Advertisement

Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 209–221 | Cite as

Situating workplace surveillance: Ethics and computer based performance monitoring

  • Kirstie S. Ball
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the study of computer based performance monitoring (CBPM) in the workplace as an issue dominated by questions of ethics. Its central contention paper is that any investigation of ethical monitoring practice is inadequate if it simply applies best practice guidelines to any one context to indicate, whether practice is, on balance, ‘ethical’ or not. The broader social dynamics of access to procedural and distributive justice examined through a fine grained approach to the study of workplace social relations, and workplace identity construction, are also important here. This has three implications, which are examined in the paper, and are as follows: First, that it is vital for any empirical investigation of the ethics of CBPM practice to take into account not only its compliance with preexisting ‘best practice’ guidelines, but also the social relations which pervade the context of its application. Second, that this necessitates a particular epistemological treatment of CBPM as something whose effects are measurable and identifiable, as well as something which has a socially constructed meaning and is tropic in nature. Third, that existing debates against which this argument is set, which regard contrasting epistemologies and ontologies as incompatible, should be addressed, and an alternative introduced. Introducing situated knowledges (Haraway 1991) and material semiotic ontologies as such an alternative, the paper proceeds to analyse the ethics of a particular case of monitoring practice, Norco. Drawing on Marx (1998) the paper concludes that a fine grain analysis of the social is vital if we are to understand fully the ethics of monitoring in the workplace.

Keywords

Information System User Interface Social Relation Empirical Investigation Human Computer Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. S. Ackroyd and P. Thompson. Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. J.R. Aeillo. Computer Based Work Monitoring: Electronic Surveillance and Its Effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23: 499–507, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. G.S. Alder. Ethical Issues in Electronic Performance Monitoring: A Consideration of Deontological and Teleological Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (7): 729–743, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. M. Alvesson and D. Karreman. Varieties of Discourse: On the Study of Organizations through Discourse Analysis. Human Relations, 53 (9): 1125–1149, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. Attewell. Big Brother and the Sweatshop: Computer Surveillance in the Automatic Office. Sociological Theory, 5: 87, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. K. Ball. Computer Based Monitoring in UK Service Organizations: A Comparative Study. Aston University: Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. K. Ball and D. Hodgson. Can We Talk about Discourses of American Management Knowledge? To appear in Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. K. Ball and D.C. Wilson. Power, Control And Computer Based Performance Monitoring: Subjectivity, Repertoires and Resistance. Organization Studies, 21 (4): 539–566, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. J.R. Beniger. The Control Revolution. Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. J. Brannen (ed). Mixing Methods-Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Avebury, Aldershot, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. T. Chalykoff and R. Kochan. Computer Aided Monitoring: Its Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction and Turnover. Personnel Pscyhology, 42 (4): 807, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. R. Chia. A ‘Rhizomic’ Model of Organizational Change and Transformation: Perspective from a Metaphysics of Change. British journal of management, 10 (3): 209–227, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. P.A. Clark. Organizations in Action: Competition Between Contexts. London: Routledge, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. S. Clegg. Power Relations and the Constitution of the Resistant Subject. In J.M. Jermier, D. Knights, D and W.R. Nord, editors, Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. R. Coase. The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4: 386–405, 1937.Google Scholar
  16. K. DeTienne and N.T. Abbott. Developing an Employee Centred Electronic Monitoring System. Journal of Systems Management, August: 12, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. S. Deutsch. The Context for Exploring Workplace Monitoring. Contractor report for OTA (1987) Washington: United States Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. N. Edley and M. Wetherell. Jockeying for Position: the Construction of Masculine Identities. Discourse and Society, (8): 203–217, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. D. Edwards, M. Ashmore and J. Potter. Death and Furniture: The Rhetoric, Politics and Theology of Bottom Line Arguments Against Relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8: 25–49, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. Fodness and Kinsella. Stories of Mistrust and Manipulation: The Electronic Monitoring of the American Workforce. Cleveland, Ohio: National Association of Working Women, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. J.F. George. Computer Based Monitoring: Common Perceptions and Empirical Results. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 20 (4): 459–480, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. S. Graham. Towards the Fifth Utility? On the Extension and Normalization of Public CCTV. In C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong, editors, Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. R.A. Grant, C.A. Higgins and R.G. Irving. Computerised Performance Monitors: Are They Costing You Customers? Sloan Management Review, Spring, 1988, p. 39.Google Scholar
  24. D. Haraway. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.Femaleman ©_Meets_Oncomouse. New York: Routledge, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. D. Haraway. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. J. Henriques et al. Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity. London, Routledge, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. C.A. Higgins and R.A. Grant. Monitoring Service Workers Via Computer: The Effect On Employees, Productivity And Service. National Productivity Review, 8 (2): 101, 1989.Google Scholar
  28. L. Introna. Workplace Surveillance and Organizational Justice. Paper presented at the ESRC Virtual Society Surveillance Seminar, Edinburgh, 2000.Google Scholar
  29. D. Knights. Organization Theory In The Age Of Deconstruction: Dualism, Gender And Postmodernism Revisited. Organization Studies, 18(1): 1–20, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. D. Knights and T. Vurdubakis. Foucault, Power, Resistance and All that. In J.M. Jermier, D. Knights and W.R. Nord, editors, Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge, 1994.Google Scholar
  31. D. Knights. Hanging out the Dirty Washing: Labour Process Theory in the Age of Deconstruction. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Labour Process Conference, March 1995.Google Scholar
  32. D. Knights and H. Willmott. It' a very Foreign Discipline: The Genesis of Expenses Control in a Mutual Life Assurance Company. British Journal of Management, 4: 1–18, 1993.Google Scholar
  33. C.T. Kulik and M.L. Ambrose. The Impact Of Computerised Performance Monitoring Design Features on the Performance Appraisal Process. Journal of Managerial Issues, V: 182–197, 1993.Google Scholar
  34. J. Lund. Electronic Performance Monitoring: A Review of the Research Issues. Applied Ergonomics, 23 (1): 54–58, 1992.Google Scholar
  35. D. Lyon. Inaugral Session, ESRC Seminar Series on Surveillance in Society. Hull: University of Hull, 1999.Google Scholar
  36. G.T. Marx. An Ethics for the New Surveillance. http://web. mit.edu/gtmarx/www/ncolin5.htmlGoogle Scholar
  37. M. Michael. Constructing Identities. London: Sage, 1996.Google Scholar
  38. D.M. Nebeker. Automated Monitoring, Feedback and Rewards: Effects on Workstation Operator' Performance, Satisfaction and Stress. In H.J. Bullingerm and B. Shackel, editors, HCI Interact '87. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987.Google Scholar
  39. Office of Technology Asssessment. The Electronic Supervisor: New Technologies, New Tensions. Washington D.C.: US Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.Google Scholar
  40. M. Parker. Capitalism, Subjectivity and Ethics: Debating Labour Process Analysis. Organization Studies, 20 (1): 25–46, 1999.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. M. Parker. Critique in the Name of What? Postmodernism and Critical Approaches to Organization. Organization Studies, 16 (4): 553, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. J. Potter and M. Wetherell. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage, 1987.Google Scholar
  43. M. Reed. In Praise of Duality and Dualism: Rethinking Agency and Structure in Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies, 18 (1): 21–42, 1997.Google Scholar
  44. E. Schegloff. Whose Text? Whose Context? Discourse and Society, 8/2: 165–187, 1997.Google Scholar
  45. M. Shapiro. Reading the Postmodern Polity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  46. J.C. Sipior, B.T. Ward and S.M. Rainone. Ethical Management Of Employee Email Privacy. Information Systems Management, 15 (1): 41–47, 1998.Google Scholar
  47. C. Smith and P. Thompson. When Harry met Sally+and Hugh and David and Andy. Paper presented at the 10th annual labour process conference, Aston, 1992.Google Scholar
  48. M.J. Smith and B.J. Amick. ElectronicMonitoring in theWorkplace: Implications for Employee Control and Job Stress. In C. Cooper et al., editors, Job Control and Worker Health. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1989.Google Scholar
  49. M. Smith, P. Carayon and K. Meizio. Motivational, Behavioural and Pscyhological Implications of Electronic Monitoring of Worker Performance. Washington DC: US Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.Google Scholar
  50. L. Thevenot. The Investment in Forms. Social Science Information, 23 (1): 1–45, 1984.Google Scholar
  51. P. Thompson and S. Ackroyd. All Quiet on The Workplace Front? A Critique of Recent Trends in British Industrial Sociology. Sociology, 29 (4): 610–633, 1995.Google Scholar
  52. H. Watson-Verran. Renegotiating What' Natural. Paper read at meetings of the Society for the Social Study of Science. October 12–15th, at Nw Orleans, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  53. A. Westin. Electronic Monitoring or Clerical Work on Video Display Terminals: The Organizational Climate Factor and Models of Good Employee Practice. Contractor report for OTA (1987), 1988.Google Scholar
  54. A. Westin. Privacy And Quality Of Work Life Issues In Employee Monitoring: Contractor Report For OTA (1987). Washington: US Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.Google Scholar
  55. M. Wetherell. Positioning and Interpretive Repertoires: Conversation Analysis and Post Structuralism in Dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9/3: 387–412, 1998.Google Scholar
  56. O.E. Williamson. Markets and Hierarchies: Analyst and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  57. H. Willmott. Towards a New Ethics? The Contributions of Post Structuralism and Post Humanism. In M. Parker, editor, Ethics and Organizations. London: Sage, 1999.Google Scholar
  58. J. Yates. Control Through Communication: The Rise of American Management. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirstie S. Ball
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CommerceUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations