It is not possible to avoid collection of information which is not completely related to worker work performance and potentially can be abused, because monitoring systems were introduced. To be more definite, computer data banks, active badges, and telephone/video monitoring systems collect information related to employee’s safety clearance, computer application preferences, right and left handedness, and even informal behavior. It is not a secret that such information is collected but the way in which information is used remains a mystery. It is very complicated, if not impossible to check the ways in which confidential worker information is used.
To begin with, it can be resold to exterior organization. Profiles with private employee information have a specific value to companies focused in marketing investigations as well as companies that put up for sale their crop through direct marketing. Secondly, this information may be used to show prejudice against employees in the prospect within this company. Managers can simply identify workers who organize unions, whistleblowers, or other employee groups and discriminate either by way of benefits and payment or directly imposing pressure on workers and causing their retirement. There is a definite need to set up norms for collection, reporting, and evaluation of the information that is received from monitoring.
Monitoring systems and policies that are used by managers to watch the labor performance are amount instead of value based, which causes further stress on personnel and leads to incompetent evaluation of work performance which is lowering overall output. Stressful working conditions include lack of job involvement and individual control, fear of job loss, heavy work load and social isolation. As indicated by the analysis, comparing with staff that is not observed monitored workers ordinarily report intense work load and greater work displeasure.
It has to be further checked, whether the principles are reasonable. Many workers are checked in such a way, that just the rate of their performance is traced, which is a sign of poor symbol of real employee’s capability. While this approach can be successful for work that does not deal with extensive superiority guidelines, the situation is diverse for work that is excellence oriented. Since payment and employee profits are determined founded on the information received in the examination, measurement of overall employee effort can simply be erroneous, when they are based only on quantity. This difficulty is especially appropriate for service industry.