Methods of Employee Surveillance

Electronic Workplace Surveillance can be carried out using various methods for instance: Monitoring internet usage, capturing number of keystrokes using specialized software, video surveillance, computer and phone monitoring (Mishra & Crampton, 1998).

Video Surveillance (CCTV)

Among the commonly used surveillance methods is video surveillance, also known as closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance. The cameras can be placed in easily noticeable areas but in some cases, they are hidden, thus employees may never know that their behavior and movements are being monitored. In a survey carried out by the Society for Human Resource Management on whether it's an employer's right to use video surveillance, approximately 40% of the respondents were in favour of the same (Losey, 1994). Videotaping of employees can be within or outside the workplace premises (Ciocchetti, 2011). CCTV surveillance can also be integrated with the automated door access systems in order to track employee movement within the workplace premises

Computer Monitoring

The other widely used method is Computer Monitoring. With the ever-improving technological trends, managers can monitor their staff in the workplace in more depth than ever before (Hinds, 2012). Managers can determine to what extents they monitor user workstations. For instance, monitoring keystrokes will provide managers with information on how a specific employee is performing within a set timeframe, monitoring idle time will provide information on how long an employee spends off work computer and thus analyze the productivity. There exists application software that monitor workstation screens and provide information on access to the hard disks, software installations on the terminals, file uploads and downloads. With these systems the managers can monitor computer usage during work hours (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2016), which will allow them to log all keystrokes and capture screenshots of users' cyber activities thus showing the keys as typed when sending emails, word processing, online chat sessions and much more

Phone and Voicemail Monitoring

Phone and voicemail monitoring are a common practice in organizations today. A few firms opt for phone tapping as a surveillance technique. Managers wiretap into and eavesdrop personal phone calls made by employees through their phone extensions on the Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP). This enables them to gather information on the phone numbers, time and duration of the calls (Bryant, 1995), frequency as well as destinations and costs of the phone calls made (Losey, 1994). Employers, through

such monitoring, can also able to determine the duration of calls (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 1997).

In this digital era, organizations use electronic monitoring with keen interest on rooting out issues such as low productivity as a result of inappropriate internet usage and to secure trade secrets from being leaked to the wrong hands (Rosenblat, Kneese, & Boyd, 2014). Managers are also notified when the staff use mail, as well as whether the mail was received at the other end. They then determine whether the emails are appropriate of work related and act based on their judgement. Firewalls and filters are not a new phenomenon in most organizations. They are created to block access to websites that are not job related (Ciocchetti, 2011). A study by the American Management Association on Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey in 2007 revealed that almost a third of employers fired employees for misusing emails. Apart from email monitoring, employers also monitor voice mails and voice calls. For instance, in Customer Care companies, the management wiretaps and listens to the telephone conversations between the staff and customers to ensure quality. Managers and supervisors have switched to the use of such systems to gather employee performance data. This data is important to management as it forms basis of employee compensation, rewards and promotions in some organizations. The need to adopt Electronic Monitoring Systems in the workplace has been driven by the managers' need to keep track of employee activities within the organization premises. Workplace surveillance may have a lot of pros for instance improving employee productivity and ensuring security, but it also has drawbacks such as lack of trust and fear among employees (Katz, 2015). Workplace Surveillance is gathering of personal data for detailed analysis. It involves the use of various surveillance methods to capture information about the activities and track movement of employees. Rule & Brantley (1992) in their definition, referred to workplace monitoring as “any logical monitoring in which everyone's job performance with an eye to ensuring compliance with management expectations. According to Grimmett (2014), employee monitoring is all about storage, analysis and reporting of information about an employee's actions, which may include their computer usage as well as their movements within the workplace premises. According to Gregory and Nussbaum (1982) the negative effect of electronic surveillance oppose that it is an invasion of employee privacy, create high level of stress which causes employee unfit, low morale, teamwork and low job satisfaction because of possible pressure on losing excellence for quantity period. According to Holland, Cooper, and Hecker (2015) moderation in technology have an unequaled level of electronic Surveillance and monitoring at employee and work both outside and inside at workplace. Also have the possible to generate 'deadly combinations' (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997), mostly when joint with humane resource practices planned to develop belief and high obligation relations. That have a meaningful negative effect on employees and work that we called the 'dark-side' of technology. According to Swelll and Barker (2006) employee respond differently about electronic surveillance and monitoring some are accept electronic monitoring but against about privacy issues they feel that electronic surveillance me troublemaker for us and feel so that why they reject it and shows the unfavorable response. Botan (1996) was the pioneer to use the term panopticon as metaphor to denote the association between electronic surveillance at workplace. Like the physical structure defined by According to (Foucault, 1977), the purpose of panopticon based on Bentham's panopticon electronically monitored are always able to see by authority they are always out of place. They are not acknowledged that they are observed are not at time they don't know which time we are observed or which time we are not observed. The panopticon and electronic surveillance and monitoring both have similarity to controlled the monitored persons but in case of electronic surveillance there are no physical in nature but in case of panopticon there are physical existence but both components have same similarity one kind of physical and another in kind of without physical existence

Bentham's panopticon

A panopticon is a prison, workhouse, school, or medical facility in which all parts of the interior are visible from a single point because a central tower is surrounded by a circular building comprised of individual cells that are open on both ends (Mack, 1969). On the inward face, each cell is open to observation from the tower, while on the outward face, it is open to the light. The effect is that each cell becomes a hollow shaft, illuminated from one end and open to observation on the other. Each cell is separated from each other cell by a solid wall so that occupants cannot communicate with each other. Windows in the tower allow an observer to see clearly into each cell, but light is blocked within the central tower so that its occupants are invisible from the cells. Cell occupants are always exposed to observation, isolated from each other, and unable to know whether they are being observed. The initiation and implementation of surveillance by organizations can be inter- prated as a signal that employees are no longer trustworthy (Smith & Tabak, 2009).The start and installation of monitoring by organization simply because the employee no longer trustworthy so the employer or management have no more trust on employee at the workplace that's why the management implementation the surveillance and monitoring (Alder, Schminke, Noel, & Kuenzi, 2007) the privacy invasion effect the employee morale and social environment in the organization. The privacy of worker very important in our society, so it is very crucial to protect employee privacy. The Protection of employee privacy is good fundamental in the society (Martin & Freeman, 2003). The concept of organizational citizenship behavior is related to social psychological variable. The first appearance of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was in Bateman & Organ (1983)'s study and described in deeply in the book of Organ (1988) called Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome (Ozdemira & Ergun, 2015). Organizational Citizenship Behavior is necessary for the organization because of personal contribution to attain the desired performance (Popescu et al., 2012). The Organizational Citizenship Behavior increases effectiveness and participation of employees, it inspires inter-organization and teamwork, cooperation also it decreases the costs of errors and usually offers a good work atmosphere (Taghinezhad et al., 2015). Wiernik et al. (2016) stated that the concept of organizational citizenship behavior come into viewed over two ages back in the field of behavior of organization. Consequently, skill and capability of an organization should be shifted its colleague's behaviors and attitudes which performance for growth of organization from self-interested behaviors. Bolino et al., (2014) stated that in compare to in-role behavior of task performance, “Organizational Citizenship Behavior” (OCB) defined as to behavior of employee that is extra discretionary, is low likely to be officially connected with rewards of organization and gives to the organization or institute by encouraging a positive psychological and social climate. Lee et al., (2013) explained the existence of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is probable to encourage a more constructive and positive working and social atmosphere, increasing the performance of a unit of work and the basic goods of the organization. Organizational Citizenship Behavior are not compensated or required for by the firm. They have been categorized as “cooperative and constructive extra-role gestures”. Researcher suggested that aiding others with heavy load of work are Organizational Citizenship Behavior directed toward employee and making innovative recommendations to advance departments are Organizational Citizenship Behavior directed at the firm (Crawley & Beard, 2015).

Theoretical Foundations Psychological Reactance Theory

Provides an understanding of how organizational control mechanisms such as electronic surveillance relate to employees' behavioral responses. Graupmann, Jonas, Meier, Hawelka, and Aichhorn (2012) explain that 'a freedom of choice that is eliminated often becomes more attractive after its elimination. The use of surveillance methods by organizations may engender psychological reactance because such systems limit the ability of employees to behave freely and are therefore likely to be perceived as a threat to freedom or control driving employees to enact behaviors that are seen to redress the freedom seen to be under threat (Brockner, Spreitzer, Mishra, Pepper, & Hochwarter, 2004; Jensen & Raver, 2012).

The Theory of Planned Behavior

Ajzen, (1991), provides support for the link between attitudes to surveillance and CWBs. Spitzmuller and Stanton (2006) used an approach based on this theory to investigate employee compliance and resistance to electronic surveillance (i.e. computer, email and video monitoring). They examined the impact of attitudes associated with electronic surveillance on intentions to comply with or resist it. Surveillance attitudes in this study focused on individual's perceptions concerning their employer's right to use various monitoring and surveillance technologies (e.g. Organizations such as mining industry have the right to keep logs of who sends email to whom). Perceived behavioral control (PBC) was assessed in terms of personal work control and experience with surveillance technology. In support of the central tenant of the TPB, the results showed that surveillance attitudes were a particularly strong positive predictor of intentions to comply with these systems. Jensen & Raver (2012) examined the interactive effects of self-management practices and electronic monitoring on both organizational citizenship behavior and CWB. These legal institutions seek to draw the line between employee surveillance with intentions of monitoring productivity versus surveillance with intentions of spying (Yerby, 2013). Identity-based explanations for reactions to surveillance also propose that a perceived threat to social identity can invoke perceptions of privacy invasion, which in turn can lead to perceptions of unfairness (Alge et al., 2006). In addition to an unfavorable effect on attitudes, there is evidence that high levels of surveillance can have a negative impact on work behavior, leading to lower task performance (Douthitt & Aiello, 2001), less organizational citizenship behavior (Jensen & Raver, 2012). Literature provides an enough support regarding dissatisfaction negative attitudes towards the elecronotic monitoring employee perceive that their privacy is under invasion. Employees perceive electronic monitoring as invasion of privacy and they termed it various terminologies such as spying, snooping, electronic spying, sneaking, espionage, prying, and Big Brother. (Mishra & Crampton, 1998). Literature on employee privacy stresses on the argument that usage of electronic surveillance at workplace is invasion of employees' privacy. Many researchers in the past have shown their support in the favor of employees and postulated that using electronic surveillance at workplaces threatens the employee privacy (Findlay & McKinlay, 2003). In the opinion of a manager working in a semiconductor organization surveillance as caring: “Some employees may look at it as invading their privacy a little bit, but we need to monitor employees to make sure that we are not overworking employees so, the employee benefits.” Employees will tend to be more open in their privacy issues if they perceive some benefit (Stanton & Stam, 2003). Whereas managers and proponents of workplace surveillance argue that it is a means to boost productivity, a good number of employees see it as a violation of privacy. Implementing workplace surveillance systems has not received overwhelming support and according to Watson (2001), labour unions and other activist groups still complain about employee monitoring, associating it with low employee morale and stress. There is evidence of both negative and positive effects of monitoring on extra-role behaviors. Although specific research on the issue is sparse, the traditional human relations perspective would seem to equate managerial monitoring behaviors to close supervision, which has been related to de-creased levels of employee motivation (e.g., Likert, 1961; McGregor, 1960). Seeking performance information suggests an authoritarian approach to management, in which an Orwellian "Big Brother" tries to watch and control the behavior of each employee. Recent accounts of employee reactions to computer monitoring give testimony to the potential for monitoring to have a "dark side" (Hoerr, 1988; McCandless, 1988). Though positive relationships between monitoring and employee in-role performance have been found, monitoring may directly decrease organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), defined as extra-role behavior that is discretionary and not explicitly related to the formal reward system of an organization but is conducive to its effective functioning (Organ, 1988).

H1: There is relationship between Invasion of Employee privacy and organizational citizenship behavior (I) H2: There is relationship between Invasion of Employee privacy and organizational citizenship behavior (O) H3: Electronic surveillance has an impact on Invasion of Employee privacy. H4: Electronic surveillance has an impact on Organizational citizenship behavior-Individual. H5: Electronic surveillance has an impact on organizational citizenship behavior-organization. H6: Electronic surveillance has an impact on stress. H7: Job stress has an impact on organizational citizenship behavior (I). H8: Job stress has an impact on organizational citizenship behavior (O).

Material and Methods

Employees working in the Telecommunication Sector in four major cities of Pakistan were selected for the purpose of data collection. Keeping in view the previous studies sample size was considered for the purpose of statistical inference, approval from the concerned office in-charge/unit was requested before distribution of questionnaires among the employees. After approval from the HR departments data was collected. Individuals were asked to complete the questionnaires as per their ease. Total 300 questionnaires were distributed, out of which 200 were received back and 164 were filled which were considered for data analysis with response rate of 55 %. Respondents and organization were ensured that collected data will be used only for educational purpose and the issue of confidentiality will be considered on priority basis. Instrument comprised upon two sections, first section was designed to collect the personal/demographic characteristics of the respondents and questions such as gender of the respondent, qualification, name of the organization where working, age group of the respondents and length of service Five-point (5-1) Likert scale instrument (strongly agree to strongly disagree) has been used. Negative/reverse coded items were used so that the respondents could response the answer with care. Total 05 variables are under investigation in this study, one is independent variable, two are mediating variables and two are dependent variables. The independent variable is perceived electronic surveillance. Dependent variables are organizational citizenship behavior (Individual Level) and Organizational citizenship behavior (organizational level), employee privacy and job stress are mediating variables. were asked. In the second section questions for study variables were asked from the respondents. Responses against Perceived electronic surveillance was obtained by using self-reported 4 items questionnaire developed by Stanton and Weiss (2000) and recently used by A.J. Martin et al. (2016). Employee Privacy was measured by 5 item questionnaires developed by House et al. (1981). Job Stress was operationalized by 9-item scale developed by Doreen Sams (2005). For consistency in the analysis, this tool provides a measure of stress that arises from the working environment of the workplace. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCBI) was measured by 4 item questionnaires developed by Bommer, Miles, and Grover's (2003) and Organizational citizenship behavior (OCBO) was measured by using 5 items which were adapted from Podsakoff, P.M, et al (2006) 12 items questionnaires. Smart PLS v. 3.2.0 was used to estimate both measurement as well as structural model. PLS-SEM is an alternative approach to the CB-SEM where theory is under development and basis and fundamental purpose of using SEM is predicting outcome variables and explanation of variance (Hair Jr, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2016). Additionally, PLS-SEM eradicates the tension regarding distributional assumptions being a non-parametric data analysis technique (Hair Jr, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2016). Further Smart PLS is best choice to conduct statistcail analysis where sample size is small

Results & Measurement Model

Results of this study has been reported in two steps, in the first step results pertaining to measurement model and in the second step results pertaining to structural model have been reported. Outer model or measurement model in SEM is assessed on the basis of reliability (indicator reliability, Cronbach's Alpha & composite reliability) and validity (discriminant validity and convergent validity). Average variance extracted (AVE) has been used as measure of convergent validity. In addition to this Fornell-Larcker criterion has also been used as a measure of discriminant validity (Hair Jr et al., 2016).

Values of reliability and validity were within the acceptable range (above and near to cutoff values of respective measure (Hair Jr, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013; Hair Jr et al., 2016). However, the model fitness indices SRMR was slightly above the acceptable range SRMR=.12>.10. Outer loadings of all indicators were above the cut point of 0.708 except items JSQ6, JSQ8 and JSQ9 (Job stress), OCBIQ2 (Organizational citizenship behavior individual), OCBOQ5 (Organizational citizenship behavior organizational), PESQ1 (Perceived Electronic Surveillance). However, these indicators were retained in the model as the AVE of respective construct was within theacceptable range of .50 (Hair Jr et al., 2016). Indicators having outer loadings less than .40 were discarded from the analysis, thus 2 items from the job stress, two from the OCBI and OCBO, and two from the invasion of employee privacy were removed from the analysis. Values of CR, rho_A and Alpha were also within the acceptable range, i.e greater than .60 except OCBO and IEP. However, these values were above .50 indicating lower level of reliability (Table-1). Discriminant validity was established as showed by table-2 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and HTMT model.

Structural Model Results - Model Predictive Accuracy

Path coefficients along with Coefficient of determination (R2) have been reported in Figure-2. Significance of paths was assessed by applying bootstrapping technique at sample size of 5000. These path estimates along with significance level has been reported in Table-3. Thus, it here H1, H2, H4 and H5 have been rejected and H3, H6, H7 and H8 have been accepted. Blindfolding procedure was used to calculate Q2 to assess the predictive relevance ofconstructs (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). Here calculated Q2 values for endogenous latent variables were greater than 0, which confirmed the predictive relevance of model/constructs (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009; Vinzi et al., 2010). Further medium effect size was observed for the path perceived electronic surveillance to invasion of employee privacy (f2=.489) and small effect size was observed for all other paths (Hair Jr et al., 2016). Thus, hypothesized model was con? rmed by the data.

Conclusion

This study has attempted to explore the impact of perceived electronic surveillance on employee privacy, stress, organizational citizenship behavior both individual and organizational level. Prime objective of this investigation was to test the possible tendencies of employees regarding extra role behaviors under the perception of electronic surveillance working in the telecom sector of Pakistan. This study has brought into some interesting findings, first, existence of electronic surveillance has been found positively related with invasion of employee privacy. Employees working in the telecommunication sector perceive that electronic surveillance invades their privacy. Further in the opinion of individuals electronic surveillance increase their job stress and they experience stress while working at workplace. This stress further has showed very interesting result, indicating that it reduces organizational citizenship behavior towards individual whereas it increases the organizational citizenship behavior towards organization. However, the relationship of electronic surveillance with OCBI and OCBO has been found insignificant at 5 % level of significance. In addition to this the relationship of privacy invasion with OCBI and OCBO has also been found insignificant at 5 % level of significance. Respondents here reported that they feel higher level of privacy in the presence of electronic surveillance. Here individuals also reported that their level of job stress increases with the electronic surveillance. Two different attitudes have been reported by the respondents at the same time. They feel higher level of privacy as well as stress at the same time under the electronic surveillance. However, these relationships have small level of correlations implying that increase in electronic surveillance will bring positive but low level of change in stress and sense of privacy. The two components of citizenship behavior i.e organizational and individual are closely related to each other but in this study there have been found a very minute correlation between them with a negative sign.The interesting finding of this study is that there is negative relationship between the electronic surveillance and OCB (I) have been found negative whereas the relationship of electronic surveillance and OCB (O) have been found positive. Might possibly the presence of electronic monitoring be perceived negatively by the employees and they be afraid that their activities are being monitored through CCTV cameras, attendance system are system login issues, in this way they tend to focus on their own work and might possibly avoid helping the other coworkers. Similarly, positive relationship between electronic surveillance and OCB(O) shows that in the presence of electronic monitoring employees tend to be regular and avoid wastage of time implying that increasing the performance of the organization and showing an increased level of OCB (O). As always, results of every research must be discussed within the boundaries of the study's limitations, which suggest interesting avenues for future research. Due to cost and time limitations, the data were collected from only four cities with a small sample size. Another limitation of this study is that it was cross-sectional in nature due to time and cost constraints. Future research could be conducted by collecting data from a large sample size. Future research could examine this study for mixed gender, in other organizational setting and with more heterogeneous sample. Qualitative investigation is required to explore the attitudes regarding surveillance as longitudinal research may reveal more detailed and in-depth results. Employee from the other sector must be included in the future studies to get deeper insights. Organizations should promote the electronic monitoring at workplace as it will increase the sense of privacy among the employees. Organizations should use various combinations of electronic surveillance devices in order to lower the stress being caused by the electronic surveillance. Organizations should maintain good interaction and communication level with staff members that increase their commitment and willingness to be part of electronic surveillance system. Electronic monitoring must be aligned to increase the organizational citizenship behavior of the individuals.

References

Aiello, J. R., & Douthitt, E. A. (2001). Social facilitation from Triplett to electronic performance monitoring. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3), 163. Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 339. Aiello, J. R., & Svec, C. M. (1993). Computer monitoring of work performance: Extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(7), 537-548. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. Alder, G. S., Schminke, M., Noel, T. W., & Kuenzi, M. (2008). Employee reactions to internet monitoring: The moderating role of ethical orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 481. Alge, B. J. (2001). Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 797. Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 221. Allen, C. D., Okada, T., & Cyster, J. G. (2007). Germinal-center organization and cellular dynamics. Immunity, 27(2), 190-202. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. John Wiley & Sons. Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human resource management, 36(1), 39-47. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740. Botan, C. (1996). Communication work and electronic surveillance: A model for predicting panoptic effects. Communications Monographs, 63(4), 293-313. Botan, C. H ., & McCreadie, M . H . (1993) . Communication, information, and surveillance: Separation and control in organizations. Information and Behavior, IV, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Beck, M. A. (2014). Achieving competencies in public service: The professional edge. Routledge. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Brehm, S. S. (1981). Oppositional behavior in children: A reactance theory approach. Developmental social psychology: Theory and research, 96-1 Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G., Mishra, A., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L., & Weinberg, J. (2004). Perceived control as an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors' organizational commitment and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 76-100. Bryant, B. (Ed.). (1995). Environmental justice: Issues, policies, and solutions. Island Press. Bupp, N. (2001). Big brother and big boss are watching you. WorkingUSA, 5(2), 69-81. C. Bolino, M., C. Klotz, A., & Daniels, D. (2014). The impact of impression management over time. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(3), 266-284. Ciocchetti, C. A. (2011). The Eavesdropping Employer: A Twenty-First Century Framework for Employee Monitoring. American Business Law Journal, 48(2), 285-369. Cranwell-Ward, J., & Abbey, A. (2005). Organizational stress. Springer. Crawley, D. C., Maher, J. K., & Blake-Beard, S. (2015). She's already busy: An exploratory study of women's workplace attitudes as predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 30(4), 286-311. D'Urso, S. C. (2006). Who's watching us at work? Toward a structural–perceptual model of electronic monitoring and surveillance in organizations. Communication Theory, 16(3), 281-303. Danaher, G., Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2000). Understanding foucault. Sage. Davis, P. S., & Harveston, P. D. (2000). Internationalization and organizational growth: The impact of Internet usage and technology involvement among entrepreneur-led family businesses. Family Business Review, 13(2), 107-120. Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315-326. Demir, K. (2015). The Effect of Organizational Justice and P e r c e i v e d O rg a n i z a t i o n a l S u p p o r t o n Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Organizational Identification. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 131-148. Douthitt, E. A., & Aiello, J. R. (2001). The role of participation and control in the effects of computer monitoring on fairness perceptions, task satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 867. Findlay, P., & McKinlay, A. (2003). Surveillance, electronic communications technologies and regulation. Industrial Relations Journal, 34(4), 305-318. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382-388. Foucault, M. (1977). Prison talk: an interview. Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101-107. Ghasemaghaei, M., & Hassanein, K. (2015). Online information quality and consumer satisfaction: The moderating roles of contextual factors–A meta-analysis. Information & Management, 52(8), 965-981. Graupmann, V., Jonas, E., Meier, E., Hawelka, S., & Aichhorn, M. (2012). Reactance, the self, and its group: When threats to freedom come from the ingroup versus the outgroup. European journal of social psychology, 42(2), 164-173. Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 897-913. Grimmett, G., & Welsh, D. (2014). Probability: an introduction. Oxford University Press. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): SAGE Publications. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural e q u a t i o n m o d e l i n g ( P L S - S E M ) : S a g e Publications. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277-319): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Hinds, W. C. (2012). Aerosol technology: properties, behavior, and measurement of airborne particles. John Wiley & Sons. Holland, P. J., Cooper, B., & Hecker, R. (2015). Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace: The effects on trust in management, and the moderating role of occupational type. Personnel Review, 44(1), 161-175. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622-626. Huang, C. C., & You, C. S. (2011). The three components of organizational commitment on in-role behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. African journal of business management, 5(28), 11335. Jain, A. K., & Cooper, C. L. (2012). Stress and organisational citizenship behaviours in Indian business process outsourcing organisations. IIMB Management Review, 24(3), 155-163. Jensen, J. M., & Raver, J. L. (2012). When self-management and surveillance collide: Consequences for employees' organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 37(3), 308-346. Katz, J. (2015). A theory of qualitative methodology: The social system of analytic fieldwork. Méthod (e) s: African Review of Social Sciences Methodology, 1(1-2), 131-146. K'Obonyo, P., Bulitia, G. M., & Ojera, P. B. (2014). Moderating Effect of Technology Innovation on the Human Resource Management Practices And Firm Performance: A Study of Manufacturing firms in Kenya. Researchjournali's journal of Human Resource, 2(No. 3). LaNuez, D., & Jermier, J. M. (1994). Sabotage by managers and technocrats: Neglected patterns of resistance at work. Resistance and power in organizations, 219-51. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. Levy, J. S. (1994). Learning and foreign policy: sweeping a conceptual minefield. International organization, 48(2), 279-312. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. Linden, W. (2004). Stress management: from basic science to better practice. Sage. Losey, M. R. (1994). Managing in an era of workplace violence. Managing Office Technology, 39(2), 27-28. Martin, A. J., Wellen, J. M., & Grimmer, M. R. (2016). An eye on your work: How empowerment affects the relationship between electronic surveillance and counterproductive work behaviours. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(21), 2635-2651. Martin, A., Karanika-Murray, M., Biron, C., & Sanderson, K. (2016). The psychosocial work environment, employee mental health and organizational interventions: Improving research and practice by taking a multilevel approach. Stress and Health, 32(3), 201-215. Martin, K., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Some problems with employee monitoring. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 353-361. Mau, M. W., & Guyo, W. (2014). Effective electronic strategies on cross border migration control adopted by immigration authority in Kenya. Prime Journal of Social Science (PJSS), 3(2), 580-585. Mautner, G. E., Anderson, N. W., & Haushild, S. E. (2001). Privacy in the Workplace. McNall, L. A., & Stanton, J. M. (2011). Private eyes are watching you: Reactions to location sensing technologies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 299-309. Mishra, J. M., & Crampton, S. M. (1998). Employee monitoring: privacy in the workplace?. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(3), 4. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. The Journal of Marketing, 85-98. O'Donnell, A. T., Jetten, J., & Ryan, M. K. (2010). Who is watching over you? The role of shared identity in perceptions of surveillance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 135-147. Petronio, S. (2007). Translational research endeavors and the practices of communication privacy management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 218-222. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human performance, 10(2), 133-151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citize. Journal of management, 22(2), 259-298. Popescu, A. M., Fistung, D. F., & Popescu, T. (2012). Organizational citizenship behavior activity leverage optimization in virtual enterprise. Procedia economics and finance, 3, 381-386. Reddy, K. C., Dunbar, T. L., Nargund, A. M., Haynes, C. M., & Troemel, E. R. (2016). The C. elegans CCAAT-enhancer-binding protein gamma is required for surveillance immunity. Cell reports, 14(7), 1581-1589. Rosenblat, A., & Kneese, T. (2014). Workplace surveillance. Rule, J. B. (1974). Private lives and public surveillance: Social control in the computer age. Schocken. Rule, J., & Brantley, P. (1992, September). Computerized surveillance in the workplace: Forms and distributions. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 405-423). Springer Netherlands. Sewell, G., & Barker, J. (2006). Max Weber and the irony of bureaucracy. Social theory at work, 56-87. Sewell, G., & Barker, J. R. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 934-961. Skarlicki, D. P., Van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Walker, D. D. (2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: the role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1335. Smith, W. P., & Tabak, F. (2009). Monitoring employee e-mails: Is there any room for privacy?. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 33-48. Spitzmüller, C., & Stanton, J. M. (2006). Examining employee compliance with organizational surveillance and monitoring. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 79(2), 245-272. Spitzmüller, C., & Stanton, J. M. (2006). Examining employee compliance with organizational surveillance and monitoring. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 79(2), 245-272. Stanton, J. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (1996). Effects of electronic performance monitoring on personal control, task satisfaction, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 738. Stanton, J. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (1996). Effects of electronic performance monitoring on personal control, task satisfaction, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 738. Stanton, J. M., Stam, K. R., Guzman, I., & Caledra, C. (2003, October). Examining the linkage between organizational commitment and information security. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2003. IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 3, pp. 2501-2506). IEEE. Taghinezhad, F., Safavi, M., Raiesifar, A., & Yahyavi, S. H. (2015). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior among Iranian nurses: a multicenter study. BMC research notes, 8(1), 547. Tolman, R., & Rose, S. D. (1985). Coping with stress: A multimodal approach. Social Work, 30(2), 151-158. Varca, P. E. (2006). Telephone surveillance in call centers: Prescriptions for reducing strain. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 16(3), 290-305. Wakefield, R. L. (2004). Computer monitoring and surveillance. The CPA Journal, 74(7), 52. Watson, N. (2001). The private workplace and the proposed notice of electronic monitoring act: Is notice enough. Fed. Comm. LJ, 54, 79. Werner, J. M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 3-24. Yerby, J. (2013). Legal and ethical issues of employee monitoring. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 1(2), 44-55. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. Basic books.