SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: Special Issue on 24th International Business Congress Özel Sayı

MANAGING REMOTE WORKERS: THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING-TASK PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP

UZAKTAKİ İŞGÖRENLERİ YÖNETMEK: ELEKTRONİK İZLEME-GÖREV PERFORMANSI İLİŞKİSİ

Gökhan Bitmiş(ANKARA HACI BAYRAM VELI UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6707-3568
Mert Özkum(ANKARA HACI BAYRAM VELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0000-2482-8556
Pages
82–91
Publication Date
2026-03-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that electronic monitoring of employees yielded no substantial impact on the employee's task performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:As artificial intelligence technologies become more prevalent in business settings, the significance of electronic monitoring is escalating in work environments to accomplish organizational objectives effectively and efficiently.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the effect of electronic monitoring on task performance was evaluated among remote employees in the IT sector.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that electronic monitoring of employees yielded no substantial impact on the employee's task performance.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Elektronik izleme · Gözetim · Görev performansı

Abstract

As artificial intelligence technologies become more prevalent in business settings, the significance of electronic monitoring is escalating in work environments to accomplish organizational objectives effectively and efficiently. The use of electronic monitoring in organizations can have both positive and negative effects on employee behavior. In this study, the effect of electronic monitoring on task performance was evaluated among remote employees in the IT sector. Data were obtained from 171 remote IT experts via a survey method. The results showed that electronic monitoring of employees yielded no substantial impact on the employee's task performance.

Özet

İşletmelerde yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin yaygın bir şekilde kullanımıyla birlikte, organizasyonel amaçlara etkin ve etkili bir şekilde ulaşabilmek için elektronik izlemenin önemi iş ortamlarında giderek artmaktadır. Organizasyonlarda elektronik izlemenin kulanımı işgörenlerin davranışları üzerinde olumlu ve olumsuz etkiler yaratabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada elektronik izlemenin görev performansı üzerindeki etkisi bilişim sektöründe uzaktan çalışan işgörenler üzerinde değerlendirilmiştir. Veriler uzaktan çalışan 171 bilişim uzmanından anket yöntemi ile elde edilmiştir. Sonuçlarda işgörenleri elektronik olarak izlemenin, işgörenlerin görev performansı üzerinde anlamlı bir etki yaratmadığı belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bitmiş, G., Özkum, M. (2026). MANAGING REMOTE WORKERS: THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING-TASK PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: Special Issue on 24th International Business Congress Özel Sayı, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.1811375

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Aiello, J.R., & Shao, Y. (1993). Electronic performance monitoring and stress: The role of feedback and goal setting. M.J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Applications and case studies içerisinde (ss. 1011-1016). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier
  2. Aitken, J. A., Baines, J. I., Wonders, M. E., Kaplan, S. A., & Clark, J. E. (2025). A Meta‐Analytic Review of the Within‐Person Relationship Between Affect and Job Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 0, 1-25.
  3. Aleem, M., Sufyan, M., Ameer, I., & Mustak, M. (2023). Remote work and the COVID-19 pandemic: An artificial intelligence-based topic modeling and a future agenda. Journal of business research, 154, 113303.
  4. Allen, M., Coopman, S. J., Hart, J. L., & Walker, K. L. (2007). Workplace surveillance and managing privacy boundaries. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(2), 172-200.
  5. Anteby, M., & Chan, C. K. (2018). A self-fulfilling cycle of coercive surveillance: Workers’ invisibility practices and managerial justification. Organization Science, 29(2), 247-263.
  6. Bartels, L. K., & Nordstrom, C. R. (2012). Examining big brother's purpose for using electronic performance monitoring. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(2), 65-77.
  7. Bhave, D. P. (2014). The invisible eye? Electronic performance monitoring and employee job performance. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 605-635.
  8. Bitmiş, M. G. (2022). Organizasyonlarda Yapay Zekâ ve İşgören Etkileşimi: İşleri Yeniden Tasarlamak. Mustafa Gökhan Bitmiş, Özge Dinç Cavlak ve Mustafa Mehmet Bayar (Eds.) İşletme Yönetiminde Yapay Zekâ içerisinde (ss.1-18) Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
  9. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations içerisinde (ss. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Demerouti,E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
  12. Eren, G., & Bozkurt, S. (2025). Psikolojik Güçlendirmenin İş Performansına Etkisinde Çalışmaya Tutkunluğun Aracı Rolüne Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Journal of Yasar University, 20(77), 1-22.
  13. Findlay, P., & McKinlay, A. (2003). Surveillance, electronic communications technologies and regulation. Industrial Relations Journal, 34(4), 305-318.
  14. Holland, P. J., Cooper, B., & Hecker, R. (2015). Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace: The effects on trust in management, and the moderating role of occupational type. Personnel Review, 44(1), 161-175.
  15. Jeske, D. (2022). Remote workers' experiences with electronic monitoring during Covid-19: implications and recommendations. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 15(3), 393-409.
  16. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131-146.
  17. König, C. J. (2025). Electronic monitoring at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 12, 321-342.
  18. Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Attributing trustworthiness in supervisor-worker relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(2), 214-232.
  19. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current directions in psychological science, 15(5), 265-268.
  20. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.
  21. Mason, D., Button, G., Lankshear, G., Coates, S., & Sharrock, W. (2002). On the poverty of apriorism: Technology, surveillance in the workplace and employee responses. Information, Communication & Society, 5(4), 555-572.
  22. Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology içerisinde (ss. 39-53). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  23. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
  24. O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.
  25. Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press
  26. Pierce, L., Snow, D. C., & McAfee, A. (2015). Cleaning house: The impact of information technology monitoring on employee theft and productivity. Management Science, 61(10), 2299-2319.
  27. Ravid, D. M., Tomczak, D. L., White, J. C., & Behrend, T. S. (2020). EPM 20/20: A review, framework, and research agenda for electronic performance monitoring. Journal of Management, 46(1), 100-126.
  28. Ravid, D. M., White, J. C., Tomczak, D. L., Miles, A. F., & Behrend, T. S. (2023). A meta‐analysis of the effects of electronic performance monitoring on work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 76(1), 5-40.
  29. Sewell, G., & Barker, J. R. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 934-961.
  30. Siegel, R., König, C. J., & Lazar, V. (2022). The impact of electronic monitoring on employees' job satisfaction, stress, performance, and counterproductive work behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8, 100227.
  31. Smith, M. J., Carayon, P., Sanders, K. J., Lim, S. Y., & LeGrande, D. (1992). Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics, 23(1), 17-27.
  32. Stanton, J. M. (2000). Reactions to employee performance monitoring: Framework, review, and research directions. Human Performance, 13(1), 85-113.
  33. Thiel, C. E., Bonner, J., Bush, J. T., Welsh, D. T., & Garud, N. (2023). Stripped of agency: The paradoxical effect of employee monitoring on deviance. Journal of Management, 49(2), 709-740.
  34. Thiel, C. E., McClean, S., Harvey, J., & Prince, N. (2023). Trouble with big brother: Counterproductive consequences of electronic monitoring through the erosion of leader‐member social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(9), 1320-1339.
  35. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.