,"

.,./

Chapter 13

Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace:Implications for Employee Control and JobStressMichael J. Smith and Benjamin C. Amick III, University of Wisconsin, USA

INTRODUCTION

The use of electronic methods to monitor employee work performance hasincreased substantially in the last decade. One reason is improvements ininformation technology which make monitoring quick and easy. A second is agrowing concern on the part of employers that computer automation has notproduced the substantial increases in employee production that they expected.Monitoring provides information which can be used by the employer tomanage technological and human resources, enhancing the potential forgreater control over the production process. With monitoring it is possible topinpoint bottlenecks, production delays and below average (or below stand-ard) performers. Because monitoring can increase management control overthe production system, it may produce organizational approaches that use themonitored data to direct employee behavior. The application of modernelectronic technologies to monitor individual performance raises importantissues about the accuracy of the surveillance system and how well it representsworker contributions to the employer's success, the invasion of worker privacy,worker versus technology control over job tasks, and the health and motivationimplications of management styles that use monitored information to directworker behavior on the job.

Amick (1986), Smith and Carayon (1989), Smith, Carayon and Miezio(1986) and Smith, Cohen and Stammerjohn (1981) have proposed mechanismsby which changes in technology can affect the design of jobs and producepsychological distress. Underlying these models is the assumption that certainstress-producing approaches to job design invest control of the work process inthe technology, allowing it to define the tasks. This 'directive' approach takesaway employee discretionary control and decision making. Alternative and

Job Control and Worker Health. Edited by s. L. Sauter. J. J. Hurrell Jr and C. L. Cooper@ 1989 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

276 Job Control and Worker Health .less stressful approaches have the tasks defining the technological require-ments of the work system, and give greater control of the work process to th-eemployee. A second assumption is that the use of computer technology affectsthe supervisory structure in ways that influence employee control over theirtasks. Electronic performance monitoring can be used to direct employeeactivities or augment employee action. The effects are contingent on how theinformation technology is designed and the performance monitoring systemestablished.

Electronic performance monitoring can be defined as the continuous collec-tion and analysis of management information about work performance andequipment use for individual workers and groups of workers (Office ofTechnology Assessment, 1987). Modern electronic communication tech-nologies such as local area networks and private branch exchanges haveexpanded management's capabilities to track and pinpoint individual workertransactions. Work product entries into computer terminals, telephone con-versations and electronic mail messages can all be collected and analyzed withelectronic surveillance.

While computers have been around for several decades, it has only beenwithin the recent past that information about individual transactions (which iscollected and stored in computers) has been utilized for performance monitor-ing. Most likely, this type of monitoring was developed to manage largeorganizations with many diverse components. Soon it was used to provide thedata for determining worker production standards of output. Managers quicklyrealized that this information could be used to exert management control overspecific elements in the work system to enhance the total system output. Itcould also be used to define weak parts of the production system and bottle-necks. This led naturally into a directive management approach which is similarto 'scientific management' as defined by Taylor (1911).

A basic requirement of electric monitoring is that the work to be monitoredbe broken up into activities that can easily be quantified and measured.Electronic sensors and computers have only a limited ability to deal withcomplex inputs such as employee behaviour, and therefore successful monitor-ing requires that the work to be examined must be simple for easy measure-ment. This requirement dictates a job design approach (termed 'worksimplification') that breaks complex work down into simple elements, each ofwhich can then be assigned to one of several employees who becomes aspecialist at one or two elements. It reduces the content of work by removingcognitive complexity, thinking and decision making, replacing them withrepetitive physical action. It invests the majority of the control of the workprocess and task activities in management often by the use of computers. Thisapproach to job design, which underlies many electronic monitoring systems,has the potential to produce serious stress and health problems.

t Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace 277

MONITORING AND STRESS

'Big Brother' is watching you. You cannot escape his scrutiny. This message isone that resounds throughout the union halls of North America. There is ageneral 'paranoia' that electronic monitoring is the backbone of an imper-sonalized workplace in which every 'sneeze' or every 'breath' of a worker willbe recorded and analyzed; and more importantly will be used in some way topunish workers, or to change their behaviour in an unsatisfactory way.

Employer practices in using electronic monitoring have produced employeefears of abuse which seem to be well founded. Anecdotal stories of monitoringmisuse have been reported in the Washington Post (Perl, 1984), Dunn'sBusiness Month (Hershman and Rozen, 1984) and ABC TV Nightly News in1984. Such stories include descriptions of the overwhelming effects of monitor-ing on worker psychological functioning, effects such as fear, anxiety, hatredand loss of self-image. Electronic monitoring influences on health due to stresshave also been reported by unions (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987).Monitoring can cause increased production standards which employees feel areunfair. This can lead to morale and commitment problems, create physical andpsychological stress, and increases in undesired behavior such as absenteeism,turnover and lowered productivity, eventually leading to serious healthconsequences.

Fortunately, the excesses of some employers in applying monitoring result-ing in such horror stories most likely are not the norm for industry. While thiscannot be established without comprehensive surveys of employment prac-tices, Westin (1984) provides the best available data on monitoring practicesfrom 110 companies. His data indicates more moderate application of elec-tronic monitoring in personnel and administrative functions than are reportedin the abuse stories.

While the aforementioned effects of monitoring all seem reasonable andlogical, and may have firm theoretical backing in the job design and stressliterature, currently there are few studies that even suggest electronic monitor-ing leads to stress and diminished health (Smith, Carayon and Miezio, 1986).The work stress and job design literature have generally defined the followingfour variables as critical elements in the development of worker psychologicalstress reactions: (1) control; (2) job demands; (3) job content; and (4) socialrelations (Beehr and Bhagat, 1984; Cooper and Marshall, 1976; Gardell, 1976;Karasek, 1979; Smith, 1987; WHO, 1984). Our approach to examining stressissues is to look at monitoring concerns from a 'worst case' perspective. Thisallows for the establishment of the most damaging applications, providing thebasis for the limits of acceptable practice.

278 Job Control and Worker Health ~

CONTROL .

Job control can be examined at three levels in the organization, each of whichcan be influenced by electronic performance monitoring. At the lowest level ofthe task is 'instrumental' control, which provides the worker with the oppor-tunity to use tools to change the environment or product. (See Smith andSmith, 1966, for an explanation of this level of control.) Feedback from theenvironment about the results of tool use and knowledge of results of theeffectiveness of performance in meeting goals are essential for effective,accurate performance. A vast literature on human performance has demon-strated that failure to provide the proper feedback or perturbations in thefeedback produce diminished performance and frustration (Herzberg, 1974;Smith, Carayon and Miezio, 1986; Smith and Smith, 1966).

Electronic monitoring can provide feedback and knowledge of results aboutperformance that can help the employee obtain instrumental control over thetask. Yet if the feedback is used to direct the specific responses of theindividual, then the individual's control over the work process is taken away.The person becomes a passive respondent to the computer-generated feed-back. This loss of control can affect perception of control and self-esteem bytaking away skill use and decisional authority. Loss of control at this most basiclevel of action could disrupt the entire balance of the human-technologysystem and have serious consequences for performance and stress. This losscompromises instrumental feedback and by this action affects motivation toperform, as well as satisfaction with the act of performing.

A major concern we have about electronic monitoring is the influence it canhave on worker self-image and on feelings of self-worth. In one sense,monitoring should enhance feelings of worth if the results of worker efforts arepositive and the worker gets feedback to that effect. Likew"ise, managementinterest in the worker as a valuable resource can be demonstrated by theattention provided by monitoring through positive feedback. However, botheffects may be seen differently by workers if poor performance can lead tosome form of punishment or reprimand. This fear of evaluation can produceanxiety and heightened sensitivity to adverse feedback that may damage self-esteem and self-image (see Smith, Carayon and Miezio, 1986, for a discussionof this influence). When monitoring leads to job design that takes awayinstrumental control, then the activity takes on the characteristics of repetitivework devoid of cognitive content. Such work has negative consequences foremployee self-esteem, self-image and health (Cooper and Marshall, 1976).

The next level of control concerns the individual's discretionary latitude onhow tasks are carried out and work is scheduled. Johnson and Hall (1988) andKarasek (1979,1981) have shown that discretionary control and job demandsare two important job dimensions for understanding worker stress reactions.According to their model, strain increases as job demands increase and job

Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace 279

decision latitude decreases. Analysis of American and Swedish data on coro-nary heart disease, mental strain (e.g. depression) and job characteristicssupport this model; i.e. low decision latitude and high job demands wereassociated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease or increased exhaus-tion and depression (Karasek, 1979, 1981). A similar study in Finland(Kauppinen- Toropainen, Kandolin and Mutanen, 1983) supports Karasek'smodel: job dissatisfaction and work-related exhaustion increased as a result ofthe joint effects of lack of self-determination and time pressure. However,analyses by type of job (i.e., blue-collar versus white-collar) and by gendershowed some variations. Further, Sen, Pruzansky and Carroll (1981) instudying the relation between stress, job satisfaction and job characteristics asreported by about 5000 management employees of a large telephone companyshowed that only two of the five job characteristics being considered-jobautonomy and job demand-were found to be significantly related to overallstress and job satisfaction.

Work pacing and shiftwork studies have shown the importance of the controland job demands variables in worker health (Rutenfranz et al. 1977; Salvendyand Smith, 1981). Many comparative studies of machine pacing versus humanpacing have found that machine pacing produces increased adverse effects onhealth (Amick and Celentano, 1988; Frankenhaeuser and Gardell, 1976;Johansson, 1981; Smith, Hurrell and Murphy, 1981). However, it has beendifficult to isolate the effects of machine pacing since machine-paced work isoften combined with other potentially stressful job characteristics. In particu-lar, machine-pacing tasks usually have a short cycle time, require that theworker stays at a fixed work station, allow little or no autonomy (control) andoffer poor job content (Cooper and Smith, 1985). Electronic monitoring hasthe potential to mimic paced work systems by using current performanceinformation to feed messages to workers to speed up production. Such systemsadd a new dimension to the work-pacing issue since they do not produce a fixedwork rate, but control performance variability through feedback.

The third level of control is employee involvement in management decisionswhich have significance at higher organizational levels than the task. In the1940s and 1950s, social psychological researchers showed the potential effectsof participation in the workplace on performance and satisfaction (e.g. Cochand French, 1948; Lawrence and Smith, 1955). More recent research studiesand theories consider participation in decision making as a key element in joband organizational designs which provide the needed employee commitment toquality and productivity necessary for international competitiveness (Lawler,1986). In relation to stress, it has been demonstrated that workers' feelings oflack of involvement are related to physical and psychological health complaints(Caplan et al., 1975; Colligan, Smith and Hurrell, 1977; Gardell, 1976; Haynesand Feinleib, 1980; Karasek, 1981; Margolis, Kroes and Quinn, 1974;Rutenfranz et al., 1977; WHO, 1984). Electronic monitoring has the ability to

280 Job Control and Worker Health

either enhance or reduce worker feelings of participation and job involvement.When technology establishes work systems that are directed by electronicmonitoring, then it is possible that the monitoring will direct worker jobbeahvior. This then will diminish worker job control and may lead to the typeof stress problems that are caused by a lack of worker job control.

JOB DEMANDS

Job demands can be defined in terms of 'over'-stimulation and also in terms of'under'-stimulation (Frankenhaeuser and Gardell, 1976; Levi, 1972). Forinstance, both quantitative overload and qualitative underload have beenshown to provoke increases in catecholamine levels (Frankenhaueser andGardell, 1976) which are related to stress responses. In this case, a balance isrequired to avoid negative health consequences. Quantitative overload hasbeen shown to be a significant stressor for various occupations, includingscientists, machine operators and data-entry clerks (Caplan et al., 1975;Frankenhaeuser and Gardell, 1976; French and Caplan, 1970; Johansson,Aronsson and Lindstrom, 1978; Smith, Cohen and Stammerjohn, 1981). Theimpact of work overload varies from psychological disturbances to increaseddisease risk. Underload is just as bad for your health as overload in that it canaffect psychological well-being by producing boredom (Frankenhaeuser andGardell, 1976).

Monitoring is often accompanied by the establishment of work standards toassess employee performance and to establish minimum performance levels.This is a consequence of work simplification. These standards may not alwaysbe based on scientific grounds, but on the extent of production that can be'squeezed' out of employees, and sometimes on the capabilities of machinerywithout regard to human capabilities or capacities (Office of TechnologyAssessment, 1985; Smith, Cohen and Stammerjohn, 1981; Smith, Hurrell andMurphy, 1981). Such methods of setting work standards can cause workers towork too hard (Smith, Cohen and Stammerjohn, 1981). If the standards areexcessive, they will produce stress when employees fail to meet performancerequirements. This poses the threat of reprimand. Monitoring imposes aconstant threat of discovery that the employee is not working up to require-ment. Tied to the fear of reprimand for not meeting the standard is the pressureto perform above average. Many managers may feel this is a desirable effectsince it implies high production. But, such work pressure is not conducive togood performance and can bring about adverse health consequences (Cooperand Marshall, 1976; Smith, 1987).

One major fear of workers is that continuous monitoring systems will be usedto establish unfair production standards which will overtax their capabilities.To counteract such outcomes, it is likely that employees will limit theirperformance (as they sometimes have under incentive systems) so that work

Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace 281

standards will not increase (Rothe, 1960). This will defeat the positive benefitsof monitoring for performance motivation and enhancement, and thereforethe most effective uses of monitoring will be for non-evaluative purposes.

On the other hand, if a scientific basis is used to set the standards, theinfluence of monitoring could be stress-reducing if the current workloadrequirements were excessive. Monitoring provides the statistical base aboutperformance capacity and variability useful for defining reasonable workstandards for each individual. In this way monitoring contributes to a manage-ment information system that can be used to make management decisionsabout workload on a rational basis. This removes the subjectivity from decisionmaking by providing objective measures that can be correlated with behavioraloutcomes such as injuries, illnesses, absences and complaints.

Workpace not only influences discretionary control, but also is an importantworkload factor in the development of stress (Cakir et al., 1978; Smith, Cohenand Stammerjohn, 1981). The speed or rate of work has been implicated as asignificant issue in factory worker ill health (Salvendy and Smith, 1981).Because computers can operate at high speeds on a continuous basis, there canbe an increase in the pacing impact of automation which produces increasedworkload, causing employee dissatisfaction with the new workload. Researchsuggests that pacing produced by computerization may have an even greaterstress effect than factory pacing because of worker adverse perceptions ofworkload and related mood disturbances (Smith, Cohen and Stammerjohn,1981; Smith, Hurrell and Murphy, 1981).

Time pressure, such as having to meet deadlines, is a stressor that is relatedto both workload and work pacing. In addition it may interact with v/orkscheduling. Early stress studies have demonstrated increases in stress level asdifficult deadlines draw near (Friedman, Rosenman and Carroll, 1958). Con-tinuous electronic monitoring that provides feedback that an employee is notperforming at an adequate level could produce a form of deadline pressure on aconstant basis. Such constant pressure may be more damaging than simpledeadline pressure that is a transitory occurrence. This fits well with Lazarus'theory of daily hassles which lead to serious stress problems with prolongedexposure (Lazarus, 1977).

JOB CONTENT

Job content is one of the most widely examined aspects of job design in regardto employee performance, satisfaction with work and job stress. Several stress-related job content factors have been researched, including task variety, taskclarity (confusion), challenge, complexity, utilization of skills and abilities, andactivity level. Adverse employee perceptions of these content factors have allbeen related to increased stress and negative psychological states such asboredom, confusion and frustration, and have also been related to increased

282 Job Control and Worker Health .

risk of health disorders. When considering electronic monitoring in the contextof job content effects, there are several possible ways in which monitoringcould have adverse consequences. Because of the requirement to simplify workactivities to make them more quantifiable for monitoring purposes, monitoringmay reduce task complexity, variety, challenge and skills used by the

employee.This 'Taylorization' of job content may be the most serious job stress aspect

of electronic monitoring since it seems to be impossible to get around therequirement for work simplification that is needed for precise and accuratecontinuous monitoring to occur. Few modern job design theorists wouldsubscribe to principles of 'scientific management', yet many corporations thatespouse more modern 'humanistic' theories are engaged in electronic monitor-ing. Often the monitoring system directly influences the design of many clericaland blue-collar jobs in a way consistent with 'scientific management' withoutcorporations really understanding they are perpetuating this influence.

There are other aspects of job content such as work role that can be changedby electronic monitoring. Work role can include a variety of job factors such asresponsibility for others, role conflict, role ambiguity, accountability, author-ity, discretionary control, participation and job status. Stress studies havedemonstrated that role ambiguity, role conflict and responsibility for personsare related to increased employee perceptions of job stress and psychologicalproblems (Beehr and Bhagat, 1984; Caplan et al., 1975; French, Caplan andHarrison, 1982; Margolis, Kroes and Quinn (1974). In this regard, monitoringmay be able to decrease stress by reducing the ambiguity regarding perfor-mance, and by helping employees in guiding their behavior towards desiredorganizational goals. If the guidance process is set up properly, say with theindividual use of personal performance feedback, this can reduce both perfor-mance and role ambiguity and enhance self-image. However, as discussedearlier, the nature of feedback to the employee can determine if the feedbackwill produce stress. Thus, judgemental or value-laden feedback may causebehavioral reactions (Herzberg, 1966, 1974).

Career development is an organizational consideration that has some rela-tion to job content since current job status influences possibilities for advance-ment. Concern over chances for promotion has been shown to be a significantstressor for office workers, while being passed over for promotion has beenrelated to increases in both job stress and ill health (Arthur and Gunderson,1965; Smith, Cohen and Stammerjohn, 1981). Performance monitoring canhave both beneficial and negative effects in regard to promotion. Monitoringhas the potential to provide for more objective employee evaluations. Ifemployee promotions are based on performance which can be more objec-tively evaluated, then monitoring may have a positive benefit for some workersby removing subjective aspects of the processes and rewarding them for theirperformance. However, if monitoring is perceived as unfair and not represent-

Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace 283

a!ive of true performance, then it could produce a stressful influence regardingcareer advancement.

Job security is the other side of career development. The threat of job loss isa very potent stressor that has been tied to serious health disorders such asulcers, colitis, severe emotional stress and patch baldness, as well as toincreased muscular and emotional complaints (Cobb and Kasl, 1977).Monitoring to collect information about empoioyee performance can be usedfor employee dismissal for unsatisfactory performance. The fear of such usecan be very stressful. This is one stressor identified by employees as a primaryreason for fearing electronic monitoring (Smith, Carayon and Miezio, 1986).

SOCIAL RELATIONS

There is a growing literature on the importance of social relationships at workin reducing stress. House (1981) and others have shown that social support canmoderate the effects of stress on the psychological well-being of the employee.Johnson and Hall (1988) have shown that the effects of job control ontechnology can be contingent on the level of support. They found thatemployees who had little control and little support were at a 68% increased riskfor heart disease. House and Wells (1978) found that co-worker support had noeffect on the stress-health relationship. They attributed this lack of an effect tothe organizational environment. Amick and Celentano (1988) have shown howone organizational characteristic-technology-can influence social support.They found that the level of technology influenced co-worker support, but notsupervisor support. Yet, supervisor support had a greater effect on psychologi-cal well-being. Based on a historical analysis, it was suggested that this lack ofan effect was in part due to the installation of an electronic monitoring systemthat changed the way the supervisor interacted with workers; Thus technologyand electronic monitoring systems can change the way supervision isconducted.

Smith, Carayon and Miezio (1986) and Smith, Cohen and Stammerjohn(1981) have shown that computer automation with monitoring produced amore coercive, stricter number-counting supervisory style which replacedmore helpful, less performance-oriented supervisory approach. Supervisorscan provide support to workers in the completion of their tasks thus requiringmotivational methods, or they can use the electronic monitoring systems as anobjective evaluator of the workers' performance and control their behavior.We suggest that monitoring should not be used as part of an individualevaluation approach, but should be used to feed back information to individ-uals about their performance in a non-evaluative way so that they can makenecessary corrections in their behavior. Griffin (1981) has shown that whensupervisors provide cues to workers about their performance this changes the

! way workers evaluate the task components to their job. Thus appropriate use.,.!

284 Job Control and Worker Health

of information collected through electronic monitoring can affect other taskdimensions.

Electronic performance monitoring can also change the ways workersinteract. Socialization and talking are reduced in most automated work settings(Amick and Ostberg, 1987; Smith, Carayon and Miezio, 1986; Smith, Cohenand Stammerjohn, 1981). When electronic monitoring is used as the primaryform of supervision and the computer controls the pace of the work, employeescan become socially isolated, which can lead to depression. Monitoring can addto workers' concern about being watched on a frequent basis. Thus, theworkers may be afraid to socialize. In a recent study by Smith, Carayon andMiezio (1986), all of the workers interviewed commented on the importance ofthe workplace as a place to socialize and to interact with others.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is insufficient research literature to support the contention thatelectronic monitoring increases stress and diminishes employee health, wehave illustrated that electronic monitoring certainly has this potential. Byadversely influencing working conditions which have been shown to causestress, it may indirectly lead to employee stress. Indeed, electronic monitoringmay actually create these adverse working conditions, such as paced work, lackof involvement, reduced task variety and task clarity, reduced peer socialsupport, reduced supervisory support, fear of job loss, routinized work ac-tivities and lack of control over tasks.

Monitoring has the capability to change job design substantially. All theoriesof human performance at work identify the significance of having up-to-date,accurate information about individual performance so that aspects of pesonalmotivation can be applied to increase productivity. While the theories maydiffer on the use of the information, they agree on the need for such informa-tion. While electronic monitoring can playa significant role in providing thisinformation, it also has the potential to be stressful and thereby reduceemployee motivation. It is apparent that monitoring must be conducted in theproper 'organizational climate' for it to produce the beneficial results onemployee behavior without the cost associated with job stress.

Monitoring has direct effects on employee perceptions of stress and has thepotential to influence worker motivation and behavior. If monitoring is used inan evaluative way by management, then it can create distress and influenceindividual motives and goals adversely. While the use of evaluative monitoringcould have both positive and negative effects on immediate performance, thelong-term stress effects must cause performance deficits over time. If monitor- .

ing is used to provide accurate, meaningful feedback in a timely way and is non-evaluative, it can be the basis for enhanced goal setting and motivation andprovide the cues necessary to improve performance. Such monitoring can also

,r

,. Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace 285

be the basis for establishing equitable and reasonable work standards thatinfluence performance motivation under incentive conditions, as well asworker perceptions of fairness and job satisfaction under non-incentiveconditions.

Monitoring can influence motivation by the type of information feedbackprovided to individuals. Value judgement information, such as that in annualperformance evaluations, generally is not perceived as important, accurate orworthwhile by workers. In fact, workers often misjudge what they are toldabout their performance. Performance feedback on a continuous basis can helpin setting individual performance goals, can act as a direct performancemotivator and can help direct behavior that is tied to financial incentives. Thus,the information and cues act as primary sources for motivating workerbehavior.

Electronic monitoring of employee performance is a necessary element in acompetitive, productive work system. To deal with-international competition,effective utilization of employee resources is vital. In this light, employeeresources must be recognized as a vital component of workplace moderniza-tion; and without a highly motivated workforce, the modernization will not beas successful. Monitoring, and its related motivational processes such asfeedback, goal setting and performance evaluation, are keys to the success ofelectronic workplace enhancements. Monitoring can be an anchor in theseefforts. In fact, most employees want to have feedback about their perfor-mance so they can gauge their behavior, evaluate their goals, and as a source ofinternal and external motivation. Such feedback would be absent withouteffective monitoring.

While monitoring is at the heart of successful job design because of its uses inproviding feedback, goal setting, performance evaluation and employeerewarding/compensating, it also is at the heart of stressful working conditions.The problem lies not in the actual monitoring of performance, but in the systemby which performance is monitored and the way in which the monitoring isapplied to control and motivate worker behavior. Successful monitoringimplies that worker performance can be quantified in a meaningful way. Simplyreporting on the quantity of work output will not provide adequate perfor-mance feedback to workers for productivity gains, quality improvement or formotivating worker performance. If performance cannot be adequately mea-sured, it cannot be adequately monitored and proper feedback cannot be givento the worker. Such feedback is the base upon which successful monitoringprograms for enhancing worker performance are built.

To be successful performance monitoring must be perceived as fair by theemployees being monitored. Some necessary conditions for this would be thatthe measurements of performance being monitored: (1) have value to theworker and the activities being undertaken; (2) be from a good source,accurate and verifiable; (3) provide positive feedback; (4) provide necessary

I

286 Job Control and Worker Health -information in a timely way in the light of uncertainty or ambiguity; (5) proviqecues to proper behavior; and (6) have reasonable standards, preferably basedon some form of employee input. Such a monitoring system requires planningand a great deal of work in making it operational. Standard software packagesprovided by manufacturers of monitoring equipment currently do not havemany of these elements and may contribute to stress and the horror stories in

the media.Proper application of electronic monitoring enhances job design by building

intrinsic motivation into work activities. This is typically accomplished byincreasing worker control over the task through participation in goal settingand work standards establishment, through feedback that assists the worker ingaining control over task activities and by obtaining satisfaction from successfulperformance. Such processes imply that task content will not be degraded bythe monitoring. Sometimes, in attempting to provide meaningful, verifiable,accurate feedback, organizations take the easy way out by simplifying tasks tomake them more amenable to measurement and the establishment of workstandards. This is a natural tendency that must be fought, since the reduction injob content will negate gains from enhanced feedback and participative goalsetting. To enhance motivation and its influences on performance, as well asthe positive benefits of feedback and goal setting, it is necessary to keep jobscomplex and to develop more sophisticated hardware, software and workevaluation methods to provide the needed monitoring parameters. If jobs aresimplified, the production gains are reduced, and job characteristics becomesimilar to those that have been shown to be very stressful, with adverse health

consequences.

REFERENCES

Amick, B. C. (1986). Work-related Psychosocial Stress: Technology and Health,Unpublished doctoral dissertatiron, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Amick, B. C. and Celentano, D. D. (1989). Structural determinants of the psychosocialwork environment: A preliminary test of the role of technology in the work stressframework, Ergonomics (submitted).

Amick, B. C. and Ostberg, O. (1987). Office automation, occupational stress antihealth: A literature analysis with specific attention to expert systems, Office: Technol-ogy and People, 3, 191-209.

Arthur, R. J. and Gunderson, E. K. (1965). Promotion and mental illness in the Navy,Journal of Occupational Medicine, 7, 452-6.

Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (1984). Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations:An Integrated Perspective, New York.

Cakir, A., Reuter, H., Yon Schmude, L. and Armbruster, A. (1978). Investigations ofthe Accommodations of Human Psychic and Physical Functions of Data DisplayScreens in the Workplace, lnstitut fur Arbeitswissenschaft der Technischen Univer-sitat Berlin.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Harrison, R. V. and Pinneau, S. R. (1975).Job Demands and Worker Health, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

- Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace 287

Cobb, S. and Kasl, S. V. (1977). Termination: The Consequences of Job Loss, US,. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Coch, L. and French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change, HumanRelations, 1,512-32.

Colligan, M. J., Smith, M. J. and Hurrell, J. J. Jr (1977). Occupational incidents rates ofmental health disorders, Journal of Human Stress, 3, 34-9.

Cooper, C. L. and Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: A review of theliterature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health, Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 49, 11-28.

Cooper, C. L. and Smith, M. J. (1985). Job Stress and Blue Collar Work, Wiley, NewYork.

Frankenhaeuser, M. and Gardell, B. (1976). Underload and overload in working life:Outline of a multidisciplinary approach, Journal of Human Stress, 2, 35-46.

French, J. R. P. and Caplan, R. D. (1970). Psychological factors in coronary heartdisease, Industrial Medicine, 39, 383-97.

French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D. and Harrison, R. V. (1982). The Mechanisms of JobStress and Strain, Wiley, Chichester.

Friedman, M., Rosenman, R. H. and Carroll, V. (1958). Changes in the serumcholesterol and blood clotting time in men subjected to cyclic variation of occupa-tional stress, Circulation, 17, 852-61.

Gardell, B. (1976). Technology alienation and mental health, Acta Sociologica, 19,83-94.

Gnffin, R. W. (1981). A longitudinal investigation of task characteristics relationships,Academy of Management Journal, 24,99-113.

Haynes, S. G. and Feinleib, M. (1980). Women, work and coronary heart disease:Prospective findings from the Framingham heart study, American Journal of PublicHealth, 70, 133-41.

Hershman, A. and Rozen, M. (1984). Corporate Big Brother is watching you, Dun'sBusiness Month, January.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man, Crowell, New York.Herzberg, F. (1974). The wise old Turk, Harvard Business Review, September-

October, 70-80.House, J. (1981). Work Stress and Social Support, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.House, J. and Wells, J. (1978). Occupational stress, social support and health. In A.

McLean, G. Black and M. J. Colligan (eds) Reducing Occupational Stress, Proceed-ings of a conference, Washington, DC, DHEW (NIOSH) Pub. No. 78-140,8-27.

Johansson, G. (1981). Psychoneuroendocrine correlates of unpaced and paced perfor-mance. In G. Salvendy and M. J. Smith (eds) Machine Pacing and OccupationalStress, pp. 277-86, Taylor & Francis, London.

Johansson, G., Aronsson, G. and Lindstrom, B. o. (1978). Social psychological andneuroendocrine stress reactions in highly mechanized work, Ergonomics, 21, 583-99.

Johnson, J. V. (1986). The Impact of Workplace Social Support, Job Demands andWork Control Upon Cardiovascular Disease in Sweden, University of Stockholm(English Language Report Series, No. 34), Stockholm.

Johnson, J. V. and Hall, E. (1988). Job strain, workplace social support and cardio-vascular disease, American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336-1342.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implica-tions for job redesign, Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 285-308.

Karasek, R. A. (1981). Job decision latitude, job design, and coronary heart disease. InG. Salvendy and M. J. Smith (eds) Machine Pacing and Occupational Stress, pp. 45-56, Taylor & Francis, London.

288 Job Control and Worker Health -

Kauppinen-Torapainen, K., Kandolin, I. and Mutanen, P. (1983). Job dissatisfactionand work related exhaustion in male and female workers, Journal of OccupationalBehaviour, 4, 193-207.

Lawler, E. E., III (1986). High-involvement Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Lawrence, L. and Smith, P. (1955). Group decisions and employee particiption, Journal

of Applied Psychology, 39, 334-7.Lazarus, R. S. (1977). Cognitive and coping processes in emotion. In A. Monat and R.

Lazarus (eds) Stress and Coping, Columbia University Press, New York.Levi, L. (1972). Stress and distress in response to psychosocial stimuli, Acta Medica

Scandinavica, 191 (Suppl. 528).Margolis, B., Kroes, W. M. and Quinn, R. (1974). Job stress: An unlisted occupational

hazard, Journal of Occupational Medicine, 16, 654-61.Office of Technology Assessment (1985). Automation of America's Offices, US Govern-

ment Printing Office, OTA-CIT-287, Washington, DC.Office of Technology Assessment (1987). The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology,

New Tensions, US Government Printing Office, OTA-CJT-333, Washington, DC.Perl, P. (1984). Rising performance standards keep some in agency on edge, Wash-

ington Post, 3rd September.Rothe, H. F. (1960). Does higher pay bring higher productivity? Personnel, July-

August, 20-7.Rutenfranz, J., Colquhoun, W., Knauth, P. and Ghata, J. (1977). Biomedical and

psychosocial aspects of shift work, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment andHealth, 3, 165-82.

Salvendy, G. and Smith, M. J. (1981). Machine-Pacing and Occupational Stress, Taylor& Francis, London.

Sen, T. K., Pruzansky, S. and Carroll, J. D. (1981). Relationship of perceived stress tojob satisfaction. In G. Salvendy and M. J. Smith (eds) Machine Pacing andJob Stress,pp. 65-72, Taylor & Francis, London.

Smith, K. U. and Smith, M. F. (1966). Cybernetic Principles of Learning and Educa-tional Design, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Smith, M. J. (1987). Occupational stress. In G. Salvendy (ed.) Handbook ofErgonomics/Human Factors, pp. 844-60, Wiley, New York.

Smith, M. J. and Carayon, P. (1989). A balance theory of job design for stressreduction, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics (accepted).

Smith, M. J., Carayon, P. and Miezio, K. (1986). Motivational, Behavioral andPsychological Implications of Electronic Monitoring of Worker Performance, Officeof Technology Assessment, US Congress, Washington, DC.

Smith, M. J., Cohen, B. G. and Stammerjohn, L. W. Jr (1981). An investigation ofhealth complaints and job stress in video display operations, Human Factors, 23, 387-400.

Smith, M. J., Hurrell, J. J. and Murphy, R. (1981). Stress and health effects in pacedand unpaced work. In G. Salvendy and M. J. Smith (eds) Machine Pacing andOccupational Stress, pp. 261-8, Taylor & Francis, London.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management, First published 1911,Norton, New York; Second printing 1967.

Westin, A. (1984). Privacy Issues in the Monitoring of Employee Work on VDT's in theOffice Environment: Practices, Interests, and Policy Choices, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Washington, DC.

.. Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace 289

WHO (1984). Psychosocial Factors and Health: Monitoring the Psychosocial WorkEnvironment and Worker's Health, World Health Organization, Geneva.