Technology has made it possible for employers and co-workers to see staff live over computer connections
New technology lets employers and co-workers see staff live over computer connections. But no matter how benign the goal of keeping teams connected, the latest in electronic monitoring is viewed as a new level of intrusion, with the risk of creating a vicious circle of distrust and discontent, says a University of Toronto academic and management expert.
Assistant professor David Zweig surveyed 600 workers on attitudes toward “surveillance or awareness monitoring.” Ostensibly a means to ease communication between team members who are teleworking or stationed at remote locales, a Web-enabled camera is setup at each work station. Someone needing to contact a colleague may check the colleague’s availability by accessing the camera image and see whether that colleague is at his work station, or so goes the rationale.
“What came up time and time again was even though a technology isn’t positioned as a tool to monitor performance, that’s exactly what it would be used for. A manager would click on the image to see if I’m at my desk working, that was the concern,” said Zweig,
A number of workplaces like Accenture or Sun Microsystems have been experimenting with this form of monitoring, Zweig noted. With 77.7 per cent of employers using some form of employee surveillance in 2001, according to a survey by the American Management Association, Zweig said he has little doubt that this form of employee monitoring will become more common.
Zweig tested out perceptions of this form of technology, in both the best and worst possible applications. In the best possible scenario, the technology would be tweaked to minimize its intrusiveness: the camera is set to record only intermittently, the recorded image is blurred so a worker’s appearance isn’t an issue, and employees are given knowledge and some degree of control over how the technology is used. In the worst possible scenarios, none of these mitigating measures are employed.
While study participants were indeed more comfortable with being monitored under the best conditions, they couldn’t rid themselves of the negative feeling they had about the technology, Zweig found.
On a scale of 1 to 7, study participants rated the best scenario at 4.06 for fairness, an improvement over the 2.77 rating they gave the worst scenario.
Participants also were asked to rate privacy concerns on a 1 to 7 scale, with 7 indicating a high level of concern. The worst scenario was given a rating of 5.83 and the best scenario 4.61.
In a focus group, participants said they felt humiliated and that their sense of privacy was gone. One participant said: “There was something about seeing (the supervisors) in there, monitoring away, looking like the police in a van on a drug stakeout that I found absolutely revolting.” Others said such monitoring system deprived them of having any control over their work.
“We can try to manipulate technology, we can try to design systems that respect privacy and fairness, but if people’s boundaries are still violated in terms of how much information they want to share, they will still have negative reactions,” said Zweig.
One persistent doubt voiced among study participants was whether the technology was being used for stated purposes. “In the study, I was being extremely explicit that the monitoring wouldn’t be used to monitor performance and that would be used to enhance communication. But it did not have a strong effect in mitigating people’s negative reactions.”
Zweig added that further research is needed to determine where the line between benign and invasive can be drawn, if at all.
Assistant professor David Zweig surveyed 600 workers on attitudes toward “surveillance or awareness monitoring.” Ostensibly a means to ease communication between team members who are teleworking or stationed at remote locales, a Web-enabled camera is setup at each work station. Someone needing to contact a colleague may check the colleague’s availability by accessing the camera image and see whether that colleague is at his work station, or so goes the rationale.
“What came up time and time again was even though a technology isn’t positioned as a tool to monitor performance, that’s exactly what it would be used for. A manager would click on the image to see if I’m at my desk working, that was the concern,” said Zweig,
A number of workplaces like Accenture or Sun Microsystems have been experimenting with this form of monitoring, Zweig noted. With 77.7 per cent of employers using some form of employee surveillance in 2001, according to a survey by the American Management Association, Zweig said he has little doubt that this form of employee monitoring will become more common.
Zweig tested out perceptions of this form of technology, in both the best and worst possible applications. In the best possible scenario, the technology would be tweaked to minimize its intrusiveness: the camera is set to record only intermittently, the recorded image is blurred so a worker’s appearance isn’t an issue, and employees are given knowledge and some degree of control over how the technology is used. In the worst possible scenarios, none of these mitigating measures are employed.
While study participants were indeed more comfortable with being monitored under the best conditions, they couldn’t rid themselves of the negative feeling they had about the technology, Zweig found.
On a scale of 1 to 7, study participants rated the best scenario at 4.06 for fairness, an improvement over the 2.77 rating they gave the worst scenario.
Participants also were asked to rate privacy concerns on a 1 to 7 scale, with 7 indicating a high level of concern. The worst scenario was given a rating of 5.83 and the best scenario 4.61.
In a focus group, participants said they felt humiliated and that their sense of privacy was gone. One participant said: “There was something about seeing (the supervisors) in there, monitoring away, looking like the police in a van on a drug stakeout that I found absolutely revolting.” Others said such monitoring system deprived them of having any control over their work.
“We can try to manipulate technology, we can try to design systems that respect privacy and fairness, but if people’s boundaries are still violated in terms of how much information they want to share, they will still have negative reactions,” said Zweig.
One persistent doubt voiced among study participants was whether the technology was being used for stated purposes. “In the study, I was being extremely explicit that the monitoring wouldn’t be used to monitor performance and that would be used to enhance communication. But it did not have a strong effect in mitigating people’s negative reactions.”
Zweig added that further research is needed to determine where the line between benign and invasive can be drawn, if at all.
