electronic surveillance and the forgotten impacts...

Global Journal of Contemporary Research in Accounting, Auditing and Business Ethics (GJCRA)

An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3162)

2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

543 www.globalbizresearch.org

Electronic Surveillance and the Forgotten Impacts on Organizational

Employees in India: A Qualitative and Ethical Review

Jijo James Indiparambil,

Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies,

KU Leuven, Belgium.

E-mail: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Supervision of employees has been a fundamental aspect of any employment relationship for

centuries. The implementation of advanced ICTs in the workplace combined with its user-

friendly nature and diminished costs, has created a substantial leap in the availability and

intensity of monitoring practices in the workplace today. Being an important venue for

emerging service sectors including financial accounting, call centres, and business process

outsourcing Indian organizational workplaces provide for the extensive use of electronic

surveillance practices and thus causes for individual and social impacts for better or worse.

The researchers have not given enough attention to workplace surveillance in Indian context

and that not definitively from employees’ perspectives and with ethical frameworks. This

study plugs this gap and contribute to the broad research scholarship by qualitatively

(empirical) exploring the forgotten bearings of electronic surveillance on the organizational

(IT, ITeS, BPO) employees in India. It argues with a phenomenographic approach that the

expected benefits engendered by surveillance practices cannot overrule the individual, socio-

ethical and organizational concerns of employees heightened by them. It presents an overview

of employee perspectives in Indian context, methodologically reviews literature to

substantiate the employee experiences, synthesizes the result-findings, describes a heuristic

framework that organizes research on employee reactions to electronic monitoring and

concludes with notes of limitations and offering ideas for future research.

___________________________________________________________________________

Key Words: Surveillance, Privacy, Workplace, Work-Culture, Security, Self-Monitoring

mailto:[email protected]





1. Introduction

Though workplace surveillance is a global phenomenon, not restricted to an organization,

sector, society, region, or country, it has boundless ramifications, in both micro (motivation,

competence, motivation) and macro (organizations or sectors) levels, on the cultural or

environmental backgrounds and contexts of a given time and space (Cantor, 2016; Pitesa,

2012; Weckert, 2005; Lyon, 2003, 2001; Mishra and Crapton, 1998). A qualitative study on

electronic surveillance in the workplace was conducted in Indian context, because, being an

important venue for emerging service sectors including financial accounting, call centres, and

business process outsourcing Indian organizational workplaces provide for the extensive use

of electronic surveillance practices and thus causes for individual and social impacts in both

ways – good or bad. The researchers have not given enough attention to workplace

surveillance in Indian context and that not definitively from employees’ perspectives and with

ethical frameworks. This study plugs this gap and contribute to the broad research scholarship

in this matter. The socio-cultural and economic backgrounds and the present scenario of IT,

ITeS, BPO affluence in Indian work culture extend the significance and urgency of this

investigative exploration. All participants in the study were already subjected to several

surveillance practices in their present or previous workplaces ranging from CCTV cameras, e-

mails and telephone monitoring, biometric identification, and control through GPS and RFID,

and that contribute to the validity and reliability of the study. This research, hence, presents an

overview of employee perspectives in Indian context, methodologically reviews literature to

substantiate the employee experiences, and thus describes a heuristic framework that

organizes research on employee reactions to electronic monitoring.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Organizational Work Culture and Transformation in India

Culture in general is a complex whole that makes any society with specific ways how its

members think, act and live, and thus is termed as the ‘way of life’ of a particular segment or

group – small or big. The business work culture in India is contingent to a large extent on its

cultural and ethnic gages with geographical features and settlements, traditional trade

practices and present foreign investments leading to progressing business environments and

the craving for the adaptation of changing science and technology in the work scenarios

(Indiparambil 2017; Jhunjhunwala, 2012). This is particularized through the cultural

complexities with the diversity in language, customs and festivals, and tolerance and

acceptance of emerging business or market trends (Jhunjhunwala, 2012). Though Commercial

cities like Harappa and Mohenjedaro in the fourth and third millennium BCE and the ruins of

Indus Valley civilization of 2500 BCE prove the presence of India as an exporter in industrial

business since the ancient times (Kanagasabapathi, 2009; Agarwala, 2001), there was an





interruption in its progress and only in the last 150 years India resumed her glory of being in

the path of industrialization (Majumdar 2012). For, being overpoweringly rural and

agricultural with 85 per cent of population living in villages deriving livelihood from

agricultural pursuits using outmoded low productivity techniques, Indian economy at the time

of independence drastically drained (Kapila 2003). Besides, the industrial sector was

underdeveloped due to the exploiting and destroying policy of the British Raj, weak

infrastructure, etc. (Kapila 2003).

The second half of the twentieth century witnessed subtle change ranging from socio-

cultural upgrading, political integrations, and economic growth in India. For, in the

continuation of these cultural milieus a new middle class (labour) is emerged in the 1990s as a

cultural sub-group that made a leading role in the modernization process in India and featured

its socio-economic and political developments (Arora 2005). India witnessed a sweeping

revolution from predominantly rural agriculture-based country to urban industrialized and to

the current Metropolitan Information and Communication Technology (ICT) based

knowledge-service country. Majumdar rightly observes and illustrates the changes and the

liberalization process initiated in India since the beginning of the 1990s, that prefigures new

developments in the industrial and business scenario of the country, where business was

becoming global witnessing a new era of the entry of an increasing number of foreign

business sectors (Majumdar, 2012). Indian work culture in this context seems dualistic, where

a large traditional economy, i.e., agriculture, coexists with the economy of industry and

services that produces high level of growth and productivity. The rapid growth of

Multinational Companies (MNCs), ICT enabled sectors, Business Processing Outsourcing

(BPO) and Knowledge Processing Outsourcing (KPO) establishments along with other

globalized tendencies of business and work practices prove this pattern.

A substantial amount of attention is given in today’s service sector in India through the

performance of IT and the related software, outsourcing, and back office services (Majumdar,

2012). Similarly, globalization, with its increased “cross-border transactions in the production

and marketing of goods and services that facilitates firm relocation to low labour cost

countries” (Stone, 2008: 115), deserves the credit of creating an increasingly privileged and

extensively regarded opportunities of high-quality employment in developing countries like

India. The adaptation of the new emerging technologies, rapid market-oriented restructuring,

and globally competitive policies helped Indian economy to grow faster and to become more

self-reliant in its actions (Jain, 2004). However, India perceived great challenges in this

sudden shift of its work culture. Factors like privatization, flexibilization, and

individualization, coalesce the major labour trends and challenges in globalized IT-India

along with new labour management practices and approaches.





Contemporary employee management patterns create further pertinent challenges

regarding the highly technology dependent agencies of work, especially those in the IT and

ITeS workplaces and those employing electronic surveillance. Though the specific parameters

of surveillance vary both in quantitative and qualitative level in relation to the organizational

differences, the performative and behavioural monitoring and the ubiquitous nature of its

applications are largely increasing in the Indian workplaces and particularly in those enabled

with ICT and are extensively mounting in its challenges (Indiparambil 2017; Noronha and

D’Cruz, 2009). The management ideology of monitoring practices is being criticized, that

“the availability of a technological capacity does not mean it will necessarily be deployed [...].

Managers may or may not be aware of the potential of technologies for monitoring, and if

they are aware, they will still weigh the benefits of implementing surveillance process against

the perceived costs and benefits to the organization” (Mason et al., 2002: 100).

Technology provides or functions only as a tool for data to be collected, analyzed and

interpreted (Moussa 2015). Yet, the continuous and easy monitoring through technological

viability makes and transforms ‘monitoring work’ to ‘surveillance of workers’ and demands a

plethora of transformed management. The current management principles are characterized

by the responsible individual employees driven by internal motivation and competition,

readiness for team work and collaboration, open and interactive work culture (Udupa, 2015).

Although remarkable is the present management ideology practiced by the Indian IT industry

“based on flat structures, lack of bureaucracy, openness, flexibility, and employee

empowerment,” some new forms of labour challenges or employee setbacks emerges due to

the volatile requirements of global standard business and its subsequent functional practice of

direct or ‘panoptical’ control over the workers and the work process (Upadhya and Vasavi,

2006). This practice is called ‘electronic panopticon’ by Graham Sewell and Barry Wilkinson

(1992: 283), “where a disembodied eye can overcome the constrains of architecture and space

to bring its disciplinary gaze to bear at the very heart of the labour process,” which has a

drilling effect on employees and becomes a new age challenge of Indian organizational

workplaces.

2.2 Concepts and Concerns of E-Surveillance in the Workplace

Surveillance is said to be an observation from a distance and certainly much more. It is a

well “focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence,

management, protection or direction, and which directs its attention in the end to individuals”

(Lyon, 2007: 14). It is the fact or possibility of being observed by someone else (Ball 2010;

Beu and Buckley, 2001; Stahl et al., 2005). So, the word surveillance covers surreptitious

investigations both into individual activities and routine/everyday activities. Yet, because of

its intriguing and highly sensitive character, surveillance is very ambiguous in nature (Lyon,





2007) and is called by Graham Sewell and James R. Barker (2006) a ‘double-edged sword,’

which carries baggage along with its benefits. Electronic surveillance, which is our main

concern here, is generally understood as the gathering of information by surreptitious, secret

and stealthy means using electronic devices. It is an inconspicuous observation of or snooping

on persons, places and activities using electronic devices such as cameras, microphones, tape

recorders, or wire-taps, and more intrudingly by monitoring of internet, email, and other web

activities. In the workplace, it refers to the intended activities of observation to collect and

record employees’ data and information, often done either in a systematic or an ad hoc way

by using electronic and other technological means (Ball 2014; Mitrou and Karyda, 2006).

The number of organizations engaged in one or another form of electronic employee

monitoring has been steadily increasing over the past three decades (Indiparambil 2017; Ball

2010; Spitzmüller and Stanton, 2006; Stanton and Weiss, 2000). The Center for Business

Ethics reports that, today, as many as 92% of all organizations electronically monitor and

track their employees in some form (Coultrup and Fountain, 2012). The multitude of devices

and approaches available today makes surveillance very easy to conduct inside the workplace

and makes it possible even to extend this monitoring outside the workplace, going beyond the

scope of the employment relationship. Among the common practices of workplace

surveillance, such as drug testing and biometric and electronic monitoring, today also

electronic surveillance practices are used to gather information by surreptitious, secret and

stealthy means and are of high concern because of their inexpensive and user-friendly nature.

Electronic surveillance, as analysed by Kizza and Ssanyu (2005) generally includes: audio

surveillance (phone-tapping, voice over internet protocol, listening devices, etc.); visual

surveillance (hidden video surveillance devices, body-worn video devices, CCTV, etc.);

tracking surveillance (global positioning systems/transponders, mobile phones, radio

frequency identification devices, biometric information technology, etc.); and data

surveillance (computer/internet, keystroke monitoring, etc.). These monitoring practices

generally fall either overt (the presence and applications of surveillance methods are made

known and the devices are visible) or covert (nothing is revealed to the worker) category

(Nevogt, 2015). Both have challenging repercussions in the life of employees.

Surveillance is also said to be a task-oriented behaviour that enables employers to obtain

information about employee performance (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Ball 2010). As such,

surveillance seems quite positive insofar as it can increase performance and productivity. For,

surveillance is regarded as a management technique useful in ensuring quality service and

increased productivity and guaranteeing protection from theft, legal liabilities and over

expenditures due to fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct (Allen et al., 2007; Findlay and

McKinlay, 2003; Miller and Weckert, 2000). For instance, software filters used in computers





restrict online shopping and the use of social networks during work hours. A GPS device in a

vehicle, in the same way, allows dispatchers to give specific location directions to the drivers.

Systems of surveillance track employees’ positions in time and space and expose employees

who are ‘working hard’ and those who are ‘not pulling their weight’ (Sewell and Barker,

2006). Monitoring employee internet use ensures that employees use it only for employment

related activities. It also obstructs external encroachment by way of data transactions and

blocks the sensitive, confidential and sometimes dangerous information being received or sent

outside of the company (Mujtaba, 2003). Monitoring employee phone calls gives insight into

how employees interact with their colleagues.

A study conducted by Allen et al. regarding workplace surveillance reveals that 68% of

respondents feel that the surveillance is beneficial, while 17% gave a mixed reaction, 10%

appeared ambivalent and 6% were sad. However, among those who indicated surveillance as

beneficial or necessary, 74% are managers while only 56% are non-managers (Allen et al.,

2007). This means that, from a management perspective, employee monitoring is needed to

sustain a competitive and productive workplace. Although the obvious beneficiary of

employee monitoring is the employer/management, since monitoring complies with set

policies and improves quality and performance, it also can be quite useful to employees as it

motivates them to do their jobs more effectively and make them feel accountable in their

work. For, the data collected through monitoring is increasingly used to coach employees for

better and more accurate performance and behaviour in the workplace (Miller and Weckert,

2000; DeTienne, 1993). Along with improving work practices, it enables companies to “get

rid of ‘dead wood’, workers who are not doing their fair share of the work” (Miller and

Weckert, 2000). According to Michale Smith and Benjamin C. Amick (1990: 285),

“monitoring, and its related motivational process such as feedback, goal setting and

performance evaluation, are keys to the success of electronic workplace enhancement.” It

leads to more objective and fact-based feedback and performance appraisal. Effective

monitoring thus provides effective feedback and improved performance. In addition,

providing an unbiased evaluation and preventing emotional break ups is said to be another

major advantage of electronic monitoring (Miller and Weckert, 2000). It also marks the

accuracy of the information collected and the generality of the system commonly used to

gather data.

Electronic monitoring systems allow businesses to have good transactions, avoid

mortgages and liabilities, conduct needed investigations and interactions, and help to ensure

their success in a competitive global environment. Julie A. Flanagan (1994: 1260-1262)

opines that computer-based monitoring can “chart future workloads to increase productivity

[...] reduces the need for managers to give personal attention to employees because computer





can provide feedback [...] and can improve compliance with company policies and safety

guidelines.” In studying employee behaviour as a psychological scientist, Devasheesh P.

Bhave (2014), found an association of high performance with employee monitoring and

writes that workers monitored more frequently perform better than unmonitored workers.

Nevertheless, he continues that “although the results of this study indicate a positive

association between supervisory use of Electronic Performance Monitoring and employee

performance dimensions, excessively high levels of [... its] use may be detrimental to

employee performance on account of fairness and autonomy concerns” (Bhave, 2014: 629).

Niehoff and Moorman (1993: 528), referring to the taxonomy of work-related supervisory

behaviours developed by Komaki and others (1986), categorize and separate supervision or

monitoring into: “(1) performance antecedents (instruction, clarifying work), (2) performance

monitors, and (3) performance consequences (evaluation, giving rewards).” Although their

analysis finds that employees who were monitored more were more successful than those who

were monitored less, they also find, alarmingly, among those who were monitored more, a

direct decrease in organizational citizenship behaviour, “defined as extra-role behaviour that

is discretionary and not explicitly related to the formal reward system of an organization but

is conducive to its effective functioning” (Zhu, 2013: 23). Though management espouses

empowerment and job enlargement, others claim that the process of surveillance reduces

employees “to being cogs in a machine like the old-fashioned assembly line” (Piturro, 1989:

32). The diverse dynamics of both traditional and current surveillance practices can be

illustrated by the following observation, which will help to understand the complexities that

the workforce faces in present day technocratic culture.

2.3 Traditional versus Contemporary Electronic (& Cyber) Surveillance

Traditionally, for instance, employers used to monitor the time of arrival and departure of

employees by simple observation, and what any particular employee does at any given time

by informal visits. Today, different timings related to employees’ presence on work premises

are recorded automatically and produce objective data about them (Fairweather, 1999). What

is new in these newer surveillance practices is that surveillance now progressively depends

more on information and communication technologies. Today, almost all jobs, and some jobs

more intensely than others, are subjected or have the potential to be subjected to several types

of electronic or other surveillance practices (Vorvoreanu and Baton, 2000). This tendency of

using and applying increasingly marked surveillance practices intensified after the 1960s and

has been enabled by the large-scale computerization of the workplace. This is even marked by

the shift in the nature of work and the society at large, for example in the move from

agricultural work to an industrial-manufacturing society, and to today’s knowledge-based

information and communication-related work culture. The knowledge and the control that





workers have formerly possessed over their work is now removed from them and is organized

and overseen scientifically by the manager.

Likewise, managers were traditionally not able to attend to and monitor all workers, as the

proportion of time given to it was comparatively less than that given to their other

responsibilities. However, Roland E. Kidwell Jr. and Nathan Bennett (1994) observe that

unlike traditional practices, monitoring with electronic and other modern (cyber) devices and

methods allow constant and immediate surveillance with an instant control of employee

behaviour. Jeffrey Stanton (2000: 130) also stresses this idea, saying, “electronic monitoring

can occur continuously, can measure multiple employees simultaneously, and can record

voluminous data especially on quantitative dimensions of work performance, [whereas]

traditional supervisory monitoring usually relies upon the inconstant presence of a human

observer with the many known limitations of perceptual processing and memory.” Moreover,

a digital sentinel, a ‘Big Brother,’ is always there, working with everyone as unchecked

surveillance exacerbates and continues (Wen and Gershuny, 2005). We can thus say that

computer-based surveillance is both increasingly powerful and impersonal yet also

decreasingly visible and anonymous (Zirkle and Staples, 2005). Analyzing the cost per unit of

data surveilled, the traditional methods are more expensive than new ways and means applied

in the same situation, as the traditional methods often require a separate action while the

newer methods are merged with routine activity.

It is also said that in both traditional and contemporary electronic or cyber surveillance

practices, monitoring “can occur regularly or intermittently, can be expected or unexpected,

[and] can occur with or without employee acceptance or permission” (Stanton,2000: 131).

However, the so-called characteristics of fair procedures of monitoring, such as consistency,

accuracy, control and justification may differ between both traditional and electronic or

cyber-monitoring environments (Stanton, 2000). For instance, to summarize, traditional

practices tend to entail face-to-face control, complete disclosure of the doer’s identity,

monitoring limited mainly to working hours alone, experiencing home (outside work

premises) as a safe haven, explicit visibility of the effect on the victim, and having little in the

way of an audience. In contrast, the present electronic or online (cyber) surveillance practices

are characterized by their mechanical nature (with electronic devices), the anonymity of the

perpetrator, continuous and extensive occurrences (24/7 through GPS – and no escape), the

invisibility of effects, an unlimited audience, and a hasty and viral reach Therefore, although

employee monitoring is not a new phenomenon, the possibility of doing it without human

intervention or interruption is relatively new, and it permits “remote access and fast

dissemination of information” (Eivazi, 2011) and offers remarkable speed in processing and

assorted opportunities in application, saving both cost and time.





One of the advantages of ‘new’ surveillance practices is their ability, on the one hand, to

carry out the monitoring from ‘afar’ over the ‘close’ observation of the ‘traditional’ practices,

and on the other hand, to go beyond the sensual perception and “see through” people and

situations. The disproportionate availability of technology, which was only available to the

elite in the past, is today widely accessible and easy to use. It is the same with the process of

data analysis (Marx, 2002): present surveillance practices have greater capacity and data is

much easier to organize, store, retrieve, analyze, and communicate (send and receive). In sum,

surveillance is nothing new in itself, but its nature is changing and present means of

surveillance, though they have not entirely replaced more traditional methods, have certainly

supplemented them in very transformative ways.

2.4 Indian Circumstantial Rationale behind the Workplace Surveillance

As it is globally experienced, the emergence and adaptation of sophisticated monitoring

technologies with invariably affordable price increased the employee surveillance in the

Indian organizations as well. Apart from these purposes of measuring and improving

performance, preventing theft and other risk factors, and ensuring the proper adherence to the

rules and policies of the workplace, there are few particular reasons for its implementation in

Indian organizational context basing on her socio-cultural and economic scenarios.

The Quality Management is said to be the prime cause for surveillance in Indian

organizations (Batt et al., 2005). Steadily walking over the modern attributes and challenges

due to the changed policies of globalization, liberalization, and privatization, Indian

organizations now participate in a quality race with regard to its products and services. The

quality is now redefined in the Indian organizations extending client and consumer

satisfaction and redesigning products and services (Kumar et al., 2009). The quality processes

of products or services from India introduce, apart from anticipated benefits, increased and

new forms of surveillance, that “in apparent contradiction to the official rhetoric of worker

initiative and autonomy” (Upadhya and Vasavi, 2006: 64). The quality assessing processes of

‘Just-In-Time’ (JIT) and ‘Total Quality Management’ (TQM) models, for instance,

predominantly enlarges the profit motive and goes aloft with the substantial increase of

surveillance practices. Just-in-Time is a strategy employed in the company to increase the

efficiency by the best utilization of the full capacity and to decrease inventory costs by

eliminating waste and receiving only the vital goods and thereby maximizing company’s

benefits and profit (Singh and Garg, 2011; Singh and Ahuja, 2015; Kumar, 2010). In the same

way, a complementary means to reach quality objective of a product or service is offered by

Total Quality Management. TQM involves the study of customers’ satisfaction, effective

participation of managements and employees, statistical quality control, communication

systems, and cost involvement etc. (Kumar et al., 2010; 2008).





The adaptation of JIT and TQM is to improve the best use of available time and resources

and thus perk up the quality of products and services. The initiatives of JIT and TQM,

according to Monika Prasad (1998: 443), “were associated with intensification, job-loss,

increased monitoring and direct control and limited promotion opportunities.” Similarly,

quoting Sewell & Wilkinson (1992), she continues that in the Indian organizational context

these regimes of JIT and TQM “create and demand systems of surveillance which improve on

those of the traditional bureaucracy in instilling discipline and thereby consolidating central

control and making if more efficient” (Prasad 1998: 443). The application and practice of

intruding monitoring techniques to manage the quality conversely takes away the trust and

responsibility invested in them and enforces more rigid workplace control.

Concomitant with the above-mentioned quality management and the augmented

organizational effectiveness are the Technological Over-Dependency and its misuse at the

level of both individual employee and the management in Indian workplaces. The improper

use of technologies, for instance, has become a pervasive problem in the workplace causing

rigorous implications to the management and organizations by way of low productivity,

security breaches and liability and legal concerns (Ugrin et al., 2007). To explain it further,

Cyberslacking – misuse of time, resources, etc., for non-work purposes during working hours

(known also as cyberloafing or cyberbludging) – is extensively identified in Indian

organizational workplaces due to the easy use of internet and other technological

advancements (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2013). Similarly, Cyberbullying, as an all-

encompassing word to represent this misuse, is defined “as a behaviour that involves the use

of cell phones, instant messaging, e-mail, chat rooms or social networking sites such as

Facebook and Twitter to harass, threaten or intimidate or support deliberate, repeated, and

hostile behaviour by an individual or group intended to harm others” (Taiwo, 2015: 2979). It

is often done with a predictive and hypothetical speculation that no one knows the wrong

doings, which shows that the absence of a moral check increases the distraction among the

employees. Therefore, it is essential at this point from employers’ perspective to uncover the

dynamics of this growing issue in the Indian organizational workplace and to execute various

remedial or preventive measures. To this end and to eliminate the pressure and opportunities

monitoring mechanisms have been largely used in the Indian organizational work context.

The Performance Attributes of the Indian socio-cultural scenarios, which we have had

discussed, and its consequent workplace behavioural patterns seem to further necessitate the

need of monitoring in the Indian organizational workplaces. For example, Indian workers take

a cautious approach (non-committal) in many of the complex decision-making situations and

avoid, if any, till the assurance of a favorable outcome is guaranteed by a senior or in other

case totally depend on the superiors to decide for them (Khare, 2002). The low work-quality





consciousness and easy postponing of delayed or incomplete work to the next day are quiet

normal in the Indian work contexts. Similarly, another rampant problem in organizational

workplaces in India is wasting time, and “coupled with dishonesty and bureaucracy, this issue

poses a formidable challenge to [...] business in India” (Khare, 2002: 131). To maintain an

expected performance in this situation, external monitoring is implemented. Likewise, the

precinct of commitment and priorities of Indian workforce, apart from the organizational

obligations, are widely linked to family, caste, religious adherence, political ideologies, etc.,

and these outside pressures largely cause to emanate the use of workplace resources to the

matters above the working process and relationships. To ward off these employees’

vulnerability and over emphasized concerns employers apply strict monitoring procedures.

The Power Control and Inequality in the contractual relationship (Krishnan et al., 2006)

between the employer and the employee in the organizational work context in India, which

has been a focal point of our discussion in the previous session, enables the superior agent to

monitor the inferior agent with or without his or her participatory consent. Surveillance in this

contextual scenario of power is perceived as misusing the vulnerability of the subordinate and

that “the organization that might have higher power in the contractual relationship is

infringing the employee’s [...] individual rights” (Krishnan et al., 2006: 4). It is seen also as a

part of keeping the technological decorum by imitating the Western model of management,

which invariably expresses a contractual power distance. To the same extent, the process of

subcontracting of work in the Indian organizations also leads to a high level of employee

monitoring as the organization wants to keep the performance metrics always far above the

ground. For, the contract enforcement as researchers like Batt et al. (2005) opine, is ensured

through extended and continuous monitoring practices, which articulate in turn its adherence

to performance metrics and place subcontractors under intense pressure to meet the same

efficiency goals and targets.

The Human Resource Profusions in India enhances the use of electronic and other

monitoring systems in the organizations. For, since India has an abundance of qualified labour

force, rigid surveillance practices allow the management to screen, select and retain honest

and suitable employees and, even in a filthy manner, to dismiss the poor performers to replace

with the skilled and the efficient (Krishnan et al., 2006). In this manner it also expresses an

economic reason behind the execution of monitoring technologies in the Indian workplaces.

For instance, a human supervisor is substituted with technological supervisor and constant

observation and controlling are exacerbated and intensified, which articulate not the scarcity

of human resource but merely the strategic economic agenda. The electronic monitoring

systems used here as only performance management technologies, which however, invariably

used by the client companies to regularly monitor the employees of their contracted





companies (Batt et al., 2005). Here, the man-power is not substituted but unconstructively

complemented and decidedly broadened with techno-power. Premilla D’Cruz and Ernesto

Noronha (2013: 473) observe the same idea and opine that “the employment of call centre

technology as a monitoring and measurement device did not spell the end of human

supervision.” For, with a master screen at a centre point there are persons overlooking and

keeping an eye on every operation. Our point here is that this situation in fact doubles the

effects of the above-mentioned power control and enlarges the power distance.

The various situations of decreasing job performance and productivity and of inappropriate

or misuses of company resources and the resultant security and other performative issues such

as cyber slacking increase the espionages in the Indian organizational work context. This

orientation of surveillance practices in India is also something similar to the classical

Taylorism that “to increase productivity and reduce costs by monitoring the use of time and

the performance of tasks, and by devising methods to save time and increase productivity”

(Upadhya and Vasavi, 2006: 65). However, an invasive and persistent surveillance induce in

the employees a manipulative action that focuses more on the activities being monitored and

alter the statistics with purposeful and necessary influences and thus negatively affect the

overall performance of organizations (Blakemore, 2005). The Poor Constitutional and

Legislative Security with regard to surveillance and employee rights increases the outsized

implementation of such technologies and practices in India to scrutinize individual worker

(Krishnan et al., 2006). Apart from the constitutionally recognized fundamental rights – right

to freedom and right to life and personal liberty – there is no explicit reference to the nature or

extend of surveillance or to a right to privacy. In this research, all the consequences observed

extensively in the Indian organizational situations, along with their socio-ethical response,

will be investigated.

3. Research Methodology and Sample Collection

As a systematic way of conducting a research, a methodology refers to “the principles and

ideas on which researchers base their procedures and strategies (methods)” (Holloway and

Galvin, 2017: 21). A qualitative research methodology is employed in this study in view of

getting a comprehensive understanding of the real-time experience of employees who are in

the field. It is a scientific research that “systematically uses a predefined set of procedures to

answer the question, collects evidences [and] is especially effective in obtaining culturally

specific information about the values, opinion, behaviours, and social contexts of particular

populations” (Mack et al., 2005: 1). This is particularly designed to either affirm what have

been explored and discussed in the literature reviews or to reject the argument with sufficient

proofs and verifications, and hence the scope and originality of this research. It is exploratory

in nature and tries to unravel the underlying reasons and motivations of a particular attitudinal





and behavioural patterns over a perceived issue. Of the manifold methods, such as analytical

induction and interpretive phenomenological analysis available in qualitative research, this

study takes phenomenography (Marton, 1981; Akerlind, 2012) as its general-background

approach in conducting the research and describing the data.

This approach [phenomenography] is described as a “research which aims at description,

analysis, and understanding of experiences; that is, research which is directed towards

experiential description” (Marton, 1981: 180). By generally placing this phenomenographic

approach within the scope of this study, the possibility of personalized expression of

employees’ real-time experience on workplace surveillance and the nuanced insights are

ensured. Phenomenography comes significantly important within the scope of this research

due to its implication for the analysis of individual experiences about a social phenomenon

with the involvement in the day-to-day experiences and its added collective meaning seeking

process. The relevant data on a particular phenomenon obtained in semi-structured online

survey are described and analyzed through the framework of phenomenographic approach.

A method of survey research (semi-structured online survey) is used in this study to collect

the data. Survey research literature produce findings from subjects’ real-time experiences that

engage the interests of a particular phenomenon. A semi-structured interview method is opted

as it, firstly, “allows depth to be achieved by providing the opportunity on the part of the

interviewer to probe and expand the interviewee's responses” (Rubin and Rubin, 2005: 88).

Secondly, in this method, researchers can use a basic checklist, which “allows for in-depth

probing while permitting the interviewer to keep the interview within the parameters traced

out by the aim of the study” (Berg, 2007: 39). This type of interviewing method is significant

also because it would allow covering various issues concerning the subject matter of this

study. The researcher’s influence on the informants or the event is very minimal and thus the

informant alone reconstructs the social event and the “here” and “now” of the situation in a

spontaneous language.

Thus, the semi-structured survey attempts to measure the real feelings and responses of

employees who are working under severe monitoring. A rigorous analysis is performed on the

responses to explore and examine various parameters that affect employee performance and

life chances when electronic monitoring is implemented. The online survey with both male

and female graduate professional techies (IT professionals) employed in different capacities

from business executives to administrators working with both domestic and international IT

companies situated in India. Table 1 shows the application of methodology and different

approaches employed in this research.





Table 1: Particulars, Sample & Methodology

Particulars Sample & Methodology

Types of Research Empirical Research (Qualitative)

Sample Size 118

Sample Unit Employees of IT, ITeS. BPOs and other Business Organizations

Survey Method An online semi-structured questionnaire through emails and

weblinks (Survey Monkey).

Analysing Tool Microsoft Excel 2010; NVivo

Analysing Method Phenomenography

For this study, data are collected from business executives and IT professionals employed

at several organizations all over India. Among them, employees belonged to IT, ITeS, BPO

sectors in South India, such as different tenants in the Infopark (Tata Consultancy Services

(TCS), Wipro, UST Global, EXL Services, etc.), Kochi, Kerala; in the Technopark (Infosys

Limited), Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; and in the International Tech Park (Accenture

Services Pvt. Ltd.), Bangalore, Karnataka, were given more concentration for the precision

and accuracy of the data and of the study. It also reduces the problems that may arise from

mere randomized response collection of a study. Other respondents were from the randomly

selected organizations (TCS, Wipro, WNS, Samsung, AXA, Infosys, HSBC, HCL

Technologies, Zenta, Cognizant, Accenture, IBM, etc.) among the broad range of companies

situated in various parts of India. To enable employees to freely express their real feelings and

the experiences about the subject matter deprived of any hindrances (job security, fear of

firing from the authority, etc.), these participants were directly contacted without consulting

the HR or other department of these selected organizations.

4. Result Section: Data Collection and Analysis

The main purpose of the result analysis is to present and illustrate the findings. On

agreeing to carry out this research, a total of about 155 employees were given the survey

questionnaire via online, of which a total of 118 usable responses (76.0% response rate) were

collected, comprising 68 males (57.63%) and 50 females (42.37%), ranging between 22-36

years of age (Figure 1). The pie charts and the bar charts given below show the graphical

representation of the data collected from the random people working in various IT and

business firms in India. From the data analysis, among 114 people who answered the question

about the presence of ubiquitous surveillance or monitoring practices, 88.6% agreed that their

company use ubiquitous electronic monitoring/surveillance (CCTV cameras, Phone, computer

and Internet Monitoring, GPS, RFID, etc.) at work, where as a minor percentage (11.4%)

stated that their company doesn’t use them at all. Four participants skipped this question

(Figure 2).





Figure 1: Respondents

Figure 2: Use of surveillance technologies

The next question was formulated with multiple choice answers, where the respondents

could choose one or more answers as they feel like about the described variables (data items).

These variables or data items were added to the questionnaire as they ranked more, both in

positive and negative sides of the scenario, in the reviews and discussions with several

literatures on the subject. The data shows various viewpoints working under 24/7 electronic

surveillance in your work place. Among 118 respondents 6 people skipped this question. 112

people answered this, of which almost 50 (44.6%) people agree that it ensures security. At the

same time 91 respondents, including the few who speaks about security, are really concerned

that it hinders the privacy at work (42.0%) and restricts the freedom and autonomy (39.3%).

This adversely reflects in their work efficiency when they feel they are not been trusted and

valued, says 44 people consisting 39.3% of the respondents.

The percentage of people who are experiencing the physical and mental stress are also

equally lies same. It covers 41 respondents in number, representing 36.6%. About 33 (29.5%)

people state that they experience a kind of uneasiness and dissatisfaction at work whereas

another almost equal percentage of them (31.3%) say that they are not bothered at all about

the surveillance. A percentage (19.6%) of the respondents state that, surveillance creates a

dehumanizing effect and disrespect to the human dignity and are being subjugated and

Gender

Answer

Options

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Male 57.6% 68

Female 42.4% 50

answered question 118

skipped question 0

Answer

Options

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 88.6% 101

No 11.4% 13


skipped question 4





dominating by a higher official (16.1%), which can generate an over-consciousness towards

the work leading to several behavioural alternations in one’s life (14.3%). From all these

viewpoints, most interesting point was only a minor percentage (25.0%) says that surveillance

increases one’s productivity (11.6%) and helps to being responsible at work (13.4%). See

Figure 3 for the pictorial presentation of this data.

Figure 3: Response to Ubiquitous Surveillance

How do you feel working under 24/7 electronic surveillance in your work place? [multiple choice]

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

I don't bother about it 31.3% 35

It ensures security 44.6% 50

It increases my productivity 11.6% 13

I feel responsible at work 13.4% 15

I feel completely uncomfortable and thus job dissatisfaction 29.5% 33

I feel no freedom and autonomy 39.3% 44

I feel lack of privacy at work 42.0% 47

I feel dehumanizing and loss of my human dignity 19.6% 22

I feel stress, and too much tensed and worrying 36.6% 41

I feel not being trusted and valued 39.3% 44

I feel like being subjugated to a dominating other 16.1% 18

I become over-conscious leading to behavioral alterations 14.3% 16

Other 8.0% 9


skipped question 6

Figure 4: Surveillance and Behavioural Tendencies

From the aforementioned total participants, 106 people (89.83%) have responded to the

question dealing with the various behavioural tendencies that develop, directly or indirectly,

due to the ubiquitous surveillance practices. As Figure 4 shows, 12 people skipped this

question. Among the respondents, 52.8% says that the surveillance reduces the risky actions

Does surveillance lead to further behavioral tendencies like: [multiple choice]


Percent

Response

Count

fostering favorable behaviors 21.7% 23

reducing risky actions and performance 52.8% 56

making use of unobserved spaces 42.5% 45

increasing partiality, favoritism, etc. from the authority 32.1% 34

being categorized with suspicion 46.2% 49

(stress) leading to deviance such as intentional absenteeism, etc. 35.8% 38

(stress) affecting family life, marital relationships 22.6% 24

(stress) leading to aggressive behaviors and occupational violence 33.0% 35

Other 2.8% 3


skipped question 12





and performances. A particular percentage (42.5%) argues that they make use of the

unobserved spaces for utilizing for their private activities. Several of the respondents (46.2%)

were really concerned of being categorized and being suspicious. This ultimately leads to

attitudinal and behavioural deviances such as intentional absenteeism (35.8%) and creates

aggressive behaviours and occupational violence (33.3%). Furthermore, this leads to

favoritism and preference towards the few with vested interests, says 21.7%. Likewise, the

effects of these unwanted surveillance and the consequent stress also adversely affect

employees’ marital relationships (22.6%). Finally, out of three participant who chose to

respond to the option ‘other,’ one said that “it [surveillance] makes me to behave not in my

natural way, but for the desired interest of my supervisor.”

The data analysis explicates that 75.9% of the respondents prefer to work without being

monitored. Other 24.1% prefers various surveillance systems at the work place. Out of 114

people (96.6%) who responded (4 people skipped) to the question, intend to seek the aspect of

individual ability and intention to take responsibility without any force or constrains of

external monitoring, the highest percentage (98.2%) confirmed that they are and will be

responsible at work without being monitored electronically, while very minimal respondents

(1.8%) said the contrary. Nine participants commended to this question in a narrative form

Those who are in favor of monitoring speak about security reasons as the prime concern.

Others argue with the elements of work ethics consisting dedication, responsibility and

commitment to the work. The final question aimed to pick up employee preferences on

monitoring practices in the organizations. The participants could opt for multiple choices and

out of 114 (96.6%) respondents, 86 people (75.4%) preferred self- monitoring (Figure 5)

rather than external monitoring (22.8%) or no electronic monitoring systems (37.7%).

Figure 5: Employee Preferences

A very minimum percent of total participants was indifferent to the question either by

choosing the option ‘none of above’ (1.8%) or by skipping the question (3.4%). The result

shows that those who preferred self-monitoring covers a major portion of the respondents.

Besides, along with those argued for ‘no electronic monitoring’ few of those who claimed the

need of electronic monitoring also prefer self-monitoring as next option.


Percent

Response

Count

Yes 24.1% 26

No 75.9% 82

Why? 16


skipped question 10





5. Discussion of the Results through Phenomenographic Approach

The result analysis section sets out key experimental results. The purpose and the objective

of the discussion section is to provide an interpretation of study results and substantiating it

with evidences from further literature to make feasible conclusions (Kaura, 2016). It enables

the researcher to interpret the theoretical and pedagogical implications of the collected and

analyzed results in appropriate depth by answering the research question and critically

evaluating the study. Written in a descriptive fashion, it places this study within the context of

a current and ongoing academic and disciplinary conversation. This study has explored

employees’ real-time experiences and reactions to the ongoing surveillance practices using

electronic apparatus.

Phenomenography ultimately aims at describing, analyzing and understanding people’s

experience of various aspects of a phenomenon. It fosters the researchers to be enabled with

“content-oriented and interpretative descriptions of the qualitatively different ways in which

people perceive and understand their reality” and the most significant and distinctive feature

of this approach is its “[focus] on the apprehended (experienced, conceptualized) content as a

point of departure for carrying out research and as a basis for integrating the findings”

(Marton, 1981: 177). This phenomenographic approach, thus, is distinctive in the qualitative

research traditions that “it identifies similarities and differences in the way we experience and

understand phenomena in the world around us” (Barnard et al., 212). It follows that in

workplace-monitoring research, it is important to recognize and explore the qualitatively

diverse ways a phenomenon or different phenomena are experienced and understood by

employees. In the following we analyze the employee experience of incessant monitoring in

their workplaces.

5.1 Against the Performance, Productivity, and Security Claims

Is technology the best tool to measure productivity? Can employee performance and

productivity be measured by keystrokes, time spent on computer, or lengthy calls

dialed/attended? The managements of business organizations and corporations claim to have

dramatically improved employee performance and thus increased level of productivity in the

post implementation of electronic monitoring techniques. Few studies have conducted in this

perspective (Al-Rjoub et al., 2008; Nouwt et al., 2005; Findlay and McKinlay, 2003; Bloom

et al., 2003; Porter, 2003; Lee and Lee, 2002; Conry-Murray, 2001). However, this study

shows that employees feel otherwise, as they try to adhere with the organization’s standard,

compromising many of their personal and work-related desires and satisfaction. There are few

studies conducted in this regard and back-ups this study (Indiparambil 2017; Andrejevic

2014; Ball 2010; Karyda and Mitrou, 2008, 2006; Solove, 2006, 2004; Lasprogata et al.,

2004; Martin and Freeman, 2003; Findlay and McKinlay, 2003; Hartman, 1998). The





increasing level of distrust to the organization and among themselves directly causes

employees feel job dissatisfaction.

Even while several employees further view workplace monitoring as a necessary security

tool and try to understand and accept it in this way, they do not appreciate at the core being

monitored, and don’t want to work under 24/7 surveilled environment and exhibit the

behavioural alterations to indicate the same. Though behavioural patterns and its timely

alterations in the workplace are experienced as multidetermined with many facets of life

chances, it is not viable and reasonable to think that external moderators in the workplace

such as organizational culture and practices and employer-employee relationships, guide and

direct employee behaviours in specific trails. This study was an initial attempt to explore and

commend the employee perceptions, feelings and opinion about the monitoring practices in

their workplaces.

The protective functions of electronic monitoring systems to limit the unmannerly work

practices of employees are highlighted by surveillance advocators. Though meant to function

as a ‘good watchdog’ in general, these systems familiarize several negative feelings among

the workers affecting their productivity and well-being. Several of the respondents who

accept these systems as part of security, still express their concerns in terms of a sense of

discomfort as they expose often their susceptibility and vulnerability. It also gives evidence

that employees value his or her privacy, autonomy, freedom, fairness, etc. within the work life

as it becomes the major channel to express the relationality and sociability. Continuous

observation by implementing various technologies seem to reduce employees’ motivation to

commit extra in-role responsibilities. Many are concerned about and further commented on

the cynical and pessimistic approach adopted by their employer which increases detrimental

relationship with the employers and with peer workers. Feeling of loss of dignity and lack of

empowerment make the situation worse from employee perspective.

Does it function as a performance management tool? It is said to have also aimed at

worker’s training and development. Deviations are rarely pointed out for improving employee

performance and services, rather commonly used to punish the culprits (Smith and Amick III,

1989). As Bhave (2014) expressed in his work on the electronic performance monitoring and

employee job performance, this study also shows that the surveillance, no matter in excessive

or non-excessive levels, becomes detrimental to employee performance. For instance,

electronic monitoring inhibits freedom at work. Freedom at work is vital to construct a

freedom centered approach leading to a freedom centered enterprise and authority. This also

support the claim of employees that they are not robot to monitor all-time during the work.

For, lack of freedom constrains the self-disclosure as a human self. Freedom in the workplace

indirectly promotes a growth in mindset to examine the issues, if any, and to be optimistic to





manage with self-expression, focus on what a person can control by himself, and not to let

problems define him or her. Moreover, as illustrated above, the more the restriction the more

employees become rage for the other fellow humans.

Does surveillance mean to provide irrefutable or admissible evidences of any criminal

conduct in the workplace? Does it lead to greater organizational safety and security? Is it part

of a law-enforcement against work-related misconduct? Does CCTV continue to deter

crimes? Studies suggests that a displacement in crime, which is less susceptible to

surveillance tools, occurs after a period and thus fails in long term crime prevention. This

shows that, though innovative systems create uncertainty for the offender for a while, as these

uncertainty fades, offenders develop new crime skills and commit the same successfully

(Tilley, 1997). The evidence to show that the decrease in crime rates do not happen in high

and the presence of CCTV do not figure for a respectable number of offenders (Horne, 1998).

Moreover, few researchers have importantly noted that the use of increased surveillance

technologies make prosecution of transgressions more difficult and seldom, if at all, stops the

erroneous behaviors in the workplace (Martin and Freeman, 2003). The arguments of crime

prevention and liability alleviation are not always in consistent with the employee security

argument.

For instance, as one of the respondent opines, “… it is implemented as part of security, but

I feel insecure working under it, and it also restricts my freedom and privacy. Now-a-days,

monitoring is on ourselves [employees], not on our work or performance.” These specific

monitoring technologies are now targeted at employees rather than at work. Besides, the

ensuing imposed power over employees by employers now goes virtually unrestricted and

unchallenged. In the same way, it must be noted, employees (30.0% of respondents in this

study) generally admit that stress, anxiety and other detrimental outcomes of surveillance lead

to aggressive behaviours and occupational violence. Employees in this realm make use of

unobserved spaces (42.5%) to behave differently. Likewise, it is not appreciated to create an

environment where employees feel they are spied on. For, employees feel that they are being

categorized with suspicion (46.2%) and is judged accordingly increasing partiality, biased

favoritism (some remain disfavored increasing nepotism, for instance), etc. from the

authority. When it starts to affect the marital relationship and family life (22.6%), employees

develop further attitudinal and behavioural tendencies like absenteeism or presenteeism.

5.2 In Defense of Privacy, Impartial Treatment and Dignity

The justification for workplace privacy, impartial treatment and human dignity provided

by employees was beyond the conceptual basis and include the pragmatic concerns (Lund,

1992). Does electronic surveillance in the workplace respect employee privacy? This study

shows that the necessity of “personal space” is highly demanded by employees. However, the





advent of latest information technologies and resultant data collection and manipulation

enforce employees and public to reconsider the concept of privacy and its various possible

nuances (Selmi, 2006; Martin and Freeman, 2003). Privacy is viewed here as a “good for its

own sake and not merely as a means to protect an individual or to increase productivity”

(Martin and Freeman, 2003). This study evidently proves that ubiquitous and pervasive

monitoring hinders the privacy at work, restricts the freedom and autonomy. A comparatively

substantial number of respondents claimed that surveillance invade privacy (42.0%) by

restricting freedom and autonomy (39.3%), which affects also the basis of self-determination

and self-identity.

Employees expect unbiased/unprejudiced and equitable treatment respecting their dignity

as human being, as several of them (19.6%) expressed continuous surveillance practices are

dehumanizing and as a threat to human dignity. However, it is researched that the electronic

surveillance, CCTV in particular, enforce prejudiced treatment and discrimination basing on

some narrow and stereotypical assumptions of the operators who have direct access to the

data (Dee, 2000; Norris and Armstrong, 1997; Davies, 1996). Clive Norris’ research on

CCTV usage and crime prevention and its findings pointed out that there are intensified

discriminative practices that “[t]he young, the male and the black were systematically and

disproportionately targeted, not because of their involvement in crime or disorder, but for “no

obvious reason” and on the basis of categorical suspicion alone” (Norris, 2003). The use of

data for the confirmatory or manipulative purposes largely depends upon the data holder. As

Peter French opines, “[a]lthough cameras work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a

year; rarely go sick; do not take maternity leave, refreshment or smoking breaks; and do not

go to the lavatory - they don't actually do anything. It is the operators that produce the results

required” (French, 1998).

In this research context, employees experience that the data collected is used for biased

treatment. Just as the research findings of Norris and Armstrong reveal, this discrimination is

based not on individualized behavioural criteria, but merely on being part of a particular

group (Norris, 2003; Norris and Armstrong, 1999) or situation, this study also evidently

expresses the same experiences in the workplace. This type of categorical suspicion and the

ensuing discriminatory practices intensify “the surveillance of those already marginalized and

further increases their chance of official stigmatization” (Norris, 2003). This in turn leads to

lack of autonomy, causes to affront the human dignity (Selmi, 2006; Hoeren and

Eustergerling, 2005), and thus dilutes the humanness of the employees with mere peripheral

features.

This phenomenon is evident when the target of monitoring changes. There is a shift

happening, as this study also observe, from monitoring work or performance towards





monitoring employees themselves and from employees’ work lives to their private or personal

lives. It is pointedly difficult to evaluate employees from data taken directly or indirectly

using electronic monitoring systems that includes the assessment of the “human” aspects of

employees and their work ethics, including motivation and performance and the quality of

their work. Similarly, claims of safety and security (employer, employee, property and

service) can never surpass the ontological insecurity one feels in the workplace. The all-

pervasive external power control envelops the person and induce the feeling of powerlessness

and worthlessness of the self and its continuing vulnerability in the external world. The

quality of human [employee] existence is getting thoroughly challenged here. Therefore,

though workplace monitoring seems to be compliant with legal or regulatory framework, the

impact assessment from the perspectives of employees shows that ubiquitous surveillance

becomes problematic and can’t be ethically justified.

5.3 Power Control and the Workplace Bullying

Technologically enabled mechanisms of surveillance generally allow organizations to

obtain the objectives of rationalization (performance maximization, cost minimization) and

standardization (quality check). However, according to Babu P. Ramesh (2004: 495; Ramesh,

2008), “the degree of surveillance required at work is even comparable with the situation of

19th century prisons or Roman slave ships.” For, when employees become subjects of

incessant monitoring and all workplace interactions and behaviours are recorded and thus get

the feeling of being constantly observed and scrutinized, also turns out to be a psychological

torture for many. To the same angle, the Foucauldian concept of ‘panoptic gaze’ in relation to

workplace surveillance brings further implications such as, “the institutionalized acceptance

of management prerogatives, [...] an inevitable extension of the managerially imposed control

system, [...] the intensification of labour process” (Bain and Taylor, 2000:4) and goes beyond

the limit of disciplinary control. Thus, the work processes and behaviours that are closely

monitored emerge to conflict with the Indian work culture based on openness, individual

initiative, loyalty, trust and informality (Upadhya and Vasavi, 2006), and causes for unequal

power relationships, such as bestowing power on the monitoring agent over the monitored

(Richards, 2013).

This unequal power relation that emerged due to the persistent surveillance and rigid

controlling in the Indian socio-cultural context contributes toward an increased workplace

bullying (D’Cruz and Rayner, 2012). Premilla D’Cruz (2012: xv) defines workplace bullying,

adapting from Stale Einarsen et al. (2011), as “subtle and/or obvious negative behaviours

embodying aggression, hostility, intimidation, and harm, characterized by repetition and

persistence, displayed by an individual and/or group and directed towards another individual

and/or group at work in the context of an existing or evolving unequal power relationship.”





The growing and excessive monitoring of work is an example for bullying in the Indian

workplaces. For, involving an abuse or misuse of power, as we have previously discussed,

this particular act namely workplace bullying in Indian organizational workplace context

refers to a repeated and unreasonable act directed towards employees and which intimidates,

degrades, offends or humiliates them (D’Cruz and Rayner, 2012; D’Cruz, 2012).

The hierarchical nature of the Indian society, which is also reflected in the organizational

workplace and its management models, is very much linked to the issues of the exercise of

power domination in the surveillance process. Thus, workplace bullying through excessive

monitoring in India isolates or stigmatizes individual employees who experience severe

adverse effects of this phenomenon, which brings forth unwarranted criticism, indifferent

treatment via exclusion and social isolation, and high stress and consequent increase in

psycho-physical problems, and invariably affects the employees’ well-being.

The rigid and panoptical systems and techniques of monitoring fasten the individual

employee sturdily to the machine (Upadhya and Vasavi, 2006). For example, the closed-

circuit video cameras fixed within and around the work floor and premises bring further

panoptical capacity, which is even continued and fostered by the centralized computer

systems that enable to map the entire activities of the employee. It leads to lesser task

performance in complex situations and further impediments in working relationships. As

Monica T. Whitty reports, the presence of the other – the social presence – often impairs the

performance on difficult task and provides deleterious effects on employees leading to greater

stress and poor satisfaction (Whitty, 2004). It makes employees feel insecure and causes a

dent in their morale and thus a gradual decline in the quality and duration of relationship.

Likewise, along with disrupting employees’ “right to work at their own pace, [surveillance]

guided by their own moral compass, [...] fosters mistrust” (Iyer, 2012) and becomes

detrimental to productivity and overall performance of organizations. Some studies reveal that

the decrease in monitoring causes to reduce the quit-rates in the organizations – high

monitoring leads to high quit rates (Batt, et al., 2005). That means, as already researched by

Stephen Deery et al. (2013), the extensive and repetitive monitoring along with high

performance targets is said to have increased the attrition rates in the Indian organizational

workplace.

Several researchers observe in the same way that surveillance leads to high stress,

towering depression, and emotional exhaustion and burnout (Batt, et al., 2005; Holman,

2004). For instance, Daria Panina opines that in any general context, “electronic monitoring is

an intrusion into worker privacy, represents a lack of trust toward employees, and often leads

to excessive control and work pacing by management” (Panina, 2009: 314). All those globally

experienced impacts of employee monitoring such as loss of self-esteem, low and





disproportionate fair-process, increasing voyeurism, ferreting out whistleblowers, and

detrimental effect on productivity, etc. (Kesan, 2002), are in equal regard experiences in the

Indian organizational workplace as well. For, surveillance becomes detrimental to the normal

expectations and concerns of an Indian employee regarding work, namely, freedom in job,

creative performance, trust from employer and colleague, commitment, importance of data

security, efficiency in work, and understanding and appreciation, etc. For, extensive

monitoring reinforces the employees to work in a stereotypical way – like a robotic image or

in a mechanized form – who are, as George Ritzer and Craig D. Liar (2009) present, overly

regimented, dependent and overwhelmed by this practice of control, and thus becomes devoid

of any autonomy and fails to bring their ‘selves’ to work.

The virtual possibility and actual usage of data collected through monitoring to intimidate

and punish employees rather than help them improve is quite common in India. In this

context, workers individually and collectively demonstrate their capacity to resist this

increasing control of electronic panopticon through the available ways (Ellway, 2013; Bain

and Taylor, 2000). Quoting Alan McKinlay and Phil Taylor (1996), Benjamin P.W. Ellway

(2013: 5) argues that the worker resistance has been a ‘daily reality’ operating at different

“levels of consciousness, effectiveness and strength across a workplace and over time.”

Similarly, few researches such as Ellway (2013) and David Knights and Darben McCabe

(1998) admit the risk of individualistic and fragmentary nature of resistance by which workers

seek spaces for escape.

5.4 A Cluster of Other Major Employee Concerns

The surveilling working conditions create negative impacts on trust and a mutual

confidence between employer and employee (Desrochers and Roussos, 2001). This study

shows that the ubiquitous monitoring leads to high decline in employee creativity and

innovation. Employees feel and seem overwhelmed when they feel that every word they utter,

every keystroke they make, every movement they take, every document they analyze are

recorded and could be retrieved after a long time. According to this study, close to half of the

respondents (employees) in India reported excessive pressure at work. Almost all of them

pinned the blame on overwhelming productivity and performance strains demanded from

employers through monitoring. It also corresponds to previously conducted studies (Kulkarni

and Deoras, 2015; Watson, 2014). In the same way, a fulltime mask is worn by employees

when deal with unconventional or sweeping ideas to filter the communication and its content.

The monitoring process forces employees to conform to the demonstrated desires and demand

of employers and thus the creativity is stifled and muted in the workplace and that reduces the

work performance. In this situation, an assumed importance to work-quantity over work-





quality is apparent among employees (Aiello and Svec, 1993; Westin, 1992). The worry about

the observer’s desire and decision is constant and hinders the innovative forward movements.

It gradually leads to a viable submission to the authority, called ‘paternalistic expectations’

of the authority (Hartman, 1998; Martin and Freeman, 2003). This shows that in employer –

employee relationship, “employees began to act like children with parental expectations” and

“may begin taking on the role of children as their employer decreases their level of privacy”

(Martin and Freeman, 2003: 356-357). The feeling of vulnerability and powerlessness is the

key result factor here. Another disturbing effect of this compulsive submission is, as we read

in the psychoanalytic work - Escape from Freedom - of Erich Fromm (1969: 269) that

“individual becomes an automaton, loses his self, and yet at the same time consciously

conceives of himself as free.” The distinction that Fromm makes between ‘freedom from’

(free from restriction placed by others or institution) and the ‘freedom to’ (to engage in

creative and spontaneous acts with integrated personality) causes to “the spontaneous

realization of the self,” in which “man unites himself anew with the world” (Fromm, 1969:

261). Lack of this forms of freedom in the workplace and the complete subjugation to the

authority as a paternalistic figure cause the uncertainty in how to engage the work in a

systematic and innovative way.

Workplace monitoring also leads to behavioural alterations that it changes the way

individuals think and act when they are and are not being surveilled or watched. The feeling

towards the work and workplace, attitudes and beliefs, emotions and behaviours adversely

change when working under continuous exposure to surveillance (Stanton, 2000). Besides,

the observed, for instance, start to think and act in the ways and demands of the observer. It is

called as “anticipatory conformity” where “the socially desirable response is presented in

anticipation of the demand” (Brown, 2000: 64). Here arises the presentation of a desired [or

occasionally undesired] response in anticipation of the demands in the lead of employee

choices. This situation results in the creation of an inauthentic self and becomes everyday

projections, which often, as Brown (2000: 64) illustrates, “leads to feelings of guilt over

perceived unworthiness of the authentic self, and awareness of the gulf between the idealized

self and the realized self.” The end-result of this phenomenon is the cavernous feeling of

alienation (Brown, 2000), which is reflected in the workplace in the form of absenteeism,

presenteeism and high level of employee attrition.

Working under continuous monitoring leads also to noted levels of depression and anxiety,

stress and the related health hazards among monitored employees than non-monitored

employees (Fazekas, 2004; Smith et al., 1992; Levi, 1994; Amick III and Smith, 1992).

Electronic monitoring in the workplace, according to Richard L. Worsnop (1993: 1025),

makes employees “feel like prisoners hooked up to a computer; mistreated, guilty, paranoid,





enslaved, violated, angry, and driven at a relentless pace.” It is observed from the data

analysis of the current study that the percentage of people who are experiencing the physical

and mental stress are about 37%. It also leads to somatic health complaints and emotional

disorders (Büyük and Keskin, 2012; Mishra and Crampton, 1998). About 30% of the

respondents states that they experience a kind of uneasiness and various other health related

problems and dissatisfaction at work.

One of the adverse effects of CCTV camera on health of employees is due to the radiation

emission (Smith, 2016; Kruegle, 2007). CCTV cameras as electronic devices possess some

minor radiation emission. Some surveillance cameras have infrared (IR) emitters around the

lens so that they can capture the images even in complete darkness. Being an electronic

device, these possess small electromagnetic field around them and transmit the radio

frequency (RF) signals to the data base station. Though these radiation emissions are in

negligible amount, the long-term exposure to these radiations can cause serious health

problems on employees. For instance, People who work in circumstances where they are

exposed to infrared radiation for prolonged periods of time may experience damages in eyes,

skin and other body tissues. Due to a long-term exposure for this radiation effect can cause

various problem such as cardio problems, iron deficiency in blood etc. Radiation can damage

the DNA inside a cell's nucleus, and if the DNA becomes sufficiently damaged, the cell can

become cancerous. Exposure to excessive amounts of radiation, or lower amounts over an

extended period, can significantly increase the risk of developing aforementioned diseases.

IR causes scratches in tissues that it develops as tissue-specific lesions, which are hardly

predictable in normal encounters as it arises either after few months or years of continuous

exposure (Rana et al., 2010). The severity of the radiation-induced skin injury and other

complications and health hazards largely depend on the dose received, the exposed skin and

the radio sensitivity of individuals. Besides this, there are studies on the hearing deficiency

due to prolonged exposure to radiofrequency radiation (Oktay et al., 2004), that can be

applied to workplace. Similarly, the GPS devices used in automobiles generate excessive

amounts of radiation during use, which, after continued and extended use, can cause dizziness

and insomnia on employees and it harms the reproductive system (Fei, 2013). These problems

sternly affect the employees who are continuously being exposed to such electronic devices.

As discussed, the implementation and use of electronic surveillance is on the rise and now

routine in Indian organizational workplaces. The socio-cultural and economic situations,

including commerce and trade, in India significantly support this scenario. This study also

proofs that the active monitoring systems in the workplaces are increasing (88.6% of

respondents acknowledged the presence of electronic monitoring systems in their companies)

and the performance and communications of employees are under strict scrutiny and





investigation. Though few employees positively responded to surveillance practices and tend

to accept it as part of security, many of them still expresses its negative impacts. Studies

prove that any external monitoring practices bring negative effects on employees (Aiello and

Kolb, 1995; Kidwell Jr. and Bennett, 1994; Griffith, 1993; Nebeker and Tatum, 1993;

DiTecco et al., 1992; Smith, et al., 1992). It increases stress-level in employees and decreases

job satisfaction. Increased productivity is not always happening as expected and if at all

happening, it accompanies a quality decrease in the products and services and the resultant

customer satisfaction and loss of reputation. Besides, researchers like Stanton (2000) also

doubt about the long-term effects of the surveillance practices than the immediate end-result

that seems temporary or fading in no time.

5.5 A Responsible “Self-Monitoring” as Employee Preference

Analyzing all these employee responses this study shows that ‘on/off the job’ surveillance,

from employees’ perspectives, is not an easy or readymade resolution for employers that can

fix all the problems arising in the workplace. What, then, the employees themselves seek and

stand for? When employees strongly uphold and express that “I am sure that in order to be

productive and responsible I do not need an external monitoring,” a self-emerging employee

need and ability of being self-disciplined in the workplace is revealed. A responsible self-

monitoring is preferred by most of the employees responded in this study. For, majority of the

respondents prefers to work without being monitored and feel uncomfortable with

surveillance practices in the workplace. It is expressed as they opine “it takes away my work

satisfaction,” “I am not a slave to work like this,” “I feel I have the dedication and

commitment towards the work which I'm doing and “my responsibility does not change

according to the level of external monitoring,” etc. These employees are ready to take any

responsibility without outward force or constrains of external monitoring. Majority of

employees (more than 75 percent) who responded to this study preferred self-monitoring,

instead of any kind of external electronic or non-electronic surveillance to improve efficiency

and effectiveness in the workplace.

Self-monitoring generally refers to the ability of individuals “to adjust his or her behaviour

to external, situational factors” (Robbins et al., 2015: 545). This leads in this research context

to produce better performance rating and increased productivity in each situation. The concept

of self-monitoring is first introduced by Mark Snyder (1974) and perceived as a social

construct of expressive behaviour. It is a personality trait and individual ability to regulate or

control one’s behaviour that helps him or her to accommodate social situations and

phenomena. Here, in this study, the concept of self-monitoring is differentiated from the

concept of impression management or the trend of being in desired public appearances. There

are studies indicating that a form of “self” monitoring is demanded and preferred by





employees and that self-monitoring feedback loop improves performance in various situation

(Ivancevich and McMahon, 1982). Self-monitoring is found to be strong and better motivator

than any other kinds of monitoring, and a responsible self-regulation in the workplace is ten

times higher in increasing efficiency and productivity (Stanton, 2000).

Behavioural Self-Monitoring (BSM) is being researched now in many disciplines (Olson

and Winchester, 2008; Critchfield and Vargas, 1991). Psychologists and physicians often

apply and insist the method of BSM for individuals to repeatedly observe, evaluate and record

one’s own behavioural tendencies for the purposes of treatment (Olson and Winchester,

2008). In the workplace, it enhances self-regulatory processes and thus improve productivity,

safety and health. When targeted job responsibilities, self-monitoring increases productivity

and enhanced workplaces relationships. It also has motivational effects as it identifies

stressors, hazards or harmful behaviours in the workplace. Self-monitoring on productivity or

safety behaviors, according to Olson and Wichester (2008: 14), “may reveal motivating

discrepancies […] between current and goal levels of behavior, or when goals are met, the

data may function as conditioned reinforcers.” Researchers have also identified the optimal

performance gains in various self-monitoring conditions (Stanton, 2000).

It is to be noted that, as Gudykunst et al. (1989) argue, both the individualist and

collectivist cultures influence self-monitoring differently and that people of individualistic

backgrounds are seemed to be low self-monitors and that of collectivist value conformity to

ingroups and thus are high self-monitors. India’s collectivist cultures and traditions show that

India is low in individualism and thus her employees with more collectivist practices are more

self-monitors. However, the workplace applications of BSM has not received enough

attention in the research scholarship (Olson and Winchester, 2008). There is also a danger that

when electronic surveillance is becoming ubiquitous and more common, the above mentioned

BSM procedures may also be manipulated as a “management method for “checking up on” or

“spying on” workers” (Olson and Winchester, 2008: 16). Therefore, self-monitoring as a

feasible strategic approach to employee management is recommended for further research.

6. Limitations of the Study

This study has its limitations as well. The job nature and the position of survey

respondents would seem to limit the generalizability of the results. Errors that occur in the

data from incorrect or manipulated responses due to (1) the misunderstanding and

misinterpretation of terms and the intended meaning of the questions; (2) the fear of being

mistreated or even punished by the authority; and (3) the distress of questions concerning

sensitive issues. Similarly, the individual response may not always represent the self, rather

bias answering. The nature, relevance and the respondents’ experiences of the topic being

discussed determines or limits the truthfulness of the responses. The mixing up of the





potential and the actual tensions in the area discussed determines the validation of interim

findings. When respondents are forced to opt for alternatives given, spontaneity and creative

thinking is limited. Regarding the adaptability, it is very difficult to closely follow the

feelings, thoughts and reasons behind it. The result analysis gave predominant consideration

to the adverse effects of implementing electronic surveillance mechanisms and systems in the

organizational workplace. The findings of this study complement and fit with the findings of

the growing scholarly literature that explain the negative impact of electronic surveillance in

the workplace. This study takes seriously the employee perspective, and not the overall

integrative appearances.

7. Conclusion

This study reveals the detrimental effects of workplace surveillance and the complexity to

understand the paradoxical viewpoints. Surveillance is positively regarded as a management

technique useful in ensuring quality service and increased productivity guaranteeing

protection from theft, legal liabilities and over expenditures due to fraud, dishonesty, or

misconduct. It helps to track employees’ positions in time and space and expose employees

who are ‘working hard’ and those who are ‘not pulling their weight. It leads to more

objective and fact-based feedback and performance appraisal. However, by meticulously

observing and critically analyzing the anticipated and actual effects of workplace surveillance,

this study has identified and explored the forgotten issues of workplace surveillance and

argued that the benefits engendered by surveillance practices cannot overrule the individual,

social and ethical concerns of employees heightened by them. There are several ways in

which excessive monitoring can become detrimental to employees, for it invades workers’

privacy, disturbs their physical and psychological serenity, erodes their sense of dignity and

frustrates their efforts to do high-quality work by promoting a single-minded emphasis on

speed and other purely quantitative measurements. It has been shown to cause behavioural

bondage in the workplace, whereby one is forced to act and even think according to the

requisites of the actual or virtual observer and thus employee autonomy, creativity and

freedom shrink drastically.

Though the researches in this area draw mostly on psychological and legal perspectives,

this study shows that an explicit need for a socio-ethical perspective is widely recognized.

Employees possess totally different attitudinal and behavioural positions when they are being

covered and not being covered under surveillance. Variables like trust, commitment,

efficiency, performance are not related to electronic or any types of monitoring in the

workplace. Finally, workplace monitoring does not help to achieve long terms goals and

objectives and shows that employees’ and the organization’s success is independent of any

external monitoring employed in the workplace. It also affirms the exploration of negative





impacts of workplace surveillance on employees and the ethical surpassing of employee rights

as an independent individual of worth and dignity, resulted from the literature reviews.

Therefore, from employ perspectives, electronic monitoring is not a viable solution for

workplace problems. The contention here is that, it is morally wrong to use electronic

surveillance, 24/7 ubiquitous monitoring, in the organizational (IT, ITeS, BPO) workplace.

These conclusions, showing the negative effects of electronic surveillance in real work

situations, are consistent with other previously conducted studies examined in the

aforementioned sections. This research points out to the significance of the further research on

the phenomenon of body ontology in relation to the normative and moral concepts of bodily

integrity, human dignity and human transcendence and argues that these notions and

employee concerns are based on a body ontology essential to hold in the workplace.

References

Agarwala, Prakash N. A Comprehensive History of Business in India – From 3000 BC to 2000 AD.

New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Aiello, John R. “Computer-Based Work Monitoring: Electronic Surveillance and its Effects.” Journal

of Applied Social Psychology 23 (1993): 499-507.

Aiello, John R. and Carol M. Svec. “Computer Monitoring of Work Performance: Extending the Social

Facilitation Framework to Electronic Presence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23, no. 7

(1993): 537-548.

Aiello, John R. and Kathryn J. Kolb. “Electronic Monitoring and Social Context: Impact on

Productivity and Stress.” Journal of Applied Psychology 80, no. 3 (1995): 339-359.

Akerlind, Gerlese S. “Variation and Commonality in Phenomenographic Research Methods.” Higher

Education Research & Development 31, no. 1 (2012): 115-127.

Allen, Myria Watkins et al. “Workplace Surveillance and Managing Privacy Boundaries.”

Management Communication Quarterly 21, no. 2 (2007): 172-200.

Al-Rjoub, Hamed, Arwa Zabian and Sami Qawasmeh. “Electronic Monitoring: The Employees Point

of view.” Journal of Social Sciences 4, no. 3 (2008): 189-195.

Amick III, Benjamin C. and Michael J. Smith. “Stress, Computer-Based Work Monitoring and

Measurement Systems: A Conceptual Overview.” Applied Ergonomics 23, no. 1 (1992): 6-16.

Andrejevic, Mark and Kelly Gates. “Big Data Surveillance: Introduction.” Surveillance & Society 12,

no. 2 (2014): 185-196.

Arora, Dayanand. “Foreign Multinationals in India: Adopting to India’s Work Culture and

Management Practices.” In Internationale Geschäftstätigkeiten in Asien: Länderkulturforschung

anhand ausgewählter Länder, edited by Wilhelm Schmeisser, Thomas R. Hummel, Gerfried

Hannemann, and Dirk Ciupka, 149-179. München: Rainer Hampp Verlag, 2005.

Bain, Peter and Phil Taylor. “Entrapped by the ‘Electronic Panopticon’? Worker Resistance in the Call

Centre.” New Technology, Work, and Employment 15, no. 1 (2000): 2-18.

Ball, Kirstie. “The Harms of Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace.” Pen America, February 20,

2014. https://pen.org/the-harms-of-electronic-surveillance-in-the-workplace/ [accessed May 1, 2018].

Ball, Kirstie. “Workplace Surveillance: An Overview.” Labour History 51, no. 1 (2010): 87-106.

Batt, Rosemary, Virginia Doellgast, Hyunji Kwon and Vivek Agarwal. “Service Management and

Employment Systems in U.S. and Indian Call Centres.” Brookings Trade Forum, Offshoring White-

Collar Work (2005): 335-372.

Berg, Bruce L. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London: Pearson, 2007.





Beu, D. and M. R. Buckley. “The Hypothesized Relationship between Accountability and Ethical

Behaviour.” Journal of Business Ethics 34 (2001): 57-73.

Bhave, Devasheesh P. “The Invisible Eye? Electronic Performance Monitoring and Employee Job

Performance.” Personnel Psychology 67, no. 3 (2014): 605–635.

Blakemore, Michael. “Surveillance in the Workplace: An Overview of Issues of Privacy, Monitoring,

and Ethics.” Briefing Paper for GMB, 2005, http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2005/Surveillance-

Workplace-Blakemore1sep05.htm [accessed April 10, 2016].

Bloom, Elise M., Madeleine Schachter and Elliot H. Steelman. “Competing Interests in the Post 9-11

Workplace: The New Line between Privacy and Safety.” William Mitchell Law Review 29, 3 (2003):

897-920.

Braverman, Harry. Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century.

New York, NY: NYU Press, 1998.

Brown, William S. “Ontological Security, Existential Anxiety, and Workplace Privacy.” Journal of

Business Ethics 23, no. 1 (2000): 61-65.

Büyük, Köksal and Uğur Keskin. “Panopticon’s Electronic Resurrection: Workplace Monitoring as an

Ethical Problem.” Turkish Journal of Business Ethics 5, no. 10 (2012): 75-88.

Cantor, David E. “Maximizing the Potential of Contemporary Workplace Monitoring: Techno-Cultural

Developments, Transactive Memory, and Management Planning.” Journal of Business Ethics Logistics

37, no. 1 (2016): 18-25.

Chan, Peggie P.K. “Reporting Research Findings.” In Communicating in the University Culture, edited

by T. Ruanni F. Tupas, Catherine Cook and Norhayati Bte Mohd Ismail, 27-33. Singapore: NUS, 2009.

Conry-Murray, A. “The Pros and Cons of Employee Surveillance.” Network Magazine 12, no. 2

(2001): 62-66.

Coultrup, Sherri and Patrick D. Fountain. “Effects of Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance on the

Psychological Contract of Employees: An Exploratory Study.” Proceeding of ASBBS 19, no. 1 (2012):

219-235.

Critchfield, Thomas S. and Ernest A. Vargas, “Self-recording, Instructions, and Public Self-graphing:

Effects on Swimming in the Absence of Coach Verbal Interaction.” Behaviour Modification 15, no. 1

(1991): 95-112.

D’Cruz, Premilla and Charlotte Rayner. “Bullying in the Indian Workplace: A Study of the ITES-BPO

Sector,” Economic and Industrial Democracy 34, no. 4 (2012): 597-619.

D’Cruz, Premilla and Ernesto Noronha. “Hope to Despair: The Experience of Organizing Indian Call

Centre Employees.” The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations 48, no. 3 (2013): 471-486.

D’Cruz, Premilla and Ernesto Noronha. “Navigating the Extended Reach: Target Experiences of

Cyberbullying at Work.” Information and Organization 23 (2013): 324-325.

D’Cruz, Premilla. Workplace Bullying in India. New Delhi: Routledge, 2012.

Davies, Simon G. “The Case Against: CCTV Should Not Be Introduced.” International Journal of

Risk, Security and Crime Prevention 1, no. 4 (1996): 327-331.

Dee, Michael J. “The Use of CCTV to Police Young People in Public Spaces - A Case of Big Brother

or Big Friend?” Paper presented at the 27th International Conference on Making Cities Livable,

Vienna, Austria. De Montfrot University, Youth and Community Division, Scraptoft Campus,

Leicester, LE7 9SU, U.K., 2000.

Deery, Stephen, Vandana Nath and Janet Walsh. “Why do Off-Shored Indian Call Centre Workers

Want to Leave Their Jobs?” New Technology, Work and Empowerment 28, no. 3 (2013): 212-226.

Desrochers, Stéphane and Alexia Roussos. “The Jurisprudence of Surveillance: A Critical Look at the

Laws of Intimacy.” Lex Electronica 6, no.2 (2001): 1-12.

DeTienne, Kristen Bell. “Big Brother or Friendly Coach.” Futurist 27 (1993): 33-37.

DeTienne, Kristen Bell. “Big Brother or Friendly Coach? Computer Monitoring in the 21st Century.”

The Futurist 27, no. 5 (1993): 33-37.





DiTecco, Don, G. Cwitco, A. Arsenault and M. André, “Operator Stress and Monitoring Practices.”

Applied Ergonomics 23, no. 1 (1992): 29-34.

Edwards, Rosalind and Janet Holland. What is Qualitative Interviewing? London: Bloomsebury, 2013.

Einarsen, Stale, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper. “The Concept of Bullying and

Harassment at Work: The European Tradition.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace:

Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed., edited by Stale Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter

Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 3-28. London: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Einarsen, Stale. “The Nature and Causes of Bullying at Work.” International Journal of Manpower 20,

nos. 1/2 (1999): 16-27.

Eivazi, Kathy. “Computer Use Monitoring and Privacy at Work.” Computer Law & Security Review

27, no. 5 (2011): 516-523.

Ellway, Benjamin P.W. “Making It Personal in a Call Centre: Electronic Peer Surveillance.” New

Technology, Work and Employment 28, no. 1 (2013): 37-50.

Fazekas, Christopher Pearson. “1984 is Still Fiction: Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace and U.S.

Privacy.” Duke Law & Technology Review 3, no. 1 (2004): 1-17.

Fei, Liang. “Dangerous Navigation.” Global Times: Discover China, Discover the World, September 5,

2013. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/780549.shtml [accessed June 20, 2017].

Findlay, Patricia and Alan McKinlay. “Surveillance, Electronic Communications Technologies and

Regulation.” Industrial Relations Journal 34, no. 4 (2003): 305-318.

Flanagan, Julie A. “Restricting Electronic Monitoring in the Private Workplace.” Duke Law Journal

43 (1994): 1256-1281

French, Peter. “Video Nation.” Police Review (3/7/98),

http://www.1in12.com/publications/cctv/bubble.html [accessed June 10, 2017].

Grant, Rebecca and Christopher Higgins. “Monitoring Service Workers via Computer: The Effect on

Employees, Productivity, and Service.” National Productivity Review 8, no. 2 (1989): 101-112.

Griffith, Terri L. “Monitoring and Performance: A Comparison of Computer and Supervisor

Monitoring.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 no. 7 (1993): 549-572.

Hancock, Beverley, Elizabeth Ockleford and Kate Windridge. “An Introduction to Qualitative

Research.” The NIHR RDS for the East Midlands / Yorkshire & the Humber 2009 Qualitative Research

(The NIHR RDS EM / YH, 2009), 2009.

Harjeev Kumar Khanna, S.C. Laroiya and D.D. Sharma, “Quality Management in Indian

Manufacturing Organizations: Some Observations and Results from a Pilot Survey,” Brazilian Journal

of Operations & Production Management 7, no. 1 (2010): 141-162.

Hartman, Laura Pincus. “Ethics: The Rights and Wrongs of Workplace Snooping,” Journal of Business

Strategy 19, no. 3 (1998):16-19.

Hoeren, Thomas and Sonja Eustergerling. “Privacy and Data Protection at the Workplace in Germany.”

In Reasonable Expectations of Privacy: Eleven Country Reports on Camera Surveillance and

Workplace Privacy, edited by Sjaak Nouwt, Berend R. de Vries and Corien Prins, 211-244. The Hague,

PA: TMC Asser Press, 2005.

Holloway, Immy and Kathleen Galvin. Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare, 4th ed. West

Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2017.

Holman, David. “Employee Well-Being in Call Centres.” In Call Centres and Human Resource

Management, edited by Stephen Deery and Nick Kinnie, 223-244. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004.

Horne, Colin J. “The Case For: CCTV Should Be Introduced.” International Journal of Risk, Security

and Crime Prevention 1, no. 4 (1998): 323.

Indiparambil, Jijo James. “An Empirical Study on the Detrimental Effects of Employee Surveillance in

India.” International Journal of Research in Computer Application & Management 7, no. 12 (2017):

48-51.





Irving, R.H., C. A. Higgins and F.R. Safayeni. “Computerized Performance Monitoring Systems: Use

and Abuse.” Communications of the ACM 29, no. 8 (1986): 794-801.

Iyer, Priya. “Electronic Surveillance of Employees – Pros and Cons.” Human Resources, December 07,

2012. http://www.supportbiz.com/articles/human-resources/electronic-surveillance-employees-

%E2%80%93-pros-and-cons.html [accessed April 15, 2016].

Jain, R.B. “Globalization, Liberalization and Human Welfare in India: Challenges for Governance.” In

Social Security and Welfare Policy, edited by M.M. Sankhadhar and Sharda Jain, 429-433. New Delhi:

Deep and Deep Publications, 2004.

Jay R. Lund, “Electronic Performance Monitoring: A Review of the Research Issues,” Applied

Ergonomics 23, no. 1 (1992): 54-58.

Jhunjhunwala, Soniya. “Review of Indian Work Culture and Challenges Faced by Indians in the Era of

Globalization.” Interscience Management Review 2, no. 2 (2012): 67-70.

Johnson, Phil. “Analytic induction.” In Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research:

A Practical Guide, edited by Gillian.Symon and Catherine Cassell, 28-50. London: Sage, 1998.

Kanagasabapathi, P. Indian Models of Economy, Business and Management. 2nd ed. New Delhi: PHI

Learning, 2009.

Karyda, Maria and Lilian Mitrou. “Bridging the Gap between Employee Surveillance and Privacy

Protection.” In Social and Human Elements of Information Security: Emerging Trends and

Countermeasures, edited by Manish Gupta and Raj Sharman, 283-300. Hershey: IGI Global, 2008.

Kaura, Amit. Evidence-Based Medicine: Reading and Writing Medical Papers. Edinburgh: Mosby

Elsevier, 2013.

Kesan, Jay P. “Cyber-Working or Cyber-Shirking?: A First Principles Examination of Electronic

Privacy in the Workplace.” Florida Law Review 54 (2002): 319-320.

Khan, Shahadat Hossain. “Phenomenography: A Qualitative Research Methodology in Bangladesh.”

International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications 5, no. 2 (2014): 34-43.

Khare, Anshuman. “Japanese and Indian Work Patterns: A Study of Contrasts.” In Management and

Cultural Values: The Indiginization of Organizations in Asia, edited by Henry S. R. Kao, Durganand

Sinha, and Bernhard Wilpert, 121-138. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2002.

Kidwell Jr. Roland E. and Nathan Bennett. “Electronic Surveillance as Employee Control: A

Procedural Justice Interpretation.” The Journal of High Technology Management Research 5, no. 1

(1994): 39-57.

Kidwell Jr., Roland E. and Nathan Bennett. “Employee Reactions to Electronic Control Systems: The

Role of Procedural Fairness.” Group & Organizational Management 19, no. 2 (1994): 203-218.

Kizza, Joseph Migga and Jackline Ssanyu. “Workplace Surveillance.” In Electronic Monitoring in the

Workplace: Controversies and Solutions, edited by John Weckert, 1-18. Hershey, PA: Idea-Group,

2005.

Knights, David and Darben McCabe. “What Happens When the Phone Goes Wild?: Staff, Stress and

Spaces for Escape in a BPR Telephone Banking Work Regime.” Journal of Management Studies 35,

no. 2 (1998): 163-194.

Komaki, Judith L., Stacey Slotnick and M. Jensen. “Development of an Operant-based Taxonomy and

Observational Index of Supervising Behaviours.” Journal of Applied Psychology 71, no. 2 (1986): 260-

269.

Krishnan, Sandeep K., Biju Varkkey, and Anush Raghavan. “Employee Privacy at Workplaces: Some

Pertinent Issues.” Research and Publication Department (No. WP2006-02-04), Indian Institute of

Management Ahmedabad, 2006.

Kruegle, Herman. CCTV Surveillance: Video Practices and Technology, 2nd ed. Burlington, MA:

Elsevier, 2007.

Kumar, Raj, Dixit Garg and T.K. Garg. “Total Quality Management in Indian Industries: Relevance,

Analysis and Directions.” The TQM Journal 21, no. 6 (2009): 607-622.





Kumar, Vikas. “JIT Based Quality Management: Concepts and Implications in Indian Context.”

International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 2, no. 1 (2010): 40-50.

Lally, Laura. “Privacy versus Accessibility: The Impact of Situationally Conditioned Belief.” Journal

of Business Ethics 15, no. 11 (1996): 1222-1223.

Lasprogata, Gail, Nancy J. King, and Sukanya Pillay. “Regulation of Electronic Employee Monitoring:

Identifying Fundamental Principles of Employee Privacy through a Comparative Study of Data Privacy

Legislation in the European Union, United States and Canada.” Stanford Technology Law Review 4.

(2004). https://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-technology-law-

review/online/lasprogata-regulationelectronic.pdf [accessed June 15, 2017].

Lee, Jintae and Younghwa Lee. “A Holistic Model of Computer Abuse within Organizations.”

Information Management & Computer Security 10, no. 2 (2002): 57-63.

Levi, Michael. “Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace: Power through the Panopticon.” 1994.

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/s94/students/mike/mike_paper.html [accessed June 15, 2017].

Lyon, David. “Surveillance Technology and Surveillance Society.” In Modernity and Technology,

edited by Thomas J. Misa, Philip Brey and Andrew Feenberg, 161-183. Cambridge: The MIT Press,

2003.

Lyon, David. Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital Discrimination. London:

Routledge, 2003.

Lyon, David. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007.

Lyon, David. Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham: McGraw-Hill Education,

2001.

Mack, Natasha, Cynthia Woodsong, Kathleen M.Macqueen, Greg Guest and Emily Namey. Qualitative

Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. North Carolina: Family Health International,

2005.

Mahadevan, B. “Are Indian Companies Ready for Just-in-Time.” IIMB Management Review 9, nos. 2,

3 (1997): 85-92.

Majumdar, Sumit Kumar. India’s Late, Late Industrial Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2012.

Martin, Kirsten E. and R. Edward Freeman. “Some Problems with Employee Monitoring.” Journal of

Business Ethics 43, no.4 (2003): 353-361.

Marton, Ference. “Phenomenography - A Research Approach to Investigating Different

Understandings of Reality.” Journal of Thought 21, no. 3 (1986): 28-49.

Marton, Ference. “Phenomenography: Describing Conceptions of the World around Us.” Instructional

Science 10 (1981): 177-200.

Marx, Gary T. Undercover: Police Surveillance in America. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1988.

Mason, David, Graham Button, Gloria Lankshear, and Sally Coetes. “Getting Real about Surveillance

and Privacy at Work.” In Virtual Society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality, edited by Steve Woolger.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

McKinlay, Alan and Phil Taylor. “Commitment and Conflict: Worker Resistance to HRM in the

Microelectronics Industry.” In The Handbook of Human Resource Management, 2nd ed., edited by B.

Towers. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.

Miller, Seumas and John Weckert. “Privacy, the Workplace and the Internet.” Journal of Business

Ethics 28, no. 3 (2000): 255-265.

Mishra, Jitendra M. and Suzanne M. Crampton. “Employee Monitoring: Privacy in the Workplace?”

S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal 63, no. 3 (1998): 4-15.

Mitrou, Lilian and Maria Karyda. “Employees’ Privacy vs. Employers’ Security: Can They be

balanced.” Telematics and Informatics 23, no. 3 (2006): 164-178.





Mujtaba, Bahaudin G. “Ethical Implications of Employee Monitoring: What Leaders Should

Consider.” Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 8, no. 3 (2003): 22-47.

Namish Mehta, Prakash Verma and Nitin Seth, “Understanding Total Quality Management in Context:

International and Indian Service Industry,” Current World Environment 4, no. 2 (2009): 285-292.

Nebeker, Delbert M. and B. Charles Tatum. “The Effects of Computer Monitoring, Standards, and

Rewards on Work Performance, Job Satisfaction and Stress.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23

no. 7 (1993): 508-536.

Nevogt, Dave. “Employee Monitoring Software and Tools - The Top 10 Options.” 2015.

http://blog.hubstaff.com/10-employee-monitoring-software-options-monitor-activity/ [accessed

September 28, 2017].

Niehoff, Brian P. and Robert H. Moorman. “Justice as a Mediator of the Relationship between Methods

of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.” Academy of Management Journal 36, no. 3

(1993): 527-556.

Noronha, Ernesto and Premilla D’Cruz. Employee Identity in Indian Call Centres: The Notion of

Professionalism. New Delhi: Response Books, 2009.

Norris, Clive and Gary Armstrong. “CCTV and the Social Structuring of Surveillance.” In Surveillance

of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention, vol. 10, edited by Kate Painter and

Nick Tilley, 157-178. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1999a.

Norris, Clive and Gary Armstrong. The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV. Oxford:

Berg, 1999b.

Norris, Clive and Gary Armstrong. The Unforgiving Eye: CCTV Surveillance in Public Space. Mimeo.

Hull, UK: Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Hull, 1997.

Norris, Clive. “From Personal to Digital: CCTV, the Panopticon, and the Technological Mediation of

Suspicion and Social Control.” In Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital

Discrimination, ediuted by David Lyon. London: Routledge, 2003.

Nouwt, Sjaak, Berend R. de Vries and Roel Loermans. “Analysis of the Country Reports.” In

Reasonable Expectations of Privacy? Eleven Country Reports on Camera Surveillance and Workplace

Privacy, edited by Sjaak Nouwt, Berend R. de Vries and Corien Prins, 323-357. Cambridge: T.M.C.

Asser Press. 2005.

Oktay, M. Frauk et al. “Occupational Safety: Effects of Workplace Radiofrequencies on Hearing

Function.” Archives of Medical Research 35 (2004): 517-521.

Olson, Ryan and Jamey Winchester. “Behavioural Self-Monitoring of Safety and Productivity in the

Workplace: A Methodological Primer and Quantitative Literature Review.” Journal of Organizational

Behavior Management 28, no. 1 (2008): 9-75.

Panina, Daria. “Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace.” In Encyclopedia of Human Resources

Information Systems: Challenges in e-HRM, edited by Teresa Torres-Coronas and Mario Arias-Oliva.

Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference, 2009.

Pitesa, Marko. “Employee surveillance and the modern workplace.” In Business Ethics: A Critical

Approach: Integrating Ethics across the Business World, edited by Patrick O’Sullivan, Mark Esposito

and Mar Smith, 206-219. London: Routledge, 2012.

Piturro, Marlene C. “Employee Performance Monitoring... Or Meddling?” Management Review 78, no.

5 (1989): 31-33.

Porter, David. “Insider Fraud: Spotting the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.” Computer Fraud & Security 4

(2003): 12-15.

Prasad, Monika. “International Capital on “Silicon Plateau”: Work and Control in India’s Computer

Industry.” Social Forces 77, no. 2 (1998): 439-440.

Ramesh, Babu P. “‘Cyber Coolies’ in BPO: Insecurities and Vulnerabilities of Non-Standard Work.”

Economic and Political Weekly 39, no.5 (2004): 492-497.





Rana, Sudha, Raj Kumar, Sarwat Sultana and Rakesh Kumar Sharma. “Radiation-Induced Biomarkers

for the Detection and Assessment of Absorbed Radiation Doses.” Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied

Sciences 2, no.3 (2010): 189-196.

Remesh, Babu P. “Work Organization, Control and ‘Empowerment’: Managing the Contradictions of

Call Centre Work.” In In an Outpost of the Global Economy: Work and Workers in India’s Information

Technology Industry, edited by Carol Upadhya and A.R. Vasavi, 235-262. London: Routledge, 2008.

Richards, Neil M. “The Dangers of Surveillance.” Harvard Law Review 126 (2013): 1934-1965.

Ritzer, George and Craig D. Liar. “The Globalization of Nothing and the Outsourcing of Service

Work.” In Service Work: Critical Perspectives, edited by Marek Korczynski and Cameron Lynne, 31-

52. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Robbins, Stephen P., Rolf Bergman, Ian Stagg and Mary Coulter. Management, 7th ed. Melbourne:

Pearson, 2015.

Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. Qualitative Interviewing, 2nd ed. The Art of Hearing Data. 2nd

ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2005.

Schacht, Richard. The Future of Alienation. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

Selmi, Michael. “Privacy for the Working Class: Public Work and Private Lives.” Louisiana Law

Review 66, no. 4 (2006): 1035-1057.

Sewell, Graham and Barry Wilkinson. “Someone to Watch over Me: Surveillance, Discipline and the

Just-in-Time Labour Process.” Sociology 26 (1992): 271-289.

Singh, Gurinder and Inderpreet Singh Ahuja. “An Evaluation of Just-in-Time Initiatives in the Indian

Industries.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 32, no. 6 (2015): 559-588.

Singh, Sultan and Dixit Garg. “JIT System: Concepts, Benefits and Motivation in Indian Industries.”

International Journal of Management and Business Studies 1, no. 1 (2011): 26-30.

Smith, Graham T. Machine Tool Metrology: An Industrial Handbook, 527-536. Switzerland: Springer,

2016.

Smith, Jonathan A. “Beyond the Divide between Cognition and Discourse: Using Interpretative

Phenomenological Analysis in Health Psychology.” Psychology and Health 11, no. 2 (1996): 261-271.

Smith, Michael J., Pascale Carayon, K. J. Sanders, S Y Lim and David LeGrande. “Employee Stress

and Health Complaints in Jobs with and Without Electronic Performance Monitoring.” Applied

Ergonomics 23, no. 1 (1992): 17-27.

Smith, Michale J. and Benjamin C. Amick III. “Electronic Monitoring at the Workplace: Implications

for Employee Control and Job Stress.” In Job Control and Worker Health, edited by Stephen L. Sauter,

Joseph Hurrell and Cary Cooper, 275-289. Chichester: Wiley, 1990.

Snyder, Mark. “Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behaviour.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 30, no. 4 (1974): 526-537.

Sofaer, Shoshanna. “Qualitative Research Methods,” International Journal for Quality in Health Care

14, no. 4 (2002): 329-336.

Solove, Daniel J. “A Taxonomy of Privacy.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154, no. 3

(2006): 477-564.

Solove, Daniel J. “Reconstructing Electronic Surveillance Law.” The George Washington Law Review

72 (2004): 1701-1747.

Spitzmüller, Christiane and Jeffrey M. Stanton. “Examining Employee Compliance with

Organizational Surveillance and Monitoring.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

79, no. 2 (2006): 245-272.

Stahl, B. S. et al. “Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace: If People Don’t Care, then What is the

Relevance?” In Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace: Controversies and Solutions, edited by John

Weckert, 50-78. Hershey, PA: Idea-Group, 2005.





Stanton, J.M. and E.M. Weiss. “Electronic Monitoring in Their Own Words: An Exploratory Study of

Employees’ Experience with New Types of Surveillance.” Computers in Human Behaviour 16 (2000):

423-440.

Stanton, Jeffrey M. “Reactions to Employee Performance Monitoring: Framework, Review, and

Research Directions.” Human Performance 13, no, 1 (2000): 85-113.

Stone, Katherine V.W. “Flexibilization, Globalization, and Privatization: Three Challenges to Labour

Rights in Our Time.” In Regulating Labour in the Wake of Globalization: New Challenges, New

Institutions, edited by Brian Bercusson and Cynthia Estlund. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008.

Taiwo, Rotimi. “Cyber Behaviour.” In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 3rd ed.,

edited by Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, 2972-2980. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 2015.

Tilley, Nick. “Whys and Wherefores in Evaluating the Effectiveness of CCTV.” International Journal

of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention 2, no. 3 (1997): 175-185.

Udupa, Sahana. Making News in Global India: Media, Publics, Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2015.

Ugrin, Joseph C., J. Michael Pearson and Marcus D. Odom. “Profiling Cyber-Slackers in the

Workplace: Demographic, Cultural, and Workplace Factors.” Journal of Internet Commerce 6, no. 3

(2007): 75-89.

Upadhya, Carol and A.R. Vasavi. “Work, Culture and Sociality in the Indian IT Industry: A

Sociological Study.” Final Report to the Indo-Dutch Program for Alternatives in Development, Indian

Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2006.

Venkatapathy, R. and M. Madhumathi. “Use of Technology and Counterproductive Work Behaviour.”

Paripex: Indian Journal of Research 5, no. 4 (2016): 55-57.

Vorvoreanu, Michaela and Carl H. Baton. “Examining Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace: A

Review of Theoretical Perspectives and Research Findings.” Paper from Conference of the

International Communication Association, June 2000, (Acapulco, Mexico), 2000.

Webb, Janette. “Vocabularies of Motive and the ‘New’ Management.” Work, Employment, and Society

10 (1996): 251-271.

Weckert, John. Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace: Controversies and Solutions. Hershey: Idea

Group Publishing, 2005.

Wen, Joseph H. and Pamela Gershuny. “Computer Based Monitoring in the American Workplace:

Surveillance Technologies and Legal Challenges.” Human Systems Management 24, no. 2, (2005):

165-173.

Westin, A. F. “Two Key Factors That Belong in a Macroergonomic Analysis of Electronic Monitoring:

Employee Perceptions of Fairness and the Climate of Organizational Trust or Distrust.” Applied

Ergonomics 23, no. 1 (1992): 35-42.

Whitty, Monica T. “Should Filtering Software be Utilized in the Workplace? Australian Employees’

Attitudes towards Internet Usage and Surveillance of the Internet in the Workplace.” Surveillance and

Society 2, no. 1 (2004): 39-54.

Winner, Larry. “Applied Statistical Methods.” University of Florida, Lecture Notes, 2009.

http://www.stat.ufl.edu/~winner/statnotescomp/appstat.pdf [accessed May 20, 2016].

Worsnop, Richard L. “Privacy in the Workplace: Does Electronic Monitoring Violate Workers’

Privacy?” CQ Researcher 3, no. 43 (1993): 1011-1025.

Young, Jock. The Exclusive Society. London: Sage, 1999.

Zhu, Yanhan. “Individual Behaviour: In-role and Extra-role.” International Journal of Business

Administration 4, no. 1 (2013): 23-27.

Zirkle, Brian L. and William G. Staples. “Negotiating Workplace Surveillance.” In Electronic

Monitoring in the Workplace: Controversies and Solutions, edited by John Weckert, 79-100. Hershey:

Idea Group Publishing, 2005.

electronic surveillance and the forgotten impacts...

Documents