Research studies indicate that a person’s need for privacy is not only a notion reserved for humans, nor is it the outcome of ethical, creative, or intellectual abilities. A combination of biological, anthropological, and ecological studies indicate that animals too need and seek periods of seclusion whether in small anonymous or intimate groups or alone. Such studies further hypothesize that without privacy, these animals cease to flourish, which possibly leads to a dramatic deterioration. Scientifically, based on having an innate desire for well-founded privacy, its definition is the voluntary and temporal withdrawal from the general society or a person through psychological or physical means and either in the state of group intimacy or solitude (Gondwe, 2011). While present-day society witnesses and accepts this state of anonymity, in early society, this state was not possible or achievable; commensurately, this has shaped current perceptions of the notion of privacy (Gondwe, 2011).
Early societies were largely communalistic, patrilineal, and paternalistic. Consequently, the need for solitude, privacy, seclusion, or isolation was not a prime interest as opposed to most contemporary societies. Nonetheless, in these early societies, individuals still required privacy. However, the existence of a portfolio of social characteristics such as the society’s structure; the dominance of religion and practices associated with it; and common ideals, principles, or values, were subject to the need of privacy. Within the Greek culture, early conceptions of privacy primarily dealt with a refusal to accept or seek public office. Individuals seeking privacy had to become private individuals, which had no difference from a Greek slave, child, or female. On the contrary, public responsibility and participation while competing for public office resulted in the gain of notoriety, individual dignity, personal honor, and self-respect. Contrariwise, the present society seeks privacy in such a way that it has become a phenomenon in all aspects of life. This paper discusses employee privacy in the workplace delineating affirmative factors of instituting privacy within the workplace and dissenting attributes stating that it interferes with the management’s right to manage properly.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Recent years have witnessed the increase in litigations pertaining to workplace privacy and the methodologies by which divergent organizations address the problem of privacy. In an effort to curb such litigations, companies have gone on the offensive, continually monitoring the communications of employees conscientiously (Cox et al., 2005). As such, employee surveillance and close email monitoring within the workplace is presently bringing about quite a number of conflicting issues regarding the need for employers to safeguard their properties and themselves against liability and the right of privacy among employees. Within workplace settings, some organizations employ employee-monitoring strategies, which intrude on productivity, creativity, security, and social interactions among others. Moussa (2015) profoundly notes the fact that corporate monitoring intrudes and commensurately increases concerns about the privacy of employees; as such, employers have to find a balance between gains made through monitoring and the resultant cost of privacy invasion among employees. Failure to strike a consensus in relation to this balance results in various litigations that may become detrimental to the company in terms of profitability
In as much as managerial divisions within organizations cry foul over the implementation of privacy policies, for the employees, privacy is decidedly significant as it is a right enshrined not only in the constitution but also in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, what makes the issue of privacy highly contentious is the manner by which organizations intrude on the privacy of their employees. Belcourt, Bohlander, and Snell (2008) indicate that monitoring activities within the workplace include the review of emails and internet links; the review of telephone use; video surveillance of employee performance; storage and review of voicemail messages; and the review of stored computer files and other forms of data. Further, Dessler (2011) notes that while Electronic Performance Monitoring systems (EPMs) accord significant capabilities crucial to the management team such as access to employee computers and telephones, access to internet activities, and access to times reported, they are major assets to the process of surveillance and monitoring. Similarly, advancement in technologies allows employers to monitor the work performance of employees irrespective of whether the employee is aware of the monitoring process. To many employees, such strategies are unwarranted and represent gross privacy intrusions.
Moussa (2015) notes that employee performance does not necessarily improve due to management efforts, rather, it stems from employee motivation, which originates from them and enterprise actions geared towards their welfare. However, present computer technologies support numerous performance management systems, which give employers the opportunity to accumulate records frequently. Such records may include the punitive actions of employees and performance measurements as well as violations within the workplace. With such data, employee privacy becomes obsolete. To some employees, such monitoring infringes on their basic freedoms and places them at loggerheads with the management
On the contrary, most companies state that through monitoring, they are able to protect their organization from harm, such as the stealing of important corporate files by disgruntled employees. From this enterprise perspective, monitoring is primarily a tool that maintains the security of the organization. To affirm this standing, technological advancement has not only availed proper monitoring options, but it has also administered prime methodologies and techniques for performing employee monitoring. While this is the case, such technologies have to be handled with extreme care, discretion, and above all caution. One crucial aspect employers need to keep in mind is the retaliation potential of employees against the organization for the recognized unfair policies against them. While companies may have managerial rights to monitor employees, when implementing new surveillance technologies, it is better to not only notify employees of their strategic privacy adjustments, they should also educate employees on the reasons for the implementation of their monitoring systems.
In addition, companies have the notion that employee monitoring increases employee performance. Stemming from various studies and the analysis of various business scholars, the management of employees is highly crucial to company performance. According to these studies, humans have three aspects, which are a willingness, likeability, and ability, which profoundly affects their performance. As such, companies state that on the variability of individual personality, there is a necessity to monitor employees and track their progress. The difference in aptitudes among employees is arguably the most sought after reason companies give for implementing intrusive privacy policies. While this may be a valid reason, aggressive monitoring inevitably makes employees discontented; commensurately, resulting in decreased performance or worse, workforce turnover.
As mentioned earlier, employers need to strike a balance while implementing surveillance strategies among employees. It remains evident that the failure of employers to recognize employee rights wholesomely leads to various expensive lawsuits, damage to the image of the company, and the impairment of employee values. As such, the need for balancing productivity, in relation to the rights of employees to privacy, safety, and security is highly relevant. Put simply, it makes no sense to police an entire workforce since no individual can work for 8 hours without breaks. Heavy policing results in a culture of distrust and disloyalty within an organization. Employees often view actions such as electronic monitoring, as mentioned above, drug testing, the monitoring of workplace relationships, and honesty testing among others as excessively intrusive.
References
Belcourt, M., Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2008). Managing human resources (5th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Nelson.
Cox, S., Goette, T., & Young, D. (2005). Workplace Surveillance and Employee Privacy: Implementing an Effective Computer Use Policy. Workplace Surveillance And Employee Privacy , 5 (2), 57-66.
Dessler, G. (2011). Human resource management . Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Gondwe, M. (2011). The Protection of Privacy in the Workplace: A Comparative Study (Degree of Doctor of Law). University of Stellenbosch.
Moussa, M. (2015). Monitoring Employee Behavior Through the Use of Technology and Issues of Employee Privacy in America. SAGE Open , 5 (2), 215824401558016. doi: 10.1177/2158244015580168
