Balancing Productivity and Privacy: Electronic Monitoring of Employees

David Lease

In MSIA Seminar 4 there is always a healthy debate over electronic monitoring of employees because of the natural conflict between employers’ property rights, security needs, liability concerns, and mandate for organizational effectiveness, and employees’ privacy rights and perceptions of fairness and organizational justice. 

E-mail, the Internet, and other technologies we use every day provide great opportunities to improve employee productivity and organizational profitability, but they can also pose realistic threats to organizational effectiveness and security.  For example, business e-mails can be concise, quickly composed, and instantly transmitted, thereby improving organizational effectiveness when they replace formal memos and letters.  Unfortunately, e-mail can also waste resources when employees spend hours e-mailing family and friends.  E-mails can also compromise security when they contain (inadvertently or otherwise) company confidential or other sensitive information.  The Internet, like e-mail, can also serve to improve organizational effectiveness when used to conduct company-related e-commerce and business-to-business (B2B) transactions.  Conversely, the Internet can reduce productivity when employees surf the Web, shop for personal items, and download files and programs for personal use (including the occasional virus, keystroke logger, or other malware).

 

Electronic monitoring (content filters, e-mail scanners, etc.) products are readily available.  Global positioning systems (GPS) and biometrics enable organizations to accurately and cost-effectively track worker movements in the office, in the field, and on the road.  By using GPS sensors in company-provided cell phones and cars, infrared LED ID badges, and biometric touch-pads, employers can know whether a trucker is deviating from a prescribed route, whether a receptionist is taking too long for a lunch break, whether an outside salesperson really is calling on customers, and even whether a food handler washed his hands after going to the restroom.

In my experience, I’ve found that electronic monitoring in the workplace has become as ubiquitous as electronic communications and that many employees have come to expect it (if not accept it).  Nevertheless, I’ve also found that many employees are surprised and alarmed about the extent of electronic monitoring of their workplace activities, with a significant percentage quite convinced that it is illegal for employers to engage in such monitoring.  Employees often view electronic monitoring of their behavior as an unwarranted invasion of their right to privacy and as fundamentally unfair.

For organizations considering electronic monitoring of employee use of e-mail and Internet assets, I recommend that they develop a comprehensive, written policy on employee use of the Internet and e-mail as well as on company programs of electronic monitoring.  This policy should communicate the rules for personal use of e-mail and Internet assets – what is allowed, what is not allowed, and the rewards and penalties for following the rules.  The monitoring of employee e-mail and Internet use is much less of an issue when there is a clear understanding of expectations – for both the employer and the employees – and when the guidelines are relevant to the organization, its culture, and the technology it uses. 

This type of “expectation setting” is the sort of information that is often found in an “acceptable use policy” for e-mail and Internet assets.  Acceptable use policies are not new; many organizations have adopted them and examples can be found readily on the Internet.  As argued by Stewart (2000), “often the mere existence and promulgation of a clear [emphasis added] policy is enough to stem most forms of Internet access abuse” (p. 50).  However in my experience, acceptable use policies are effective only when they are clearly communicated and when the policies are integrated with the organization’s overall strategy, vision, and culture.

Reference:

Stewart, F. (2000). Internet acceptable use policies: Navigating the management, legal, and technical issues. Information Systems Security, 9(3), 46-52.

Last week’s quiz question

When you come to Residency, you want to take your kids to what museum located in Norwich, Vermont?

Answer:  The Montshire Museum of Science. http://www.montshire.org/.  We guarantee that you and your children will enjoy this experience.  Make sure to bring a change of clothes for small children who will get wet in the outdoor water park.

Winner:  Srinivas Bedre wins a leather bound instruction manual on how to navigate dirt roads during mud season.

This week’s quiz question

What do Vermonters call an area of maple trees that is tapped for maple syrup?

One lucky winner drawn at random from correct entries will receive a special edition CD training program on how to identify the 76 native varieties of mud found in Vermont.

Send your entries to jorlando@norwich.edu

Current competition standings:

Matt Bambrick: 3 wins

Andrey N. Chernyaev:  2 wins

Dianne Tarpy

Sam Moore

Autumn Crossett

Gil Varney, Jr.

Glen Calvo

Thomas Reardon

Sherryl Fraser

Srinivas Chandrasekar

Marc Ariano

Linda Rosa

Joanna D'Aquanni

Bill Lampe

Srinivas Bedre