Cited by 41Cyberloafing and Workplace BehaviorJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and Management

Trouble with big brother: Counterproductive consequences of electronic monitoring through the erosion of leader‐member social exchange

Open access
Thiel, Chase E., McClean, Shawn, Harvey, Jaron, Prince, Nicholas·2023·Journal of Organizational Behavior

Abstract

Summary: Changing workplace dynamics have led employers to increasingly adopt electronic monitoring technologies so supervisors can observe and ensure employee compliance and productivity—outcomes the monitoring literature has long supported. Yet, employee productivity depends on strong leader–member social exchange, and the relational consequences of electronic monitoring for supervisor and employee are not well understood. To help resolve this tension within the monitoring literature and add understanding in regard to the effects of electronic monitoring on employee productivity, we use social exchange theory to examine the implications of electronic monitoring for the supervisor–employee exchange relationship. We theorize that electronic monitoring facilitates (rather than inhibits) production deviance and inhibits (rather than facilitates) task performance by undermining the exchange of social benefits and, consequently, eroding leader–member social exchange. Yet, we also hypothesize that supervisors who give performance monitoring data back to employees in a developmental way (i.e., developmental feedback) compensate for the loss of certain social benefits, and, thereby, buffer the negative relational consequences of electronic monitoring. Across an experimental online study and a field study, we find converging support for our predictions and rule out alternative explanations. This research provides timely insights into how to effectively use electronic monitoring without promoting unintended consequences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/job.2748

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Thiel, C. E., McClean, S., Harvey, J., & Prince, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Wyoming (US)
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • Utah Valley University (US)
Corresponding author
Thiel, Chase E.
Venue
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-09-19
Volume
44
Issue
9
Pages
1320-1339
ISSN
  • 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1379
OpenAlex
W4386845385
Cited by
41
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1
FWCI
23.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Cyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
Keywords
electronic monitoring, leader-member exchange, social exchange theory, supervisor-employee relationship, labor productivity, production deviance, task performance, developmental feedback, workplace surveillance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review