The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Transparency Paradox: A Role for Privacy in Organizational Learning and Operational Control
Open accessAbstract
Using data from embedded participant-observers and a field experiment at the second largest mobile phone factory in the world, located in China, I theorize and test the implications of transparent organizational design on workers’ productivity and organizational performance. Drawing from theory and research on learning and control, I introduce the notion of a transparency paradox, whereby maintaining observability of workers may counterintuitively reduce their performance by inducing those being observed to conceal their activities through codes and other costly means; conversely, creating zones of privacy may, under certain conditions, increase performance. Empirical evidence from the field shows that even a modest increase in group-level privacy sustainably and significantly improves line performance, while qualitative evidence suggests that privacy is important in supporting productive deviance, localized experimentation, distraction avoidance, and continuous improvement. I discuss implications of these results for theory on learning and control and suggest directions for future research.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839588 · Cited by 10,641
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809 · cited 2×
“For example, it may improve one unit’s access to the expertise, experience, and stored knowledge of another (Hansen, 1999), thereby creating the potential to increase the quantity and quality of knowledge transfer (Argote et al.”
Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority
Asch, S. E. (1956) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0093718 · Cited by 4,267
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-j · Cited by 2,542
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667087 · Cited by 2,433
Cited by
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732
Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314525202 · Cited by 762
E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003 · Cited by 584
Organizational Transparency: Conceptualizations, Conditions, and Consequences
Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2019) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650316659851 · Cited by 361
Shadow Learning: Building Robotic Surgical Skill When Approved Means Fail
Beane, M. (2019) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839217751692 · Cited by 286
Castilla, E. J. (2015) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0950 · Cited by 255
Cleaning House: The Impact of Information Technology Monitoring on Employee Theft and Productivity
Pierce, L., Snow, D. C., & McAfee, A. (2015) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2103 · Cited by 251
Doing Well by Making Well: The Impact of Corporate Wellness Programs on Employee Productivity
Gubler, T., Larkin, I., & Pierce, L. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2883 · Cited by 222
Network Structure and Patterns of Information Diversity on Twitter1
Shore, J., Baek, J., & Dellarocas, C. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/14558 · Cited by 117
Towards platform observability
Rieder, B., & Hofmann, J. (2020) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2020.4.1535 · Cited by 132
Ackerhans, S., Wehkamp, K., Petzina, R., Dumitrescu, D., & Schultz, C. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/64266 · Cited by 38
Yang, Y. (2018) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-06-2017-0102 · Cited by 38
Bakewell, L. L., Vasileiou, K., Long, K. S., Atkinson, M., Rice, H., Barreto, M., Barnett, J., Wilson, M., Lawson, S., & Vines, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173945 · Cited by 23
Nian, P., Liu, M., Pei, J., & Liu, S. (2026) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2026.116176
Metadata
- Authors
- Bernstein, E. S.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 181-216
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W2041384361
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 28.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
