1. Email Monitoring: Is it Reasonable for Employers to Monitor their Employees’ Email?
WHAT
EXPLANATION
EXAMPLES/EVIDENCE
DO
With employers being responsiblefor the consequences of any illegal,
discriminatory or offensive material that is used or sent by their ITsystems (De
Pree & Jude, 2006, p. 46), thereare severalvalid reasons to consider
monitoring the use of email and other internet use in an organisation. These
include the employers’ desireto guard against‘malware’ or preventlow
productivity due to non-work related email (Kiser et al., 2010; Wheelwright,
2002), as wellas to protect company’s assets and ensurethere is no ‘disclosure
of confidential information’ (Wheelwright, 2002, p.72). For example, Coca Cola
employees werediscovered attempting to ‘sell trade secrets to Pepsi’ (Kiser et
al., 2010, p.32), to protectthe company’s public image and to ensurelawful
use of email by employees. Itcould then be argued that it is reasonablefor
management to implement methods of controlling or monitoring such
communication as a form of protection.
However, there are severalarguments againstmonitoring electronic
communication in the workplace. In many workplaces, thereis an
understanding’ that personalcorrespondenceand personalphonecalls at work
will remain personaland not subjected to monitoring. Itis argued that such
surveillancecan create a climate of distrustand an unnecessarily stressful
atmospherefor employees (Kiser et al, 2010). Itcould even lower employee
productivity. This can be illustrated by the possibility that employees could
take an extra hour to get Christmas shopping doneinstead of shopping for ‘15
minutes online’ (Wheelwright, 2002, p. 71 ). Therefore, it can be seen as an
unadvisablemanagement strategy because fostering positive morale amongst
staff is an important part of management. Itcontributes to employees staying
in their posts for longer and encourages them to work moreproductively.
Therefore, surveillance of their emails could ultimately be counterproductive.
2. The blurring of boundaries between personaland private useof company
email has created a significantchallenge for employers and employees. This is
shown by an incident in which one university professor had his private email to
another colleague leaked, leading to his suspension (McNeilage, 2014).
Although the professor’s comments weresentin an email to one friend with
whom he was playing ‘an ironic game’ (Fenely, 2014, p. 29), theemail
contained language that contravened the universities anti-discrimination
policy. In the instance of the professor’sprivatebutracist comments being
made public, the university became obliged to take public action. This
demonstrates that while many employees consider email communication to be
private, there is a difference between a paper personalletter addressed to an
individual in an organisation and a so called ‘private’ email communication. It
could be said, then, that it is reasonableto monitor email in order to preventa
similar outcome occurring to an individual in any organisation and it is a
reminder that professionalstandards apply in all of our communication in the
workplace.
The manager’s role in implementing a monitoring practice that considers all
employees, and which overcomes the possibledisadvantages of monitoring
emails is essential. Managers also need to be more active in foreseeing and
preventing potential problems of email misuse. The key management functions
of planning, organising, leading and controlling need to be incorporated into
email monitoring for it to be considered a reasonable strategy. Managers
should take a proactive role by explaining the purposeof email monitoring and
how it can protect all stakeholders in the organisation, including
employees (Kiser et al., 2010). Managers could work in teams with employees
to co-constructsuitable and transparentITpolicies. Preventative measures
involving ITtraining that raiseemployees’ awareness of proper conductfor
email use and the potential consequences of misusecould also be
implemented. The danger of not having such clear processes is shown by the
dismissalof three postoffice workers who received an inappropriateemail to
their work email addresses from a personalemail account due to a software
filter picking it up. The courts upheld their claim of unfair dismissaland granted
them compensation due to their not knowing the filter was being applied
((Byrnes, 2013). This casedemonstrates the importance of monitoring being
3. accompanied by an effective policy and clear communication if both
individuals and companies are not to suffer, and that maybe ITsurveillance
alone is not enough to encourage proper professionalstandards.
