Cyberslacking and Employer Monitoring
Product: Sage Business Cases
Keywords: employers, monitoring, workers
Disciplines: Corporate Social Responsibility, Business Ethics & Corporate Social Responsibility, Business & Management, Business Ethics (general), Human Resource Management (general), Human Resource Management
Access Date: November 25, 2024
Case
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this case study, students should be able to:
• describe the development of cyberslacking since 2020 and the challenges it presents to organiza- tions with remote workers;
• explain employer approaches used to monitor remote employee work performance; and
• apply major ethical decision-making frameworks in developing recommendations to prevent cyber- slacking.
Introduction
After COVID-19 hit the United States in January 2020, it was not long until many professionals were quickly forced to transition to a completely virtual work environment (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2023). In May of 2020, roughly 35% of the U.S. workforce worked remotely (Coate, 2021). While COVID-19 does not have the same negative impact on the country today as it did in early 2020, many people have be- come accustomed to the ability to work from home, and a large portion of employers found that many work- related tasks can be completed just as effectively from home as they had been accomplished in the office setting. Consequently, as of early 2022, 58% of workers in the United States have the option to work from home at least one day weekly (Dua et al., 2022).
With a workforce that spends a large amount of time outside of the four walls of an office, upper managements of many companies have concerns about the productivity of their employees, especially in a time where “cy- berloafing” or “cyberslacking” has become prevalent. Cyberloafing or cyberslacking is defined as “an employ- ee’s use of work computers and other resources during work hours for non-work-related purposes” (Kenton, 2021).
Cyberslacking is not a new concept. Over 20 years ago, Lim (2002) noted that cyberloafing was the “IT way of loafing on the job,” describing how employees were using the Internet for personal reasons while at work and citing one study that found 50% of companies were at least somewhat concerned that employees were
using the Internet for non-work tasks. Results from this study indicated that cyberloafing occurs when em- ployees think they have not been treated fairly (Lim, 2002). More recently, a 2022 systematic literature review identified 87 studies on the topic dating from 2002. The authors noted the increased prevalence of workplace digitization and Internet-based communication (ICT) platforms, along with additional opportunities for cyber- slacking behaviors (Tandon et al., 2022). In a broad sense, cyberloafing is a form. of procrastination which can take on forms such as zoning out or chatting at the water cooler (Darden, 2015; Lim & Teo, 2022).
While this case tends to focus on U.S. companies, cyberslacking is a global phenomenon that has existed for decades. For example, Hassan et al. (2015) studied cyberloafing in the Tehran Subway Organization, finding that employees are less likely to engage in cyberloafing when monitoring systems are effective and adverse consequences exist. Ugrin et al. (2018) examined the relationship between culture and cyberloafing using the Hofstede Model. They found evidence of cyberloafing globally and that national culture contributed to its presence. They suggested that organizations should consider cultures when establishing policies and pro- grams to address cyberloafing (Ugrin et al., 2018). Syed et al. (2020) reviewed the 1996Ð2020 literature on the impact of cyberloafing on employeesÕ job performance. In addition to the U.S. organizations, they cited cyberloafing studies from Spain, Malaysia, South Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, and Ghana. In- terestingly, they found that while cyberloafing may negatively impact worker performance, organizations that monitor employee Internet use and permit certain times for cyberloafing may experience improved work per- formance (Syed et al., 2020).
With the world at our fingertips whilst on a laptop, it can become difficult to avoid the cyberloafing that is dreaded by the corporate United States. According to research conducted at the University of Nevada, cyber- slacking annually costs businesses approximately USD 85 billion (Stokel-Walker, 2020). As every for-profit business has one goal in commonÑto become and remain profitableÑthe economic impact of cyberloafing is a cause for concern.
Other companies across the globe have installed a wide array of software packages on company-issued lap- tops, smart-phones, and other equipment to ensure that employees are staying productive and on-task. Some of the programs installed are arguably extremely invasive. For instance, at ESW Capital, employees were tracked at random and unpredictable times. During these tracked times, their laptop cameras would be turned on, and images would be taken of them to ensure that they were actually working. Additionally, images were taken of their screen, making sure that they were viewing items on their laptops that were related solely to work, and not related to personal sites, social media, and so on (Kantor & Sundaram, 2022). Consequences resulted if the employee was found to be “off-task” during these times. In fact, it could cost them 10 minutes of pay every time they were found to be “off-task.” Due to the randomness of these images, an employee could simply be taking a break to go to the restroom and may have their pay suffer because they were not in the image in the one second the image was taken. Employees at ESW have spoken out, stating that “You have to be in front of your computer, in work mode, 55 or 60 hours just to get those 40 hours counted and paid for,” since offline work was not compensated by the company (Kantor & Sundaram, 2022).
ESW Capital is not the only company with practices such as these. Another company is UnitedHealthcare, which employs social workers. UnitedHealthcare has a tracking system in place that labels their workers as being inactive when there has been an absence of keystrokes after a short period of time. The concern with this approach, however, arises when one considers the nature of social work. A large portion of social work involves “off-computer” tasks, such as engaging in conversations with clients and other clinical providers. The worst part was that the tracking system played a vital component in the performance review faced by those employed by UnitedHealthcare. As is the case at many other companies, the results of the performance re- view play a key role in determining pay for employees. Hence, employees who may be working diligently, but not on their laptops, face the chance of being penalized as it relates to their overall salary due to these met- rics (Kantor & Sundaram, 2022).
In a survey conducted in 2021, researchers found that 60% of companies in the United States use some form of software to track what their employees are doing during the day. This study also found that nearly 90% of companies who have this software have fired employees due to information revealed by these programs (Corbyn, 2022). With this being a common practice across the country, how do workers feel about this? One research study revealed employees being tracked online reported lower levels of intrinsic work motivation (Jiang et al., 2020). Other research has connected computer tracking with an increase in stress felt by em- ployees, along with greater anxiety (Friedman & Reed, 2007). Additionally, employees who are constantly kept under observation are likely to feel a lower sense of autonomy (Corbyn, 2022). On the other hand, you cannot ignore major issues that may arise for companies if they do not have tracking services in place. As aforementioned, cyberloafing can cost companies a hefty amount annually due to lost work time, and there’s also a cybersecurity risk that arises if/when employees download personal unsafe items onto work-issued technology (Quackenbush, 2022). Following the 2020 pandemic, there has been a 300% increase in cyber- attacks as of 2022, with even more predicted to occur in the next five years (Marks, 2022). This could leave the company at risk of data leaks and other major security issues, which may even lead to legal issues or other detrimental impacts down the road.
How to Assess Cyberslacking
In assessing cyberslacking and employer monitoring, you may find the following approaches to ethical deci- sion making helpful as you develop your case solution. These are provided by the Markkula Center for Ap- plied Ethics at Santa Clara University and are briefly summarized below.
The utilitarian approach. This approach focuses on the consequences of an action, with the correct moral action being determined by calculating the net value of the action’s consequences for those affected. Utilitar- ian Jeremy Bentham focused on “the greatest good for the greatest number,” while utilitarian John Stuart Mill held that the degree of the consequences (pleasure and pain) should also be considered. There are basically three steps to addressing the situation with a utilitarian approach: first, identify the various courses of action; next, determine all the foreseeable benefits and harms of each approach; and finally, choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been considered. Although this may sound good in theory, “it’s often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain benefits and costs.” Utilitarianism may also fail to address the concept of unjust actions such as lying or coercion to justify possible outcomes (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2023; Providence College, 2023).
The rights approach—deontology. This is an approach to moral theory that focuses on principles, such as respect for individual rights, rather than on the consequences of our actions. Immanuel Kant, one of the lead- ing philosophers of deontology, argued that each person has a dignity that calls for respect. He believed that individuals should be treated as an end unto themselves and not as a means to an end by another person. Kant also espoused the “categorical imperative,” which he formulates as follows: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2023; Mintz & Miller, 2023; Providence College, 2023).
The fairness approach. Justice is traditionally defined as giving each person what he or she deserves. Jus- tice and fairness are closely related and often used interchangeably. The notion of being treated as one de- serves is crucial to both justice and fairness. When conflicts of justice or fairness arise, we need principles that all can accept as reasonable and fair standards for what people deserve. Aristotle defined justice as a princi- ple where “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.” For example, if a man and woman do the same work, they should be paid equally. Different theories focus on different forms or domains of justice. For example, distributive justice evaluates the fairness of how important benefits and burdens are distributed in society. Compensatory justice considers the fairness of compensation to those who are injured by those who have injured them. Retributive justice evaluates the fairness of punishments for crimes or other trans- gressions, considering the crime’s severity, intent of the criminal, etc. (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2023; Providence College, 2023).
The common good approach. This focuses on having a society and institutions that strive to benefit all peo- ple. For example, a society’s accessible healthcare, public safety, just legal system, environmental protection, and economic prosperity might all be considered part of a system that affects the common good. Achieving and maintaining the common good requires collective efforts but certain obstacles hinder this endeavor such as living in a pluralistic society. Pluralistic societies encompass differing values and priorities, making it a chal- lenge to agree on common goals. There is a “free-rider” problem because some people benefit from the com- mon good without contributing. Additionally, a culture that emphasizes individualism can make it difficult to convince people to sacrifice personal interests for the common good. Lastly, unequal sharing of burdens can arise when certain groups or individuals bear disproportionately heavy costs to maintain the common good (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2023).
The virtue approach. Virtue ethics characterizes a moral life not by the outcomes or principles behind individ- ual actions, but rather by the habits and traits of character that define human excellence. These can include the cardinal virtues of classical thinkers such as Plato (wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice). The virtue approach emphasizes the role of community in shaping character traits. Virtues are attitudes, dispositions or character traits that enable us to be virtuous or attain certain ideals such as excellence or dedication to the common good. Virtues are developed through learning and practice. Communities, including family, church, and school, influence individuals’ values and personality traits. Virtues become ingrained habits in an indi- vidual and guide their behavior. The virtuous person can be seen as an ethical person (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2023; Mintz & Miller, 2023; Providence College, 2023).
The care ethics approach. Care ethics places care at the center of ethical thinking, which values human relationships, recognizes human codependence, and acknowledges the significance of emotions. Psycholo- gist Carol Gilligan’s work in the 1980s marked an early articulation of care ethics. She argued that women often employ a “different voice” of care that considers relationships and contextual nuances. Care also exists in various cultural traditions, “including African communitarian views, Indigenous worldviews, Confucianism, and Buddhism.” Care ethics also emphasizes the importance of healthy, reciprocal relationships and extends beyond personal bonds; it acknowledges that all individuals require care to flourish, even healthy adults. Un- like approaches that solely rely on reason, care ethics values both emotions and the body. While not all emo-tions are equally valuable, care highlights emotions such as empathy and compassion (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2023).
Your Assignment
You have been commissioned to provide an ethical analysis of the worker productivity monitoring issue, ulti- mately leading to a recommendation to ABC, Inc. as to whether the company should implement one of these tracking systems. ABC, Inc. is a well-known and highly successful professional services firm that will have no issue paying to implement this software on all company-issued equipment. In C-Suite level meetings, there has been debate as to whether the installation of this software will be beneficial. You have interviewed ex- ecutives at ABC, Inc. and there are a multitude of opinions as to whether the company would benefit from this system and increase overall profitability. Some believe that forcing employees to be tracked will ensure that they stay on-task during the day, while others believe that these systems create a workplace culture that breeds discontent and distrust. Certain executives are concerned that an overly aggressive monitoring system that penalizes employees might “backfire,” as described in Thiel et al. (2022), and might even contribute to increased employee turnover, which has been observed in many companies. For example, Thiel et al. (2022) reported that “monitored employees were substantially more likely to take unapproved breaks, disregard in- structions, damage workplace property, steal office equipment, and purposefully work at a slow pace, among other rule-breaking behaviors.”
Discussion Questions
1. What broad ethical issues, if any, are associated with employee productivity monitoring?
2. Should ABC, Inc. install software to track employee productivity?
3. If ABC decides to install the software, what communications, if any, should be sent out to employees? What capabilities should the software have? In other words, what metrics should the company track? What penalties might be included for inadequate performance (e.g., reduction in pay)?
4. If ABC does not decide to install the software, provide a rationale why.
5. If ABC does not decide to install the software, how might the company ensure that cyberslacking does not become a major cost for the company? What alternatives exist to ensure employees stay on-task?