When unfairness matters most: supervisory violations of electronic monitoring practices

Abstract

This study examined the effects of different sources of monitoring information, quality of treatment and quality of decision‐making manipulations on perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with monitoring. Drawing on Blader and Tyler's four‐component model of fairness, participants were asked to rate their perceptions of fairness, satisfaction and intentions to comply with electronic performance‐monitoring policies that originated from formal organisational policies or from their direct supervisors. Results indicated that procedural justice violations originating from the supervisor (vs. formal organisational policy) led to lower perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with monitoring. Furthermore, the effect of procedural justice violations on compliance with monitoring was mediated by perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with monitoring. The present research has theoretical and practical implications for the design, implementation and communication of organisational electronic monitoring practices.