seven management and six non-management staff) were either not bothered, did not think about it, were agreeable or very agreeable to being monitored.
- •
All the (seven management and eight non-management staff) felt it was important to be monitored by their employer.
- •
100% of management staff did not feel it was an invasion of their privacy and 87.5% of
Summary of results
- •
73.3% of all respondents (six management and five non-management staff) were not concerned about being monitored.
- •
73.3% of all respondents (four management and seven non-management staff) had no negative experiences of being monitored.
- •
93.3% of all respondents (seven management and seven non-management staff) felt it fair for personal email and internet to be monitored.
- •
57.1% of managers did not feel that the high level use of technology was being used as a weapon of control.
- •
57.1% of managers use
Observations and informal interviews
Despite a general liking for the use of technological devices in the call centres/control rooms, we realised that there was an instance when the workers waged a strong protest at the installation of some cameras in the premises of one of the study areas. The workers were offended because management did not consult them before the cameras were put up. Consequently, there was lack of trust between staff and management in this particular workplace for a considerable period. Indeed, surveillance
Discussion
This paper provided an overview of the nature of workplace monitoring and surveillance and employees’ perceptions about these practices. It detailed the key concepts associated with workplace surveillance. It identified and sought to resolve some of the semantic complications inherent in the terms ‘surveillance’ and ‘monitoring’ in relation to research in the workplace, where specific meanings are attributed to each word, euphemistically or academically. In examining the effects of ‘big
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to look at what effects if any ‘big brother’ style electronic monitoring of staff had at the Welsh Ambulance Service Trust. Although a review of the literature highlighted a grim situation as a result of the panoptic effects of constantly monitoring employees, our findings suggested otherwise. The literature postulated that electronic monitoring is leading to stress and absenteeism in the workplace and employee’s cyberloafing as an act of defiance, the findings of this
References (34)
Workplace monitoring and surveillance. Policies and practices
(2001)- et al.
Trust and technology in the virtual organization
SAM Advanced Management Journal
(2002) Workplace surveillance: An overview
Labour History
(2010)- et al.
Video justice: Crimes of violence in social/media space
Space and Culture
(2003) - et al.
Examining electronic surveillance in the workplace: A review of theoretical perspectives and research findings
(2000) The good research guide for small-scale social research projects
(1998)Who’s watching us at work? Toward a structural–perceptual model of electronic monitoring and surveillance in organizations
Communication Theory
(2006)- elronsw.com (1999). Electronic policies and practices survey. Available:...
- Employee Monitoring Systems (2002). Privacy. Gray Cary, Technology’s legal edge. Available:...
- Gahtan, A. (1997) Monitoring employee communications. The cyberlaw encyclopaedia. Available:...
Privacy at work
The public politics of opinion research on surveillance and privacy
Surveillance and Society
You’ve got mail…and the boss knows
Business and Society Review
Pay and conditions in call centres
Workplace surveillance
The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice
Journal of Organizational Behaviour
Cited by (20)
Stress-inducing or performance-enhancing? Safety measure or cause of mistrust? The paradox of digital surveillance in the workplace
2023, Journal of Innovation and KnowledgeSafety challenges of UAV integration in construction: Conceptual analysis and future research roadmap
2021, Safety ScienceCitation Excerpt :Such exposure is sufficient to initiate pathological changes or exacerbate underlying biological conditions and might lead to chronic diseases in workers (Schnall et al., 1992). Besides, the perception of being watched also increases the work pace or time pressure (Sarpong and Rees, 2014) due to the Hawthorne Effect (McCarney et al., 2007), increasing the mental workload of a task. Several studies have established and confirmed a direct and consistent relationship between mental workload and worker health (Theorell and Floderus-Myrhed, 1977; House, 1980).
Applying the job demands resources model to understand technology as a predictor of turnover intentions
2017, Computers in Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :However, the only employees who generally view EMS positively are those performing the supervision. The only consistent exception involves supervision used to enhance workplace safety (e.g., Sarpong & Rees, 2014). It is possible that overuse of EMS technologies has “poisoned the well” of employee goodwill at a bad time.
The important but neglected legal context of virtual teams: Research implications and opportunities
2017, Human Resource Management ReviewCitation Excerpt :First, the greater use and reliance of technology, compared to more traditional team settings, provides employers a greater capability to monitor employees in ways that raise privacy concerns. Second, because of the significant challenges associated with employers' ability to monitor virtual team member performance (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Cascio, 2000), the use of electronic performance monitoring in the international workplace is extensive and growing (Bhave, 2014; Sarpong & Rees, 2014). Third, within countries there may be many different sources of workplace privacy rights and obligations (domestic legislation at multiple levels, transnational law, contractual constraints), and across countries there may be significantly different privacy legal protections (Abril, Levin, & Del Riego, 2012; Determann & Sprague, 2011).
Empirical study on consumers’ reluctance to mobile payments in a developing economy
2024, Journal of Science and Technology Policy ManagementEssential jobs, remote work and digital surveillance: Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic panopticon
2022, International Labour Review