電子監視系統對員工隱私侵犯與程序公平認知之影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：66

、訪客IP：3.139.72.152

姓名

林俊名(Chun-Ming Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系

論文名稱

電子監視系統對員工隱私侵犯與程序公平認知之影響
(The effects of electronic performance monitoring system on perceptions of privacy invasion and procedural justice)

相關論文

★ 技術商品銷售之技術人員關鍵職能探討	★ 資訊委外之承包商能力、信任及溝通與委外成效關係之個案研究
★ 兵工技術軍官職能需求分析-以某軍事工廠為例	★ 不同楷模學習模式對VB程式語言學習之影響
★ 影響採購「網路資料中心產品」因素之探討	★ 資訊人員績效評估之研究—以陸軍某資訊單位為例
★ 高職資料處理科學生網路成癮相關因素及其影響之探討	★ 資訊服務委外對資訊部門及人員之衝擊-某大型外商公司之個案研究
★ 二次導入ERP系統之研究-以某個案公司為例	★ 資料倉儲於證券產業應用之個案研究
★ 影響消費者採用創新數位產品之因素---以整合式手機為例	★ 企業合併下資訊系統整合過程之個案研究
★ 資料倉儲系統建置之個案研究	★ 電子表單系統導入之探討 - 以 A 公司為例
★ 企業資訊安全機制導入與評估–以H公司為例	★ 從人力網站探討國內資訊人力現況–以104銀行資料為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

論文摘要
新興科技不斷推陳出新，傳統使用人力來對員工的績效進行監視的方式逐漸由電子系統所取代，電子績效監視系統(Electronic performance monitoring system)應運而生。由於電子系統可以對員工進行長時間的資料收集，因此可能會產生侵犯員工個人隱私的情況，員工對於電子系統的公平性也會有不同的反應。
本研究利用問卷情境，操控電子績效監視系統之「工作相關性」與「監視揭露性」，試圖探討在不同電子系統使用情境下，對於國內員工「隱私侵犯感」與「程序公平感」有何影響。「隱私侵犯感」之中介效果也是本研究欲探討的主題之一。
研究結果顯示，電子績效監視系統之「工作相關性」與「監視揭露性」對員工「隱私侵犯感」與「程序公平感」之影響未獲統計支持，因此「隱私侵犯感」的中介效果亦未獲統計支持。國內員工無論是在哪種情境下，對於個人隱私都會有受到侵犯的感覺，對於監視系統的「程序公平感」也都有不公平的感受。顯示國內員工對於電子系統的監視都持有較為負面的態度。
另外，本研究根據樣本基本資料分析，發現受試者的「年齡」在「隱私侵犯感」與「程序公平感」上的表現具有顯著差異。這樣的結果很可能是由於受試者價值觀之不同，因而造成在「隱私侵犯感」與「程序公平感」上的差異。但究竟是價值觀中的哪一部份造成差異，值得後續研究針對這個部分進行更為深入的探討。

摘要(英)

The effects of electronic performance monitoring system on perceptions of privacy invasion and procedural justice

關鍵字(中)

★ 電子績效監視
★ 隱私侵犯感
★ 程序公平感
★ 工作相關性
★ 監視揭露性

關鍵字(英)

★ electronic performance monitoring
★ perception of privacy
★ task relevence
★ procedural justice
★ disclosure of monitoring

論文目次

目錄
目錄 I
圖次 III
表次 IV
第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的 2
第三節研究範圍 2
第四節研究進行步驟 2
第五節研究貢獻 3
第二章文獻探討 4
第一節電子績效監視 4
第二節組織公平性與監視系統 10
第三節隱私侵犯感與程序公平感 16
第三章研究模型與假說 18
第一節研究模型 18
第二節研究假說 18
一、監視系統特性對隱私侵犯感與程序公平感的影響 18
二、隱私侵犯感與程序公平感的關係 20
三、隱私侵犯感的中介效果 20
第三節研究設計 20
一、自變項定義與操作化 20
二、因變項定義與操作化 21
三、實驗設計與進行程序 22
四、資料分析方法 23
第四章資料分析 24
第一節樣本基本資料分析 24
第二節量表信度與效度分析 30
第三節假說驗證 31
一、實驗操作確認 31
二、監視行為與隱私侵犯感的影響 32
三、監視行為與程序公平感的影響 33
四、隱私侵犯感的中介效果 35
五、隱私侵犯感對程序公平感的影響 37
六、小結 37
第五章結論與建議 39
一、研究結果與討論 39
二、實務上的建議 41
三、研究限制 42
四、未來研究方向 43
參考文獻 R1
附錄 1：四種情境問卷 A
附錄 2：隱私侵犯與程序公平感問項 E
附錄 3：常態性檢定Q-Q plot G
附錄 4：因素分析結果 I
附錄 5：不同情境於隱私侵犯感與程序公平感的Kolmogorov-Smirnov檢定結果 J

參考文獻

1. Aiello, J. R. and C. M. Svec (1993). “Computer monitoring of work performance: Extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 537-548.
2. Alderman, E. and C. Kennedy (1995). The Right to Privacy. New York: Alfred Knopf.
3. Alge, B. J. (2001). “Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 797-804.
4. Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
5. Ambrose, M. L. and G. S. Alder (2000). “Designing, implementing, and utilizing computerized performance monitoring: Enhancing organizational justice,” Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 187-219.
6. Ambrose, M. L., G. S. Alder and T. Noel (1998). “Electronic monitoring and ethics: A consideration of employer and employee rights, ” In M. Schminke (Ed.) Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes. 61-80. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Bies, R. and D. Shapiro (1988). “Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments,” Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676-685.
8. Bies, R. J. (1987). “The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage,” In L. L. Cummings, and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289-319. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9. Bies, R. J. (1993). “Privacy and Procedural justice in organizations,” Social Justice in Research, 6, 69-86.
10. Bies, R. J. and J. S. Moag (1986). “Interactional justice: Communicative criteria of fairness,” In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & B. H. Bazeman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43-55. Greenwich, CT : JAI Press.
11. Brockner, J. and B. M. Wiesenfeld (1996). “An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures,” Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.
12. Bylinsky, G. (1991). “How companies spy on employees,” Fortune, 131-140, November 4.
13. Carayon, P. (1993). “Effects of electronic performance monitoring on job design and worker stress: Review of the literature and conceptual model,” Human Factors, 35, 385-395.
14. Cropanzano, R. and J. Greenberg (1997). “Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze,” In. L. T. Robertson & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,317-372. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. DeTienne, K. B. and G. S. Alder (1995). “The privacy for consumers and workers act: Panacea or problem? ” Managerial Law, 37, 1-32.
16. Deutsch, M.(1975). “Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributives justice?” Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137-149.
17. Eddy, E R., D. L. Stone, and E. F. Stone-Romero (1999). “The effects of information management policies on reactions to human resource information systems: An integration of privacy and procedural justice perspectives,” Personnel Psychology, 52, 335-358.
18. English, C. W. (February 18, 1985). “Is your friendly computer rating you on the job? ” U. S. News and World Report, 66
19. Fenner, D. B., F. J. Lerch and C. T. Kulik(1993). ”The impact of computerized performance monitoring and prior performance knowledge on performance evaluation,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 573-601.
20. Ferris, G. R., T. R. Mitchell, J. P. Canavan, D. D. Frink and H. Hopper (1995). “Accountability in human resource systems,” In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Sherman, & D. T. Barnum(Eds.), Handbook of human resource management(pp. 175-196). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
21. Finn, R. H. and S. M. Lee (1972). “Salary equity: Its determination, analysis, and correlates,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 283-292.
22. Gilliland, S. W. (1993). “The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 18, 694-734.
23. Grant, R. H. and C. Higgins (1989). “Monitoring service workers via computer: The effect on employees, productivity, and service,” National Productivity Review, 8, 101-112.
24. Grant, R. H., C. A. Higgins and R. H. Irving (Spring, 1988). “Computerized performance monitors: Are they costing you customers?” Sloan Management Review, 39-45.
25. Greenberg, J. (1986). “Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluation,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.
26. Greenberg, J. (1987a). “A taxonomy of organizational justice theories,” Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.
27. Greenberg, J. (1987b). “Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals,” Social Justice Research, 1, 219-234.
28. Greenberg, J. (1993). “The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice,” In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice I the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management, 79-103. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Griffith, T. L. (1993). “Monitoring and performance : A comparision of computer and supervisor monitoring,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 549-572.
30. Halpern, S. (May, 1992). “Big boss is watching you,” Details, 18-23.
31. Hawk, S. R. (1994). “The effect of computerized performance monitoring: An ethical perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 949-957.
32. Kallman, E. (June, 1993). “Electronic monitoring of employees: Issues and guidelines, ” Journal of Systems Management, 17-21.
33. Kidwell, Jr. R. E. and N. Bennett (1994a). “Electronic surveillance as employee control: A procedural justice interpretation,” The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5, 39-57.
34. Kidwell, Jr. R. E. and N. Bennett (1994b). “Employee reactions to electronic control systems: The role of procedural fairness,” Group and Organization Management, 19, 203-218.
35. Komaki, J. L., M. L. Desselles and E. D. Bowman (1989). “Definitely not a breeze: Extending a model of effective supervision to teams,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522-529.
36. Larson, J. R. and C. Callahan (1990). “Performance monitoring, perceptions of task importance, and work output,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 530-538.
37. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 9, 91-131. New York: Academic Press.
38. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships,” In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research ,121-145. New York: Springer-Verlag.
39. Lind, E. A., R. Kanfer, and P. Early (1990). “Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
40. Lind, E. A., S. Kurtz, L. Musante, L. Walker and J. Thibaut (1980). “Procedure and outcome effects on reations to adjudicated resolutions of conflicts of interest,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 643-653.
41. Milberg, Sandra J., H. J. Smith, and S. J. Burke (2000). “Information privacy: Corporate management and national regulation,” Organization Science, 11, 35-57.
42. Mowday, R. T. (1983). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In R. Steers & L. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and Work behavior (3rd ed., 91-113). New York: McGraw-Hill.
43. Niehoff, B. P. and R. H. Moorman (1993). “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior,” Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.
44. Nine to Five, Working Women Education Fund. (1984). The 9 to 5 National Survey on Women and Stress. Cleveland, OH: Author.
45. Oldham, G. R., C. T. Kulik, M. L. Ambrose, L. P. Stepina, and J. F. Brand (1986). “Relations between job facet comparisons and employee reactions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 28-47.
46. Oldham, G. R., G. Nottenburg, M. K. Kassner, G. Ferris, D. edor, and M. Masters (1982). “The selection and consequences of job comparisons,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 84-111.
47. Piller, C. (1993). “Bosses with X-ray eyes. Your employer may be using computer to keep tabs on you,” MacWorld, 10(7), 118-123.
48. Pritchard, R. D., M. D. Dunnette, and D. O. Jorgensen (1972). “Effects of perceptions of equity and inequity on worker performance and satisfaction,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 75-94.
49. Racicot B. M. and K. J. Williams (1993). “Perceived invasiveness and fairness of drug-testing procedures for current employees, ” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1879-1891.
50. Smith, M. J., P. Carayon, K. J. Sanders and D. LeGrande (1992). “Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring,” Applied Ergonomics, 23, 17-27.
51. Stone D. L. and C. Herringshaw (1991, April). “Effects of the purpose of the test, perceived relevance, and use of test results on reactions to honesty testing, ” Paper presented at the 6th annual conference of the Society for industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
52. Stone, E. F., and D. L. Stone (1990). “Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms,” Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 8, 349-411.
53. Susser, P. A. (1988). “Electronic monitoring in the private sector: How closely should employers supervise their workers?” Emploee Relations Law Journal, 13, 575-598.
54. Thibaut, J. and L. Walker (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Tyler, T. R., and R. J. Bies (1990). “Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice,” In J. S.Carroll (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings (77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Westin, A. F. (1986). “Privacy and quality of work-life issues in employee monitoring, ” (OTA-CTT-33) Washington DC: Office of Technology Assessment

指導教授

周惠文(Huey-Wen Chou)

審核日期

2002-7-17

推文