‘Privacy’ at workplaces: Emotional ragas

One evening Jaasree, a young colleague of mine stumbled into cabin with a sheaf of papers and stared at me as though to enquire if I were ready for a dig at them. In the course of exploration, our focus took a shift to ‘employee 

privacy’ at work places. She suddenly became emotional, and  proclaimed: “employees do need privacy and employers should provide it.  I was wonder-struck: What is it that the employees need to hide from employer? What prompts an employer to peep into employee’s mind? Why employer is eager to know more about his employee? What this ‘employer-employee’ chasm on ‘privacy’ is all about? Is it true, as JK said “the problem is not the world, but you in relationship with another; which creates a problem; and that problem extended becomes the world problem”? 

With the advent of technological progression in computation and communication and the resulting facilities such as electronic mailing, instant transmission of messages, etc., ‘privacy’ has become the buzz word in the corporate corridors, particularly in the western world. It is slowly making inroads into Indian businesses too. Today ‘privacy’ at workplaces has become one of the most fundamental requirements of every employee. Employees are increasingly getting concerned about their right to privacy which should eliminate or minimize employers’ intrusion.

What is ‘privacy’?

According to Oxford dictionary, ‘privacy’ means “the state or condition of being withdrawn from the society of others or from public attention; freedom from disturbance or intrusion; seclusion”. Obviously in the context of workplaces privacy doesn’t mean the state of being withdrawn from the organization but what employees are seeking from their employers is freedom from intrusion – intrusion into their e-mails, telephonic conversations, computer monitoring, keeping track of phone calls etc. According to American Management Association’s survey, more than half of US companies engaged in some form of monitoring e-mails of employees and this is what is being vehemently resisted by employees. Similarly, monitoring of computer terminals while one is working or scanning what is stored in the hard disc of an employee, gathering information about the phone calls made by the employee from the pen register, etc., are all considered intrusions of the employer. But from the standpoint of employer, the sophisticated technology that is today available is greatly enhancing the effectiveness of monitoring and ensuring productivity of employees. At the same time, employers can not afford to violate the basic expectations of employees for it diminishes trust excites emotional involvement of people that can lead to simple misunderstandings getting compounded resulting in personality clashes and ultimate breakdown of communication which is vital for the survival of any organization. The demand of the employees for privacy is thus posing a great challenge to businesses.

‘Privacy’: employee-employer chasm?

In the increasingly networked world, ‘groups’ are becoming a major feature of organizational life. Almost every activity of an organization calls for atleast some degree of coordination through the operation of group working. Organizations are known to function best when members act not as individuals but as members of a highly effective work groups. The more homogenous the group in terms of such things as shared backgrounds, interests, attitudes, and values, the easier it is to promote cohesiveness. Thus, an understanding of the nature of groups has become a must for the managers to influence the behavior of people in the work situation. It is in this context that employers argue that they need to peep into employees’ personality and trace their values, attitudes, behavioral patterns, likes/dislikes, motivational levels, commitment levels towards assigned roles etc. that are essential for sculpting a suitable job for every employee. Secondly, employers plead that they need to constantly monitor employees to enhance their job performance, prevent theft, fraud, and other illegal conduct.

The electronic surveillance of employers is often found to enhance the quality of control exercised on employees for improving productivity and efficiency. As against this, employees feel that electronic surveillance is breaching their expectation of ‘privacy’. This new-fangled electronic intrusion is what today is making employees restless about the loss of privacy and hence the chasm. But the ground realities are different: employers have a necessity to monitor their employees for improving organizational output while employees have a right to privacy. Hence, there is a strong need to reconcile these ground realities:  there is a need for employers to monitor their employees but without of course transgressing the ethical boundaries. Even the employees ought to resist the temptation to abuse the privilege of utilizing the electronic systems provided by the employer. Both have to appreciate each other’s requirements and strike a balance in their demands.

Does relationship mean revelation?

Basically, most of our relationships are either economic- or psychological-dependent. Dependency, as JK said, can generate fear, breed possessiveness and lead to friction, suspicion, frustration etc. among the involved. This fear leads to eternal search for isolating oneself in ideas and ideals. Though one is dependent on another, there is always a desire to be inviolate, to be whole.

Life is simply inconceivable without relationships. In relationships, the primary cause of friction is oneself. One can be harmonious with another only when one is harmonious integrally with oneself. In relationships the important thing to bear in mind is not the other but oneself. Relationship is a process of self-revelation in which one discovers the hidden causes of sorrow. This self-revelation is only possible in relationship. This raises the obvious question: does self-revelation mean revealing oneself to oneself or to others? To better appreciate this question one must first know how much he/she knows about himself/herself and importantly, one must also know how much others know about himself/herself. To better appreciate this concept let us take a look at “Johari window” that throws light on how much we know about ourselves and how much others know about us and how advantageous it is to know about one-self more from others who know about us.

‘Privacy’ and Johari window

Psychological research has indicated that there is a need for sensitivity training among employees to focus their attention on the understanding of their own behavior by knowing how others see them.  A simple tool that helps one to look at ‘self’ is the ‘Johari window’. This classifies individual behavior in matrix (figure 1) form into what is known – unknown to self; and what is known – unknown to others. It helps in illustrating and improving self awareness and thereby mutual understanding among the members of the group.

According to Oxford dictionary, ‘privacy’ means “the state or condition of being withdrawn from the society of others or from public attention; freedom from disturbance or intrusion; seclusion”. Obviously in the context of workplaces privacy doesn’t mean the state of being withdrawn from the organization but what employees are seeking from their employers is freedom from intrusion – intrusion into their e-mails, telephonic conversations, computer monitoring, keeping track of phone calls etc. According to American Management Association’s survey, more than half of US companies engaged in some form of monitoring e-mails of employees and this is what is being vehemently resisted by employees. Similarly, monitoring of computer terminals while one is working or scanning what is stored in the hard disc of an employee, gathering information about the phone calls made by the employee from the pen register, etc., are all considered intrusions of the employer. But from the standpoint of employer, the sophisticated technology that is today available is greatly enhancing the effectiveness of monitoring and ensuring productivity of employees. At the same time, employers can not afford to violate the basic expectations of employees for it diminishes trust excites emotional involvement of people that can lead to simple misunderstandings getting compounded resulting in personality clashes and ultimate breakdown of communication which is vital for the survival of any organization. The demand of the employees for privacy is thus posing a great challenge to businesses.

‘Privacy’: employee-employer chasm?

In the increasingly networked world, ‘groups’ are becoming a major feature of organizational life. Almost every activity of an organization calls for atleast some degree of coordination through the operation of group working. Organizations are known to function best when members act not as individuals but as members of a highly effective work groups. The more homogenous the group in terms of such things as shared backgrounds, interests, attitudes, and values, the easier it is to promote cohesiveness. Thus, an understanding of the nature of groups has become a must for the managers to influence the behavior of people in the work situation. It is in this context that employers argue that they need to peep into employees’ personality and trace their values, attitudes, behavioral patterns, likes/dislikes, motivational levels, commitment levels towards assigned roles etc. that are essential for sculpting a suitable job for every employee. Secondly, employers plead that they need to constantly monitor employees to enhance their job performance, prevent theft, fraud, and other illegal conduct.

The electronic surveillance of employers is often found to enhance the quality of control exercised on employees for improving productivity and efficiency. As against this, employees feel that electronic surveillance is breaching their expectation of ‘privacy’. This new-fangled electronic intrusion is what today is making employees restless about the loss of privacy and hence the chasm. But the ground realities are different: employers have a necessity to monitor their employees for improving organizational output while employees have a right to privacy. Hence, there is a strong need to reconcile these ground realities:  there is a need for employers to monitor their employees but without of course transgressing the ethical boundaries. Even the employees ought to resist the temptation to abuse the privilege of utilizing the electronic systems provided by the employer. Both have to appreciate each other’s requirements and strike a balance in their demands.

Does relationship mean revelation?

Basically, most of our relationships are either economic- or psychological-dependent. Dependency, as JK said, can generate fear, breed possessiveness and lead to friction, suspicion, frustration etc. among the involved. This fear leads to eternal search for isolating oneself in ideas and ideals. Though one is dependent on another, there is always a desire to be inviolate, to be whole.

Life is simply inconceivable without relationships. In relationships, the primary cause of friction is oneself. One can be harmonious with another only when one is harmonious integrally with oneself. In relationships the important thing to bear in mind is not the other but oneself. Relationship is a process of self-revelation in which one discovers the hidden causes of sorrow. This self-revelation is only possible in relationship. This raises the obvious question: does self-revelation mean revealing oneself to oneself or to others? To better appreciate this question one must first know how much he/she knows about himself/herself and importantly, one must also know how much others know about himself/herself. To better appreciate this concept let us take a look at “Johari window” that throws light on how much we know about ourselves and how much others know about us and how advantageous it is to know about one-self more from others who know about us.

‘Privacy’ and Johari window

Psychological research has indicated that there is a need for sensitivity training among employees to focus their attention on the understanding of their own behavior by knowing how others see them.  A simple tool that helps one to look at ‘self’ is the ‘Johari window’. This classifies individual behavior in matrix (figure 1) form into what is known – unknown to self; and what is known – unknown to others. It helps in illustrating and improving self awareness and thereby mutual understanding among the members of the group.

Figure 1: The Johari window

	Known to Self	Not Known to Self
Known to Others
Not Known to Others

The four quadrates of the matrix stand for:

1. open area, open self, free area, free self, of ‘the arena’ - what is known by the person about him/herself and is also known by others;

2. blind area, blind self, or ‘blindspot’ - what is unknown by the person about him/herself but which others know;

3. hidden area, hidden self, avoided area, avoided self or ‘façade’ - what the person knows about him/herself that others do not know;

4. unknown area or unknown self - what is unknown to the person about him/herself and is also unknown to others.

The central feature of the ‘Johari window’ is the reduction of the individual’s hidden behavior through self disclosure and reduction of the ‘blind behavior’ through feedback from others . In other words, an individual, to be productive in whatever context, needs to reveal himself to his pals and in turn acquire insights about  his/her  ‘self’ by availing feedbacl about his/her behavior from their pals..