IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/faulre/127.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When are employers interested in electronic performance monitoring? Results from a factorial survey experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Wieser, Luisa
  • Abraham, Martin
  • Schnabel, Claus
  • Niessen, Cornelia
  • Wolff, Mauren

Abstract

This paper examines supervisors' considerations about (not) using monitoring technologies to keep track of subordinates and their work performance. We conduct a factorial survey experiment. The hypothetical descriptions of workplace situations - so-called vignettes - create a situation where the surveyed supervisor is faced with a new team of subordinates and a given technology that can be used to track employees at work. Several components of the situation are randomly varied across vignettes and respondents. We find that supervisors are less interested in using monitoring technologies if the monitoring technology targets people rather than tasks and if the time effort for the supervisor is high. Supervisors' monitoring interest increases if their subordinates interact with sensitive firm data and the data evaluation is AI supported. Thus, our results confirm that supervisors take the costs and benefits of electronic performance monitoring into consideration regarding their attitude towards monitoring technologies at work.

Suggested Citation

  • Wieser, Luisa & Abraham, Martin & Schnabel, Claus & Niessen, Cornelia & Wolff, Mauren, 2023. "When are employers interested in electronic performance monitoring? Results from a factorial survey experiment," Discussion Papers 127, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Labour and Regional Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:faulre:127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/273373/1/1851816518.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    2. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    3. Addison, John T & Schnabel, Claus & Wagner, Joachim, 2001. "Work Councils in Germany: Their Effects on Establishment Performance," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 659-694, October.
    4. Panina, Daria & Aiello, John R., 2005. "Acceptance of electronic monitoring and its consequences in different cultural contexts: A conceptual model," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 269-292, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marc van Essen & J. (Hans) van Oosterhout & Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens, 2013. "Competition and Cooperation in Corporate Governance: The Effects of Labor Institutions on Blockholder Effectiveness in 23 European Countries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 530-551, April.
    2. Hans-Dieter Gerner & Holger Reinemann & Andreas Dutzi & Daniel Ludwig, 2019. "Voraussetzungen und Effekte betrieblicher Interessenvertretung in eigentümergeführten Unternehmen," ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 67(2), pages 113-144.
    3. Barbara Su, 2023. "Banking practices and borrowing firms’ financial reporting quality: evidence from bank cross-selling," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 201-236, March.
    4. Yeon‐Koo Che & Kathryn E. Spier, 2008. "Strategic judgment proofing," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 926-948, December.
    5. Klapper, Leora F. & Love, Inessa, 2004. "Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emerging markets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 703-728, November.
    6. Hartarska, Valentina M. & Nadolnyak, Denis A., 2012. "Financing Constraints and Access to Credit in Post Crisis Environment: Evidence from New Farmers in Alabama," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124882, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2016. "Unions, innovation and cross-country wage inequality," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 104-118.
    8. Hasan, Iftekhar & Lozano-Vivas, Ana, 2002. "Organizational Form and Expense Preference: Spanish Experience," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 135-150, April.
    9. Fabbri, Daniela & Menichini, Anna Maria C., 2016. "The commitment problem of secured lending," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 561-584.
    10. Sang Cheol Lee & Mooweon Rhee & Jongchul Yoon, 2018. "Foreign Monitoring and Audit Quality: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    11. DEGEORGE, François & DING, Yuan & JEANJEAN, Thomas & STOLOWY, Hervé, 2005. "Does Analyst Following Curb Earnings Management?," HEC Research Papers Series 810, HEC Paris.
    12. Xueyan Dong & Jingyu Gao & Sunny Li Sun & Kangtao Ye, 2021. "Doing extreme by doing good," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 291-315, March.
    13. Gerry Gallery & Emerson Cooper & John Sweeting, 2008. "Corporate Disclosure Quality: Lessons from Australian Companies on the Impact of Adopting International Financial Reporting Standards," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 18(3), pages 257-273, September.
    14. Baarda, James R., 2003. "Current Law & Economics Debates: Tools for Assessing Fundamental Cooperative Changes?," 2003 Annual Meeting, October 29 31802, NCERA-194 Research on Cooperatives.
    15. Khémiri, Wafa & Noubbigh, Hédi, 2020. "Size-threshold effect in debt-firm performance nexus in the sub-Saharan region: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression approach," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 335-344.
    16. Shaikh, Ibrahim A. & O'Brien, Jonathan Paul & Peters, Lois, 2018. "Inside directors and the underinvestment of financial slack towards R&D-intensity in high-technology firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 192-201.
    17. Calcagno, R. & Renneboog, L.D.R., 2004. "Capital Structure and Managerial Compensation : The Effects of Renumeration Seniority," Discussion Paper 2004-120, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Maha Faisal Alsayegh & Rashidah Abdul Rahman & Saeid Homayoun, 2020. "Corporate Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Performance Transformation through ESG Disclosure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    19. Preet Singh & Chitra Singla, 2016. "Executive Stock Options: Will it Work as a Good Governance Mechanism in all Scenarios?," Working Papers id:10985, eSocialSciences.
    20. Cécile Cézanne, 2012. "Berle and Means," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    employee performance monitoring; workplace technology; factorial survey experiment; Germany;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M50 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - General
    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:faulre:127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vierlde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.