Indian Institute of Management Ranchi

Group Project on
The impact of electronic monitoring
on contemporary management of
employee output for
Research Methodology

1. Jafar Ghori (X012-18)

2. Manish Kumar (X015-18)
3. Shyam Kumar (X019-18)
4. Rohan Kumar (X017-18)
5. Ujjwal Kumar (X021-18)

1|Page
Executive Summary:
There are several methods to control employees’ activities to ensure increased
productivity and performance. Each method used to monitor employees certainly
affects how the employees are engaged in the workplace. Employee engagement in
the workplace gives an assurance that employees are committed to their organization’s
goals, motivated to add to organizational achievements, and at the same time able to
improve their individual sense of well-being. Among various surveillance methods used
is Electronic surveillance. The relationship between Electronic surveillance and
employees’ engagement has been scarcely researched. The study aimed to determine
the relationship between Electronic surveillance and employees’ output in The Tinplate
Company of India limited (TCIL).

In conducting the study, a correlational research design was adopted. Out of the
population of TCIL employees, a sample of 70 employees, randomly selected was used
as a representation of the population. Structured questionnaires were used for data
collection purposes. Reliability of the questionnaire was tested by a pilot questionnaire
and also by use of Cronbach’s alpha. The collected data was coded and analysed by
use SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science). Means, correlations and
regression analysis were used to establish the relationship between electronics
monitoring and employee engagement. The study established that there is a positive
correlation between Electronic Surveillance and employee output. The null hypotheses
was not supported which is a further confirmation that there is a statistically significant
relationship between Electronic monitoring and employee Output. Consultation and
involvement of employees is therefore necessary for any organization intending to
introduce Electronic surveillance. Management should also create an environment of
trust and the outcome of any surveillance should be used for constructive purpose as
these will create a good ground for positive output. In addition, there could be studies
on how acceptable legal structures could be developed to suit the use of electronic
surveillance systems.

2|Page
Background of the Study

With the advent of Information Technology in organizations, concerns over security

and privacy issues looms large among the stakeholders. This has made employers to
develop capability and implementation of surveillance of employees in the workplace.
It is a prime duty of the management to ensure that employees execute their
responsibilities by working full time on their assigned duties. Any management that fails
to oversee its workforce to ensure that employees are not spending valuable company
time, for which they are compensated on personal communication and online business,
is failing in its mandate. This may lead to reduced employee productivity and company
performance.

Understanding of employee behaviours is necessary in today’s workplace in order to

assist managers to effectively perform the control function of management. Control
mechanisms include elements such as policies and procedures which are categorized
into outcome controls or behaviour controls. Control systems impose boundaries on
employee behaviours and actions in the workplace. Management monitors employees
to improve and increase productivity and also to protect corporate resources.

It is important for organizations to control, restrict and direct employee behaviours,

decisions and actions in order to harmonize and coordinate the behaviours towards
achievement of individual and organizational goals. The process of electronic
surveillance in management pays attention to three key areas including employee
performance, employee behaviours and employee attitude in relation to utilization of
resources. Organizations watch over their employees in order to protect the
organizational information and intellectual assets, improve productivity and avoid
liabilities by preventing inappropriate use of company assets by employees. This is
made possible by electronic tools such as cameras, websites and emails, rationed
internet and electronic punch-in systems.

Employees feel that while a certain level of monitoring and surveillance in the
workplace is acceptable for purposes of security and prevention of computer misuse,
the use of electronic surveillance encroach on their privacy and some see it as spying
and undermining the trust relationship between employer and employee.

3|Page
Research Objective and Hypothesis

The objective of the research was to determine whether Electronic surveillance

influences Employee output in TCIL. This leads to the Hypothesis H: There is no
relationship between Electronic surveillance and output of TCIL Employees.

Scope and Significance of the Study

The study mainly focused on employees of The Tinplate Company of India Limited.
The study utilized a random sample of 67 employees selected from various
departments of the company. The study clarified the effect of use of electronic
monitoring and surveillance on engagement of employees in a manufacturing
industry. This served as a foundation for future studies on this research area. The
study built up on available knowledge on use of electronic monitoring in organizations
hence providing knowledge to management researchers and academicians. The
findings of this study were be of practical importance to top management in the
company and organizations in other industries by providing practical insights
regarding use of electronic monitoring to achieve positive organizational outcomes.

Research Gaps

Employee output is closely linked with organizational performance outcomes.

Engaged employees are emotionally attached to their organization and highly
involved in their job with a great enthusiasm for the success of their employer, going
extra mile beyond the employment contractual agreement. Employee reactions to
monitoring matter because organizations have a strong stake in maintaining both
employee motivation and wellbeing. The presence or absence of performance
monitoring and the way in which monitoring is conducted influence the amount of
effort that employees address to different tasks. Monitoring plays a role in effective
supervision, optimal organizational structure, and good teamwork. As technology
advances and changes the way that employees are monitored, there is need to
understand how employees view these new technological machineries that have
been put in their workplace and how this in turn affect their engagement. The study

4|Page
focused on the relationship between electronic surveillance and employee output in
Steel manufacturing industry like TCIL.

Research methodology

Our study adopted a correlational research design. A Correlation Research

determines whether a relationship or association exists between two or more
variables, but cannot determine if one variable causes another. In correlational
research, the researchers do not manipulate any of the variables or put the
participants into groups. For the purpose of the study the target population was 200
employees of different type of industries. Out of this 82 responses were received.
Structured questionnaires (online survey) were used in this study for the purpose of
collecting primary data. The questionnaires were used for the following reasons: their
potential in reaching out to a large number of respondents within a short time, able to
give the respondents adequate time to respond to the items, offers a sense of
security (confidentiality) to the respondents and it is an objective method since there
is no bias resulting from the personal characteristics of an interview. To establish the
reliability of the research instruments, the researcher carried out a pilot test of the
instruments using a group of 5 employees with the same characteristics as the ones
targeted in the study. The pilot study was done to test whether the aim of the study
could be achieved, in case of any ambiguity in any item, if the instrument could elicit
the type of data anticipated, whether the research objectives were being
appropriately addressed thus enhancing reliability and validity, and lastly to indicate
whether the type of data collected could be meaningfully analysed in relation to the
stated research questions and objectives. Once the questionnaires were received,
the data was coded and analysed. The result gave a Cronbach alpha of 0.712 which
was good enough.

Electronic monitoring that has a positive perception could lead to better outcomes
with regards to the input that is put by employees. At the same time, employees
desire greater meaning and personal development from their work, a situation that
suggests that employee engagement is a key factor in retaining employees and
enhancing their productivity. Employees’ output in the workplace may be dependent

5|Page
on how they perceive the level of control that employers have over them. More
control may mean employees have lesser space to express themselves hence
negative perception.

Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation

Classification of data categories:

EE – Employee Experience on Surveillance (EE1 to EE8)

CC – Surveillance as coercive Control (CC1 to CC8)

SC – Surveillance as caring (SC1 to SC8)

BC – Benefits to Company (BC1 to BC14)

AN – Absolute need of Surveillance (AN1 to AN8)

PT – Perceived threat of Surveillance (PT1 to PT9)

IN - Internet blocking (IN1 to IN8)

Demographic details:

Gender:

6|Page
Age Group:

Organization type:

Number of Employees:

Monthly family income:

7|Page
Steps for Analysis

Step 1: Identify the decision variable and input variables

Step 2: Do Factor Analysis and identify groups

Step 3: Do reliability and summate the elements of each group

Step 4: Do regression analysis and analyse results

Identifying Input or decision variable – Surveillance Benefits to company (BC)

Validity analysis using Factor method

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2
BC1 - Protects general assets (e.g., from sabotage) .760 .168
BC2 - Protects intellectual property (e.g., trade secrets, new .823 .270
product development, confidential information)
BC3 - Prevents theft and loss; prevents theft of property and .786 .116
equipment by customers
BC4 - Protects company’s good name/reputation .541 .577
BC5 - Provides virus protection .135 .763
BC6 - Enhances financial health, well-being, and growth, .141 .921
reduces costs
BC7 - Addresses legal issues (e.g., comply with regulations, .563 .506
protect against lawsuits, protect against harassment charges,
and resolve disputes)
BC8 - Surveillance benefits customers, provides quality .370 .758
customer service, ensures confidentiality of customer
information, increases customer safety and security
BC9 - Helps managers manage (e.g., managers use to make .490 .431
decisions)
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

BCT1 = BC1 + BC2 + BC3

BCT2 = BC5 + BC6 + BC8

8|Page
Reliability analysis of above two groups of decision variables

BCT1 = BC1 + BC2 + BC3

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.782 .780 3

Item-Total Statistics
Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
BC1 - Protects general 3.18 2.077 .607 .463 .721
assets (e.g., from sabotage)
BC2 - Protects intellectual 3.07 1.575 .750 .575 .549
property (e.g., trade secrets,
new product development,
confidential information)
BC3 - Prevents theft and 3.11 2.148 .523 .322 .805
loss; prevents theft of
property and equipment by
customers

The Corrected item Total Correlation values of all construct elements are >0.35 and
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.782. So all construct elements are reliable.

Now analysis for other component

BCT2 = BC5 + BC6 + BC8

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.819 .824 3

9|Page
Item-Total Statistics
Squared Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation Deleted
BC5 - Provides virus 3.90 3.966 .600 .381 .827
protection
BC6 - Enhances financial 3.66 3.191 .771 .618 .646
health, well-being, and
growth, reduces costs
BC8 - Surveillance benefits 3.83 4.390 .678 .530 .761
customers, provides quality
customer service, ensures
confidentiality of customer
information, increases
customer safety and security
The Corrected item Total Correlation values of all construct elements are >0.35 and
the Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.819. So all elements are reliable.

Identifying output variable –

EE – Employee Experience on Surveillance, CC – Surveillance as coercive Control,

SC – Surveillance as caring, AN – Absolute need of Surveillance, PT – Perceived
threat of Surveillance, IN - Internet blocking

Validity analysis using Factor method

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EE1 - Employee's computer use is .547 .269 .370 .120 -.403 .163
monitored
EE2 - Monitoring is done in person .245 .135 .569 -.201 .339
by a supervisor
EE3 - There is no monitoring .200 .336 .113 -.140 .125 .669
technology in place
EE4 - Monitoring activity is .254 .109 .130 .101 .728
accompanied by a warning signal

EE5 - Telephone use is monitored .165 .124 .675 .144 .166

10 | P a g e
EE6 - Employee's physical .198 .739 .116 -.155 .171
position is monitored
EE7 - Employee is annoyed by -.134 .340 .613 -.119 .146 -.226
technology or company policy

EE8 - Technology used to monitor .229 .736 -.103 .124 .153

the workplace threatened home
privacy
CC1 - Necessary to enhance .639 .240 .120 .163 -.145 -.127 .347
productivity, efficiency, improve
performance, control quality

CC2 - Keeps employees honest; .597 -.210 .152 .106 .362 -.147 .301
prevents theft of property and
equipment by employees; ensures
employees follow company
guidelines and use company
assets only for business

SC1 - Helps employees grow, .722 .153 .259 .127 .158 .163 .170
reach career goals, develop, and
learn
SC2 - Helps them do tasks (e.g., .672 .231 .115 .329 .261
balance cash deposits)
SC3 - Protects employee (from .662 .116 .148 .181 .156 -.248
theft of their things, if falsely
accused, from harassment, from
customer threats)

SC4 - Ensures fairness from .784 .121 .192 .202 .235 -.130
slackers
SC5 - Helps shape a positive and .810 .264 .213 -.104
nonabusive organizational culture
or professional environment (e.g.,
prevent sexual harassment)

SC6 - Increases employee safety .740 .234 .110 .232

and security
AN1 - It is necessary .435 .238 .509 .156 .334
AN2 - It is just part of life; it is part .384 .128 .704 .249
of company

11 | P a g e
AN3 - It is not done in secret; .190 -.111 .329 .784 .148 .105
company policy and reasons are
clear
AN4 - It is not excessive; not .326 .109 .122 .763
invasive; it is not abused
AN5 - Violators deserve to be .202 .196 .817
caught; if you are not doing
something wrong, you should not
mind.
AN6 - It is used passively; the .361 .130 .615 .208 .288
data gathered are not used
PT1 - Surveillance is linked to .411 .240 .158 .297 .481
fewer rewards or to punishment

PT2 - It is an invasion of privacy; it .164 .791 .186 -.166

is a violation of civil liberties

PT3 - It results in behavior .249 .411 -.319 .163 .358 .141 .304
modification
PT4 - Employees should be .778 .142
trusted; surveillance results in lack
of freedom
PT5 - Surveillance results in a loss .723 .305 .360
of employee power; monitors have
too much power

PT6 - Surveillance increases .685 .366 .235 .122

competition and stress
PT7 - Surveillance policy and .541 .237 -.252 .145 .281
reasons aren’t clear
IN1 - Are employees informed of .294 -.192 .202 .276 .395 .492 .217
the organization’s policy of
monitoring time spent,
matter/content, or keystrokes?
IN2- Are employees informed .198 -.177 .223 .391 .344 .565 .191
about monitoring
IN3 - Internet Usage: Does your .147 .807 .132 .156
organization monitor and review
Website connections?

12 | P a g e
IN4 - If monitoring of Websites is .219 .157 .778 .210
practiced, how would you
categorize the monitoring?
Ongoing, Routine, Occasional ,
Specified
IN5 - Does your organization use .321 .717 .186 -.104
blocking software to prevent
Internet connections to
unauthorized / inappropriate
Websites?
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 12 iterations.

Output variables:

EET = EE2+EE3+EE5+EE6
CCT = CC1+CC2
SCT = SC1+SC2+SC3+SC4+SC5+SC6
ANT = AN1+AN2+AN3+AN4+AN5
PTT = PT2+PT3
INT = IN1+IN2+IN4+IN5

Reliability analysis of above groups of output variables

For EET = EE2+EE3+EE5+EE6

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based
Cronbach's Alpha on Standardized Items N of Items
.637 .642 4

Item-Total Statistics
Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
EE2 - Monitoring is done in 8.80 11.566 .448 .288 .549
person by a supervisor

13 | P a g e
EE3 - There is no monitoring 8.55 13.140 .177 .077 .734
technology in place
EE5 - Telephone use is 8.72 10.599 .489 .321 .515
monitored
EE6 - Employee's physical 9.01 9.518 .603 .377 .422
position is monitored

Here CITC value of EE3 is <0.35 and also Cronbach’s alpha of 0.637 does not satisfy
the internal consistency reliability. So if we remove EE3 then

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.734 .734 3
The Cronbach’s alpha now changes to 0.734 which is acceptable. So we recalculate
after removing EE3. The new Cronbach’s alpha is 0.705 with a CITC value are > 0.35
so elements are reliable.

Item-Total Statistics
Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
EE2 - Monitoring is done in 5.66 7.191 .534 .285 .676
person by a supervisor
EE5 - Telephone use is 5.57 6.445 .566 .321 .637
monitored
EE6 - Employee's physical 5.87 6.216 .575 .331 .626
position is monitored

For CCT = CC1+CC2

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.808 .817 2

14 | P a g e
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
CC1 - Necessary to enhance productivity, 1.70 1.128 .691 .477 .
efficiency, improve performance, control
quality
CC2 - Keeps employees honest; prevents 1.99 1.667 .691 .477 .
theft of property and equipment by
employees; ensures employees follow
company guidelines and use company
assets only for business

CITC value of each construct element is >0.35 and Cronbach’s alpha is 0.808 so
both elements are reliable.

For SCT = SC1+SC2+SC3+SC4+SC5+SC6

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.883 .889 6

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
SC1 - Helps employees grow, reach 9.35 16.701 .735 .595 .859
career goals, develop, and learn
SC2 - Helps them do tasks (e.g., balance 9.37 18.185 .668 .550 .868
cash deposits)
SC3 - Protects employee (from theft of 9.80 19.937 .602 .464 .877
their things, if falsely accused, from
harassment, from customer threats)
SC4 - Ensures fairness from slackers 9.71 18.728 .796 .662 .848

SC5 - Helps shape a positive and non- 9.77 18.304 .717 .588 .859
abusive organizational culture or
professional environment (e.g., prevent
sexual harassment)
SC6 - Increases employee safety and 9.93 20.167 .705 .553 .865
security

15 | P a g e
CITC value of each construct element is >0.35 and Cronbach’s alpha is 0.883 so all
elements are reliable

For ANT = AN1+AN2+AN3+AN4+AN5

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.809 .811 5

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
AN1 - It is necessary 7.54 9.709 .592 .454 .773
AN2 - It is just part of life; it is part of company 7.49 9.191 .685 .609 .743

AN3 - It is not done in secret; company policy 7.43 9.137 .621 .562 .764
and reasons are clear

AN4 - It is not excessive; not invasive; it is not 7.30 10.017 .522 .521 .794
abused
AN5 - Violators deserve to be caught; if you 7.76 10.681 .572 .510 .781
are not doing something wrong, you should
not mind.

CITC value of each construct element is >0.35 and Cronbach’s alpha is 0.809 so all
elements are reliable

For PTT = PT2+PT3

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.457 .473 2

16 | P a g e
Item-Total Statistics
Squared Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation Deleted
PT2 - It is an invasion of 1.94 .848 .310 .096 .
privacy; it is a violation of
civil liberties
PT3 - It results in behavior 2.41 1.579 .310 .096 .
modification

Here CITC value is <0.35 and also Cronbach’s alpha of 0.457 does not satisfy the
internal consistency reliability. Hence we should not consider this.

For INT = IN1+IN2+IN4+IN5

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.742 .741 4

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
IN1 - Are employees informed of the 5.78 6.272 .587 .581 .653
organization’s policy of monitoring time spent,
matter/content, or keystrokes?

IN2- Are employees informed about 5.80 6.011 .633 .633 .623
monitoring
IN4 - If monitoring of Websites is practiced, 5.90 7.052 .564 .431 .671
how would you categorize the monitoring?
Ongoing, Routine, Occasional , Specified

IN5 - Does your organization use blocking 6.22 7.729 .374 .313 .767
software to prevent Internet connections to
unauthorized / inappropriate Websites?

CITC value of each construct element is >0.35 and Cronbach’s alpha is 0.742 so all
elements are reliable

Now summating all the values

17 | P a g e
LHS: BCT = (BCT1+BCT2)

BCT1 = BC1 + BC2 + BC3

BCT2 = BC5 + BC6 + BC8

RHS:

EET = EE2+EE5+EE6
CCT = CC1+CC2
SCT = SC1+SC2+SC3+SC4+SC5+SC6
ANT = AN1+AN2+AN3+AN4+AN5
INT = IN1+IN2+IN4+IN5

18 | P a g e