Ways in Which Workplace Surveillance Influences Managing People at Work in Organisations - Coursework Example

Ways in Which Workplace Surveillance Influences Managing People at Work in Contemporary Organisations Name: Student ID: Course: Institution: Tutor: Introduction One of the important requirements in any organisation is human capital. Employees’ play a critical role of ensuring that organisation’s vision is attained (Weightman, 2004:3). This is only possible if the top level management and human resource manager put in place personnel management mechanisms that aid in enhancing productivity. For an organisation to have the best from its employees, it has to adopt practices like performance management, reward management, staff development programmes, proper industrial/ employee relations like pluralism approach for grievance resolution and lastly having proper surveillance as means of control and supervision (Weightman, 2004:7 & 8; Armstrong, 2001). The above aspirations can be achieved by having multi pronged approach like visionary and motivational leadership and recruitment of managers with not only technical skills but also soft skills/peoples skills/interpersonal skills/ emotional intelligence who can understand formal and informal relations between people (Armstrong, 2001:7). The essence of all this is to ensure team work, motivated workforce and thus, enhanced productivity (Armstrong, 2001:13). This paper examines the ways in which workplace surveillance influences managing people at work in contemporary organisations. Managing People at Work and Work Place Surveillance Managing people is a broad concept that borrows from different fields. According to Armstrong (2001:13 & 14; NSW Department of Commerce, Office of Industrial Relations, n.d:1-6), this concept involves organisation structure and organisation, behaviour, recruitment and staffing, pay, performance management, employee relation and employee development among others. Managers have the responsibility of tracking the activities of their employees at work place by increasing the visibility of employee behaviour, monitor usage patterns and reduce unauthorised activities (Stanton & Stam, 2006:3). The essence of surveillance is based on the premise that employees have access to critical information of the organisation that should be handled carefully. In addition, the call for surveillance is necessitated with the emergence of computerised and networked work stations which can be source of abuse and waste of time and thus, creating disharmony and reducing productivity (Stanton & Stam, 2006:23; Kizza & Ssanyu, 2005:3). However, in Australia there is also the law governing the same. Workplace surveillance Act 2005 regulates video surveillance, computer and tracking surveillance. Danielson (2005:19) identifies two theories that explain the need for surveillance. The first approach is on the basis that employers have power over employees. The second one is based minimization of unexpected consequences. The essence of the first theoretical construct is to create a power relation of senior and junior. Moreover, the approach is built on Foucalt’s Panopticon paradigm that stresses on creation of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. Botan (1996: 298) cited in Danielson (2005:22) observes that the essence of this theoretical backing is to create the notion among employees that they are being watched even if that is not the case. This approach normally elicits reaction from employees. The second one is based on the need to protect valuable assets like information. Apart from the physical measures, the new trends in surveillance are based on electronic monitoring. Wallace (2004:216) observes that internet monitoring is the common example of surveillance at work place. In this case the employer looks what sites employee visited and how long they stayed. The second most popular surveillance by employers is through telephone. In this they look at time spent and number of calls made. The other practices that are utilised by employers are review of computer files and video surveillance. Apart from electronic monitoring, organisations employ practices like monitoring through authentication before one gains access to certain resources. The last is computer-based desktop monitoring (Wallace, 2004:217 & 218). Ways in Which Workplace Surveillance Influences Managing People at Work Irrespective of the approach, the greatest application of managing people is to ensure employees work in enabling environment so that they help in achieving organisational goals and a path towards market leadership. Thus, any management controls that are not in sync with this practice that identifies the critical role of employees should be reviewed. Nickson (2002) cited in Kizza & Ssanyu (2005:6) notes that monitoring of employee behaviour is ethical so long as it is geared towards recording evidence of a business transaction. The second is if it is for ensuring compliance with regulatory or self-regulatory guideline. The third is if it is implemented to maintain the effective operations of the employer’s system. The last is if it is modelled for maintaining standards of training and services. An influence can be seen in two ways, the first is positive and the second is negative. Moreover, employees can view surveillance as means of protection from harassment or as an invasion to privacy (Danielson, 2005:21). In addition surveillance and employee management can be analysed in the angle of balancing privacy and security concerns. This section will explore aspects of work place surveillance and its influence on managing people at work. One complain that employees have levelled against surveillance is that it leads to collection of numerous personal data which the employee is not sure how they are being handle (privacy concerns). This has resulted into numerous court cases in Australia or other parts of the world (Stanton & Stam, 2006:3). This kind of friction goes against the underlying principle of managing people. According to Goldratt’s theory of constraint an organisation is strong as its weakest link. This means that organisation’s success is tied to how it operates as a system (Dettmer, 1997, p. 7). One problem that might arise out of this is poor perception of the employer and work place. Consequently it can lead to emergence of disfranchised work force and high employee turnover with no allegiance to the organisation. Kahneman, Lovallo and Sibony (2011, p. 51) observe that bias can distort reasoning in business. They note that confirmation bias that is as a result of our perception, for instance, leads people to ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceived notion. Moreover, they note that when organisations worked at reducing the effects of bias in their decision-making process, they achieved returns up to seven percentage points higher. The other undoing that can connect with employees who feel that their privacy is being breached is reduced motivation. There are numerous theories that have been used to explain concept of internal drive and human action. Theory X and Y theory advances concept that there are two classes of manager. The X managers view employees as skivers and those in need of close supervision, while Y managers who are optimistic view employees as those in need of motivation so as to achieve desired goals (Bernstain, 2011, 591). Thus, it means that most employers who implement surveillance without proper procedures and consultation tend to fall in the category X according to the theory of ‘X’ and’ Y’. Moreover, theories like hygiene theory that are based on reward management require management to address issues that that discourage or encourage employees (Bernstain, 2011, 592). These phenomena are called dissatisfies and satisfiers. While a lot of negative labels have been placed against surveillance, surveillance if well planned and implemented it can be used in performance management and employee appraisal. This is based on the fact that if one is not doing any wrong he/she should fear nothing. Moreover, firm invest in resources and assets like internet to enhance productivity and not for employee personal gain. One approach to managing people and increasing performance has been management by objective. This approach in a participatory manner sets out what is to be achieved by employees or departments over time (Koontz and Weihrich, 2008, p.92).This objectives cannot be achieved if the performances of employees are not well managed. One way to improve performance of an individual or a department is through performance management. Performance management is the creation of collaborative effort between the supervisors and employees by aligning them with the firm’s strategic management plan. This is done by explaining shared expectations and reducing barriers to poor performance (Bacal, 2012, p.3, 4 & 5). The surveillance can be used to examine what the employees do and how they spend company resources. Conclusion One thing that emerges is that the two extreme approaches do not reduce the tension between the employee and employer and this can be detrimental towards performance of the organisation since the two are not in sync. Danielson (2005:22) using analogy of inspector and a prisoner foresee total conflict in the belief of employer having power over employee. He proposes an ethical approach to the use of surveillance technology. In his final submission, he recommends for organisation to move away from adverse surveillance that normally strokes counter reaction to welcome surveillance where both parties have shared objective or outcome (Danielson, 2005:22). Any surveillance that is well constructed should take into considerations like privacy, productivity and performance, security, organisational relationships, management, stress levels, workplace violence and job satisfaction (Wallace, 2004:215). Moreover, surveillance should not only focus on security alone, it should be used in performance appraisal of employees. Apart from the above, Stanton & Stam (2006) in their visible employee concept advocates for paradigm shift from technical control to control structures like formal organisation authority and building of informal authority or organisational culture. It is indeed true that organisation cannot survive without surveillance of employee in relation to their behaviour at work place. However, this should be streamlined, collaborative harmonised and participatory in nature. If employers fill that it is their absolute right to do surveillance, this strokes reaction rather than obedience. This kind of approach would then make each party feel that there is need for surveillance as means to protecting organisation’s assets, but also at the same time make employee feel that they privacy is not being compromised. References Armstrong, M. 2001. Managing people: a practical guide for line managers. London: Kogan Page Bacal, R. 2012. Performance management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bernstein, D. A. 2011. Essential of psychology. Belmont, US: Cengage Learning. Boyd, E. M. & Fales, A. W. 1983. Reflective Learning: Learning from Experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 99–117. Danielson, P. in Weckert, J. 2005. Electronic monitoring in the workplace: controversies and solution. Hershey, PA: Idea group Inc. Dettmer, H. W. 1997. Goldratt’s theory of constraints: a systems approach to continuous improvement. Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press. Kizza & Ssanyu in Weckert, J. 2005. Electronic monitoring in the workplace: controversies and solution. Hershey, PA: Idea group Inc. Koontz, H. and Weihrich, H. 2008. Essentials of management: an international perspective. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill. NSW Department of Commerce, Office of Industrial Relations, n,d. Managing people. Retrieved 2 May 2012, from: https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/star/infosheets/OIR_managing_people.pdf Stanton, J. M. & Stam, K. R. 2006. The visible employee: using workplace monitoring and surveillance to protect information assets without compromising employee privacy or trust.Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc. Wallace, P. M. 2004. The internet in the workplace: how new technology is transforming work. Cambridge: Cambridge Press Weightman, J. 2004. Managing people. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Read More