Cited by 251Cyberloafing and Workplace BehaviorEthics in Business and EducationAccounting and Organizational Management

Cleaning House: The Impact of Information Technology Monitoring on Employee Theft and Productivity

Pierce, Lamar, Snow, Daniel C., McAfee, Andrew·2015·Management Science

Abstract

This paper examines how firm investments in technology-based employee monitoring impact both misconduct and productivity. We use unique and detailed theft and sales data from 392 restaurant locations from five firms that adopt a theft monitoring information technology (IT) product. We use difference-in-differences models with staggered adoption dates to estimate the treatment effect of IT monitoring on theft and productivity. We find significant treatment effects in reduced theft and improved productivity that appear to be primarily driven by changed worker behavior rather than worker turnover. We examine four mechanisms that may drive this productivity result: economic and cognitive multitasking, fairness-based motivation, and perceived increases of general oversight. The observed productivity results represent substantial financial benefits to both firms and the legitimate tip-based earnings of workers. Our results suggest that employee misconduct is not solely a function of individual differences in ethics or morality, but can also be influenced by managerial policies that can benefit both firms and employees. This paper was accepted by Serguei Netessine, operations management.

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 · 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2103

Cites

3 of 3 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

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pierce, L., Snow, D. C., & McAfee, A.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Brigham Young University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Management Science
Published
2015-10
Volume
61
Issue
10
Pages
2299-2319
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
OpenAlex
W1919376000
Cited by
251
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6
FWCI
38.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Management Science (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Cyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Accounting and Organizational Management
Keywords
employee monitoring, information technology, employee theft, labor productivity, employee behavior, multitasking, management policy

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