Employee Privacy

Employee Privacy

Introduction

The emergence of the internet is introducing significant changes in the manner of flow of information from one point to the other. Today, one can connect to anyone across the universe by a click of a button and share any information; however, much delicate it may look. Moreover, with social networks technological advancements, the connections highly expose personal data to a wide range of systems, which is at risk of unauthorized access. Apart from modern business management practices, employers use the current technology to access employees’ private data, which in turn raises concerns on the information security of these employees. This research analyzes the issue of employees’ privacy detailing surveillance of workplace, reasons for such monitoring, emerging issues, recommendations, and employees’ social network rights.

Surveillance of Workplace

Today, organizations’ management monitor, track and keep records of employees’ performance, characteristics, and overall behavior as a continuous management practice. Workplace surveillance may occur as a means of limiting the accessibility of hierarchies within the organization and to the organization itself (Ball, 2010). The purpose of monitoring and surveillance may have had manipulations to mean the same thing in different organizations; sociologists believe that there are political and power connections with it. Importantly, resistance while surveying and monitoring are only noticeable with direct supervision by the employer. However, the contentious issues are how organizations carry out their surveillance and control as it may have vital impacts on the running of the business within the organization (Ball, 2010).

The information collected through such surveillance has different usages within the system, and an employer may conclude and make decisions on the performance of an employee. Such conclusions and decisions may have detrimental effects on the employee both within the workplace and outside (Luragesi, 2010). Therefore, there are effective ways of monitoring employees because however much there could be resistance; supervision is part of an organization’s routine. These friendly and low-resistible techniques allow the management to access employees’ private information and monitor them while they are working. They include mobility tracking, computer and telephone logging, CCTV, electronic recruitment, and mystery shopping. There is low resistance to such practices in industries and organizations that have no unions to advocate and sensitize for employees’ privacy rights (Luragesi, 2010). Professionally, it is reasonable to do employee monitoring because, at the end of a cycle, they expect performance reviews and set objectives of their work. On the contrary, extreme monitoring and surveillance results in controversies within the work environment.

Reasons for Surveillance

Employers believe that monitoring employees carefully has the full capacity to reduce significantly the liabilities that an organization is likely to suffer.  The most formal and cheapest means of communication through the internet is e-mailing; it offers opportunities for employers to share bulk messages. At some point, the signals may look damaging to the employer or any other third party (Snyder, 2010). Therefore, employers take full responsibility for any damage that may arise from these emails. To avoid such costs and any duties that accompany them, employers monitor messages sent by employees to other people. In legal terms, any employer who deliberately fails to prevent misconducts of such nature is liable for the damages (Smith & Tabak, 2009). Such cyberspace offenses are changeable in courts of law. They may cost an organization a big fortune and destruction of reputation.

Workplace surveillance also allows an organization to take care of its assets, and the most critical concern is that some emails may underestimate its intellectual property. For example, a customer can attach classified information about the organization in e-mail messaging like trading secrets and patent information that, if leaked to fraudsters, may cause significant losses. It is, therefore, crucial for any organization to prevent the leakage of such information by using any means to protect the internal affairs and classified information.

Emerging Issues

Excessive surveillance has a vast range of effects on employees; for instance, it poises the risk to privacy compromised when a third party handles employees’ private information. At specific points, employees feel threatened when there is exposure to information concerning their whereabouts (Ball, 2010). Furthermore, workplace surveillance may lead to “functional creep” because some surveyors may tend to reveal too much information, which may not be necessary. Additionally, when employees realize that they are under excessive surveillance and monitoring, they may develop fraudulent behavior and characters to suit the system. The behavior camouflage deters the monitor from getting to know what they are looking for, which may result in ethical malice at work due to lack of honesty. Consequently, depending on the technique used in surveillance, a balance on quality versus quantity may be a point of concern among the surveyed employees. There may also be a compromise between teamwork and working as an individual breeding anticipatory conformity, which in turn affects the organization’s performance and achievement of its goals.

Recommendations

The war of interests on the dilemma of workplace surveillance is one that will not end any soon. However, it is essential to emphasize the fact that most of the adverse outcomes from this strife come from how the survey and monitoring process takes place. The emphasis is necessary because the balance between work and involvement in the surveillance and monitoring of employees by managers affects the productivity of employees differently.

The characteristics of the organization’s structure determine the ultimate impact of the implementation of workplace surveillance. Design aspects give employees choices concerning the time and speed of working on the assigned duties and responsibilities. Constant and excessive monitoring may be more harmful to employees more than the alternate approach. Moreover, there is a relationship between surveillance techniques employed and the task; therefore, easy tasks call for natural methods and vice versa.

Similarly, organizations should also consider adopting a supervisory style while observing fluctuations in the performance of the employees. Psychologically, rating employees based on the monitored figures alter the intellectual capability and decisions made by employers. Results from controlled information give a negative attitude that may later affect employers’ management skills (Ball, 2010). For surveillance to be more relevant and acceptable, it must balance with several factors that promote feedback, for example, appraisals and refresher coaching. Naturally, too much work done under excessive monitoring generates low-quality output.

Further, it also results in constant stress and an inability to achieve desirable results (Ball, 2010).  Therefore, the involvement of employees in making choices and designing monitoring systems is essential so that it does not portray witch-hunting but true professionalism. That collective bargaining scenario creates an enabling environment for employees, which in turn strikes a reasonable balance between quality and quantity in output measures.

References

Ball, K. (2010). Workplace Surveillance: an overview. Labor History, 51(1), 87-106.

Luragesi, N. (2010). Electronic Privacy in the workplace: Transparency and responsibility. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24(2), 163-173.

Smith, W., & Tabak, F. (2009). Monitoring Employee E-mails: Is there Any Room for Privacy? Academy of Management, 33-48.

Snyder, J. (2010). E-mail Privacy in the workplace. A boundary Regulation Perspective. Journal of Business Communication, 47(3), 266-294