Employees and workplace surveillance: Tensions and ways forward

Abstract

We are rapidly entering the age of no privacy where everyone is always open to surveillance, where there are no secrets – William O Douglas. This case aims to explore the effects of camera surveillance on individual behaviour at the workplace. We observe that we unconsciously tend to modify our natural behaviour into a designed one as required by the camera, what is called prosocial behaviour. Workplace surveillance has many advantages and applications for theft detection and employee discipline. However, it also impacts employees who may not be enacting deviant behaviour at the workplace. This issue needs to be addressed, as it can affect not only psychological behaviours leading to unseen disorders, but also productivity at the workplace.

Introduction

Ms Malini and Ms Rekha were casually going through the photo albums of the different celebrations in the office premises in the recent past. Some of them were important occasions like Independence Day, Republic Day, Christmas, New year celebrations and retirement functions of staff members, and some other formal occasions like Founder’s Day, Board meetings, Memorandum of Understanding signing and project launch functions.

Malini realized that in no picture did she look pleasant and neutral. She was either tense or seemed very artificial, often struggling to keep a measured smile. On the other hand, she looked at Rekha’s pictures. Some were candid, but when it came to posing voluntarily, she was also not behaving as expected. She understood that those who have learned the art of posing can do it well, while others do not get it right. Malini thinks, ‘Maybe that is why actors go for several takes while shooting or acting out a scene’.

In the digital era, androids and mobile phones are mainly used for taking pictures. Clicking pictures anytime is relatively easy and convenient. People like posing for photos and selfies. Some people dislike the way they look in photos. Hence, some feel discomfort in front of the camera. Smiling for the camera and smiling for a friend are entirely two different things.

One can quickly learn from Google the knack of posing for good pictures. However, up to now she had not really thought about it. Besides, it was not required for her professional or personal life. Soon she learned a few tips from YoutTube on posing for the best pictures, like bring ones ear forward, give a smooth and strong jawline, shift weight to create a natural stance, a slight lean towards the front to create a distance between the torso and arm, do not face the camera straight, stand tall, do not be afraid to move, dance to music in your head and many more. These tips helped her to look good and feel good in front of the camera for a few seconds, so that the picture becomes more memorable.

But then Ms Malini knows that she is in front of the camera lens in her office premises nearly all the time: in her workspace, in corridors, in canteens, in dining halls, near watercoolers, in the play area, in chat rooms, in reading rooms, in the open spaces. Here, it is a matter of not just posing for good pictures for a few seconds but looking good and behaving appropriately for hours.

Malini thinks about the challenge. ‘If one can feel so uncomfortable facing a camera for a few seconds and performing at your best, how can news readers, anchors and interviewers, while ‘live’, keep a pleasant smile in spite of the multiple tensions?’ She realized how much her behaviour had changed over a period because of becoming conscious of eyes watching in the form of cameras around her. Her original behaviour, way of walking and laughing and chatting with colleagues during lunch and coffee breaks had been changed to fit with officially expected behaviour.

Malini happens to meet her college friends after two years at an alumni meeting. Her friends commented: ‘You used to be such a noisy, vibrant, cool-headed person. But now we find you to be incredibly quiet, smiling formally and greeting friends minimally and having only fun that seems conventional and contrived’. Almost everyone had noticed this and observed the change in her behaviour. They inquired if there were any problems in her work life or personal life to which Malini replied: ‘No problem at all’.

However, her friends were not convinced. They wanted to help her out by spending some time with her. So, they planned to go trekking together. It so happened that one of their team members stood up to dance in the bus, Malini said: ‘Mind, there might be some cameras put up in the bus’. She did not mind people watching but was concerned about the camera watching. When they checked into a restaurant, to have lunch, one of the fellows cracked a joke for which everyone clapped and laughed aloud. Immediately Malini said, ‘Make less noise you might be watched over; there might be a camera’. She did not mind people watching but was concerned about the camera watching.

On deeper discussion, it was evident that there was considerable anxiety about cameras all over her workplace. Although she was a hardworking employee, she was disturbed by the thought that someone was spying on her and watching her. She had no intentions at all to evade work. However, the mere thought that she was under surveillance, for it to be known with whom she often speaks during coffee breaks, when she goes for refreshments, how frequently she uses the restrooms, how much time is spent for lunch, this was disturbing her. She considers all this an infringement of privacy. This feeling over extended periods had modified her original behaviour.

She has forced herself into a behaviour that is not her original and natural form and made it ‘prosocial’. Such prosocial behaviour has the potential to lead to stress and could result in lengthy depression and end up as serious social anxiety disorder.

Panopticon theory

The panopticon is a disciplinary concept where a central observation tower is placed within the circle of prison cells. The guard can see every inmate from the tower, but the inmates cannot see into the tower.

Panopticon theory holds that people can be controlled and disciplined when they believe they are constantly being observed. An English philosopher and social theorist, Jeremy Bentham, in the mid-1700s, invented the social control mechanism for modern authority and discipline in the western world. It is considered as a metaphor for modern surveillance. The fact is that being watched is to normalize and intended to correct deviant behaviour.

Camera observation will change people’s behaviour. It changes their way of acting and thinking, either positively or negatively. A relationship between surveillance and emotion has been identified as core to the experiences of surveillance. (Ellis et al., 2013). These experiences are difficult for individuals to interpret and articulate (Koskela, 2000). Some ignore the surveillance. For others, it has minimal effect. But for others it can have serious pyschological and behavioural impacts (Ellis et al., 2013).

The impact

At the end of the year, it was discovered that there is an increase in the attrition rate of employees, a sharp dip in the performance levels of the employees, error rates were high, the profit percentage was not moving up and customer satisfaction also became a serious concern. The employer and his high-level team were worried about these indicators and reflected on its consequences.

The IT department personnel said: ‘All the employees are very sincere, and they do not even seem to move out from their seats, they work all the time. They are not found chit-chatting with others, in the workstations or even in other places. There is no sign of groupism, gossiping, reporting late to work, evading from work and even lunch breaks are quick invariably by all employees. They do not waste time’. He added: ‘They all like to come and work in our organization’.

Then the team zeroed in on the stress levels of the employees as a cause of concern for poor performance outcomes. Soon after, a clinical doctor was brought in to test the employees' stress levels, blood pressure levels and general wellness. The doctor found everything to be quite normal, with employees being recorded as at least in line with the average index for any healthy individual.

Later, a satisfaction survey was circulated to measure the perception of employees on the levels of employee engagement, loyalty, trust, organizational commitment, organizational climate, staying intention of employees and organizational culture.

The results of this analysis raised the alarm. The employer was shocked to know that employees were concerned about the above-mentioned aspects. During the same period, a short note in the complaint box stated: ‘Why do you watch over me always? Don’t you trust me?’ By connecting the dots, it was identified that there was a real concern about camera surveillance.

There followed, amongst the top team, a deep level of discussion about the survey results. It was argued that the camera is for the safety of the employees. However, several recognized that surveillance could backfire on the employer, as well as the employees. It was concluded that surveillance was hurting everyone.

It became recognized that groupism did not amount to teamwork. That lack of gossiping reflected in fact the absence of socialization. It became clear that people did not move out of their seats because they did not want to be seen walking in the corridors, or found near the water cooler or restrooms. People even avoided greeting colleagues for fear of misinterpretation.

‘Is this a matter of safety or an intrusion of privacy?’ the chairman asked. Then the head of Human Resources HR said: ‘It is neither or both. It is a matter of trust on the part of the employer and the employee’s benevolent relationship with co-workers. Employees feel that the management does not trust them; and hence, they are watched. Employees fear that the employer is trying to create a record of whatever they do, which gets interpreted as – the employer think we are dishonest’.

He added: ‘Employees feel that their competence is doubted, and they are measured minute by minute with their log-in time in their seats. Employees feel that every individual is the employer’s property because they are hired by them, and therefore they behave prosocially. The employees feel so insecure about smiling, greeting or laughing with their colleagues as it might be misinterpreted via the camera screen’.

After long hours of computer screen viewing, someone wants to put their head down for a few minutes because they feel exhausted. But they do not do so, for fear of being watched and misunderstood. Some employees fear that their official calls may be misinterpreted as personal chatting when they are with phones, due to monitoring. Most employees think only prisoners, criminals, thieves and the accused should be watched. Why should employees be watched? Do organization employees steal from our premises?

Employees have questions like: ‘Are we not responsible? Are we not educated? Don’t we know to behave appropriately? Are we not well-mannered? It is sheer demeaning of one’s dignity. But these questions are not raised’.

That said, in fact, the organization has a robust HR policy. People are happy about their salary, perks, fringe benefits, promotions, career developments, compensations, training and development etc. It would seem that the organization’s surveillance policy was a real matter of concern that needed to be addressed.

Surveillance in workplace

Surveillance in the workplace has been the subject of much psychological research, especially featuring the impact of surveillance on employees (Ball, 2010). The ultimate core application of surveillance is to prevent theft or illegal activities inside the premises, but social control and conformity to rules are also often sought after goals by managements. Many adverse outcomes for employees may well be unintentional, but sticking a massive pair of eyes on the wall, psychologically can create a fear about being continually observed. Even subtle cues of being watched can induce a sense of being seen and alter one’s thoughts and behaviour. (Hazem et al., 2017; Pfattheicher & Keller, 2015).

Surveillance by closed-circuit cameras asserts that technology has visibly allowed the deployment of panoptic structures throughout society. The panopticon concept paved the way to research that explores the relationship between systems of social control and people in a disciplinary situation. It shows that desired behaviour can be achieved by Panoptic discipline, inducing the population to conform through internalization of the organization’s desired code of conduct.

Surveillance is any collection and processing of information, whether personally identifiable or not, to influence and manage those whose data is garnered. Cameras, more than ever, observe people in stores, public transport or workplaces. Using this technology is justified to help law enforcement, but does it help or affect citizens who, in fact, are not taking part in illegal activities?

Social anxiety disorder in the workplace

Scopophobia is the fear of being stared at. It creates an environment of suspicion and threat, which cause people who are not engaged in any wrongdoing to change their behaviour, including how they act, speak and communicate (Izuma et al., 2011). Social anxiety disorder is a severe and continuous fear of being watched by others. Social anxiety disorder is intricately linked with the spotlight effect describing the feeling of being watched by others (Gilovich, Medvec and Savitsky, 2000). This fear affects work, personal strength and daily activities. It has proved that it is hard for them to make friends and keep them.

Fear of embarrassment or being judged can be an essential factor in psychological and social anxiety. When we are constantly worried about what people think of us, it can hamper how we operate in work. Anxiety about how we look when trying to answer in a meeting can have one caught up in thoughts and shift focus to how people see you and how anxious you look. They find it hard to concentrate and listen to what is being said.

Another symptom of employees with social anxiety disorder includes – when talking to a colleague or manager instead of listening to what is said, they start worrying about how others perceive them and eventually land up with a blank mind.

When individuals shift attention to detailed monitoring and observation of themselves, it results in a self-constructed negative image of the situation. This anxiety distorts the situation and does not allow them to correctly process other people’s behaviour. Following this, the individual start to engage in safety behaviour to avoid the risk of rejection.

This social anxiety disorder can affect higher levels of job satisfaction, have ethical implications, dampen organizational effectiveness and lead to economic loss for both individuals and organizations.

Outcomes

Monitoring can cause psycho-social outcomes. They include increased resistance, decreased job satisfaction, decreased creativity (King, 2003), decreased autonomy, increased stress, decreased commitment (Stanton, 2000) and higher labour turnover. It can negatively impact autonomy and creativity.

It is found to provoke angry reactions, which may affect workplace relationships and damage the psychological contract. This, in a way, dampens the employees' competence, organizational commitment and honesty. Excessive monitoring leaves the employee feeling not being trusted by the employer (Holland, Cooper, and Hecker, 2015). All socially anxious people dread situations like an overwhelming fear of being judged or watched by others in a social situation (Chory and Westerman, 2009). Social Anxiety Disorder is more common in females than in males. The symptoms include the following:

• Mind going blank often.

• Feeling anxious, suspicious and panicked.

• Intense fear of judgment from others.

• Feeling very self-conscious, embarrassed and awkward in front of others.

• Rigid body postures.

• A deep voice in social interactions.

These symptoms disrupt life, work and relationships. There are various levels of social anxiety, ranging from mild social anxiety, moderate social anxiety and extreme social anxiety. The monitoring phenomenon effect is mostly to create prosocial behaviour rather than just norm compliance. (Fathi et al., 2014). Intrusion into an individual’s privacy affects the development of one’s personality, identity and personal autonomy. Continuous surveillance will not help develop meaningful relationships. It can also hurt and individual’s sense of dignity. People become hyper-vigilant in workplace situations. Minutely observing other people’s perceived reactions to one’s actions can create a dangerous cocktail of anxiety potentially leading to serious mental ill health.

Way out

This social anxiety disorder is highly treatable with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or medication such as antidepressants (Serotonin or beta blocker). Cognitive behavioural therapy is a form of psychological treatment. With the help of the psychologist, the patient strives to change their thinking and any unhelpful behavioural patterns. It takes multiple sessions through talking and asking questions to alter different perspectives.

Indifferent behaviour on the part of employees will indirectly affect workplace performance and spill over into the family and personal domain. Some form of intervention is needed for to the identified problem. Nevertheless, how do we know someone is undergoing this form of psychological anxiety or scopophobia?

Questions for discussion

1. Is this just a hypothetical situation of employees experiencing this form of psychological disorder? What are your own experiences?

2. How is this to be identified when the advantages from installation of CCTV may well be considerable? Is it a minor issue to be ignored or a serious one to be addressed?

3. What are the ways to overcome social anxiety disorder?

4. What are the advantages of CCTV installation in the workplace?

5. What are the security, privacy and psychological issue that employees face due to CCTV surveillance?