Monitoring of employees ethical concerns

Monitoring of employees ethical concerns

The privacy of employees at their workplaces has become a controversial problem in managing human resource. The advancement of electronic monitoring systems has stimulated the issue of employee privacy. The use of computerization in the workplace has enabled most employers to track the activities of their employees in the quest to evaluate their effectiveness and minimize wasting time on off-work activities (Mishra & Crampton, 1998). Several monitoring systems have been applied in the modern workplace for varying reasons. Some methods are used to monitor the accuracy and speed of workers while other systems are set in place to control employee theft. Besides, some systems are installed to uphold safety and even spying in some cases. These monitoring systems have been set in place to eavesdrop and confirm locations of employees. Even though employee monitoring has always been in place to track inventory, input and general productivity, the supervision methods and the limits of the accessible information has changed in recent years. Employers main aim is to benefit from the maximization of employee input at work. However, employees, on the other end, do not cherish every cough, lavatory break or personal endeavours observed and recorded. In fact, most employees view it as a breach to their privacy. Besides there is does not exist a strict legislation safeguarding employees from this unregulated monitoring. Monitoring of employees has raised ethical concerns surrounding this norm and the extent to which it employers go for it.

While its crystal clear that employers can monitor almost everything that an employee does, there are restrictions to these efforts. The has been some legislation designed to protect the privacy of employees. Federal law clarifies that an employer has the right to perform surveillance on his/ her workers, but eavesdropping is not allowed at all. This law argues that putting a microphone in a workplace to hear what workers do while at work is permitted, however planting a listening chip in a cafeteria or restrooms are wrong. During such breaks, the workers are having personal experience and should not be bothered. State law also argues that monitoring of employees is only permissible under consent recommendations. This legislation requires the company to discuss with its employee on this surveillance. Furthermore, the employees should show their assent through written confirmation. Breaching of such legislation is punishable by the law when an employee files a lawsuit against the employer (Katz, 2015).

Though monitoring improves efficiency, this move can lead to fear and distrust among workers who do not find tracking their every workplace move necessary. Most employees will feel like the popular Big Brother is ever watching. Work can be stressful, especially trying to meet deadlines and correlate with coworkers. Constant surveillance will add more pressure on the employees. If the employees realize that the supervision is in the form of spying, they would detest it and lose trust in their bosses. This mistrust will create the ever-suspicious feeling in the workplace. That is not all. Humans are capable of developing a defence mechanism; employees would achieve this by forming workarounds to avoid monitoring. The effect that would be achieved from this monitoring would not be the one that was desired. The business world today extensively uses the internet and social media platforms; for this reason, applying blanket blocking rules can restrict the work of employees (Heathfield, 2008). Monitoring of employees can further results in losses since it increases the turnover of employees who detest such moves. If replacing human in the situation is possible, surfing the internet or social media platforms, gives employees brain breaks, which rejuvenate their motivation and therefore boosting productivity indirectly. Denying them this “slack” time does not do the company any good.

Using employee’s information without their knowledge to decide whether they should stay in a firm is ethically wrong. First of all, letting someone know that one is watching over them would restrict them from doing some less fortunate work “crimes”. This complaint is not all, by viewing illegal activities or behaviours of employees by surveilling would force one to report such cases to employers or law enforcement. Such arising issues could not only make the employees face criminal charges or thrown out of work, but convictions or consequences of such actions would make it difficult secure job elsewhere. People tend to do the right things after giving a thumbs-up earlier, and employees at the workplace are not exceptions (Lister, n.d.). Besides, viewing personal information of employees through email or other social interaction accounts may result in ethical implications. Through this monitoring systems, an employer can know sensitive information about an employee resulting in privilege or indifferent treatments towards the employee. Such sensitive information might include credit problems or marriage problems that an employee would not desire for the boss to know. The fact that employees’ information is used secretly against their wish regards them as just productivity inputs. However, employers should respect the autonomy of workers at workplaces; besides employees have sovereign moral prestige defined by some arrays of rights. Treating employees as just a means to boost profits in a company is ethically immoral.

As enterprises seek to remain highly productive by using advanced technology to monitor employees, they should employ an ethical framework in monitoring and surveillance. Human resource managers should be able to identify unexpected adverse effects on engagement and motivation of employees by carefully putting up these monitoring systems and for the right purpose. The ideal monitoring model should be simple, adaptable and essential in upholding both the employee and employer interests. The monitoring system should strengthen honesty, accountability and collaboration in the workplace instead of instilling fear and mistrust among employees (Olivia, 2019).

If an organization puts its focus on monitoring its employees, the human resource manager should communicate earlier enough. The company should first ensure that the employees buy the idea. This recommendable procedure does not only involve letting employees aware of the monitoring system but educate them on its significance and the effects it would have on them. Informing employees prepares them to act accordingly. The company should not focus so much on making money while being “person foolish”. Just working on real analytics regardless of the effect it will have on employees, might cause many mix-ups in the workplace. Besides, too much disruption can discourage employers. The company should put too much focus on improving workers instead of punishing them by using the information collected by such monitoring systems.

Employee monitoring, combined with technology, can lead to an all-intrusive society in the workplace. Some people compare this violation of employees’ privacy to the ‘thought police’ concept. ‘Thought police” since the employees are ever worried about who is watching and what are they watching. Employee spend their productive time trying to act by the work rules while working in a tensed and uncomfortable environment. The monitoring system should only be used to reduce distractions, promote employee safety, make timekeeping easy, and to evaluate employee performance. However, the appropriate bodies should enact or revise legislations put in place to regulate the use of rapidly advancing monitoring system and the freedom of employers in monitoring their employees.