Gözetimin Ontolojisi ve Yönetimin Pratiği: Dijital Panoptikonun İşletme Üzerindeki Etkileri

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dijital panoptikon çerçevesinde log tabanlı çalışan izlemenin modern emek denetimini nasıl dönüştürdüğünü incelemektedir. Dijitalleşmeyle birlikte çalışma süreçleri görünür ve ölçülebilir hale gelmiş, algoritmik olarak yönetilen bir yapıya evrilmiş; çalışanlar yalnızca emek üreten değil, aynı zamanda sürekli veri sağlayan öznelere dönüşmüştür. Literatür sentezine dayalı bu kavramsal analiz, dijital gözetimin örgütsel davranışı çok boyutlu biçimde yeniden yapılandırdığını göstermektedir. Bu dönüşüm; çalışan davranışlarının nesneleşmesi ve sürekli görünür hale gelmesi, performansın kategorik olarak sınıflandırılması ve göreli biçimde kıyaslanması ile algoritmik otorite ve öngörüye dayalı kontrol mekanizmalarının karar süreçlerinde belirleyici hale gelmesi üzerinden gerçekleşmektedir. Bu yapısal dönüşümün bir sonucu olarak, algoritmik yönetim çalışanlarda teknostres, değerlendirilme kaygısı ve kontrol kaybı gibi psikososyal etkiler üretirken; örgütsel güveni, ilişkisel sermayeyi ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışlarını zayıflatmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, dijital panoptikon performans değerlendirmeyi görünür metriklere indirgerken emeği veri temelli bir mantık doğrultusunda yeniden yapılandıran bir kontrol rejimi ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çerçeveden hareketle, çalışma dijital gözetimi süreç–mekanizma–çıktı ilişkisi içinde ele alarak literatürdeki parçalı yaklaşımları bütüncül bir çerçevede birleştirmekte ve dijital gözetim uygulamalarının etik, hukuki ve yönetişim boyutlarının birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu yönüyle, gelecekteki araştırmalar için teorik bir temel sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Dijital Panoptikon
• Çalışan İzleme Sistemleri
• Algoritmik Yönetim
• Örgütsel Davranış ve Gözetim

Supporting Institution

Yoktur.

Project Number

Yoktur.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, araştırma ve yayın etiği kurallarına uygun olarak hazırlanmıştır. Çalışmada insan katılımcılara, kişisel verilere veya etik kurul onayı gerektiren herhangi bir uygulamaya yer verilmemiştir. Tüm veriler ve analizler akademik dürüstlük ve etik ilkeler doğrultusunda yürütülmüştür.

Thanks

Yoktur.

The Ontology of Surveillance and the Practice of Management: The Effects of the Digital Panopticon on Organization

Abstract

This study examines how log-based employee monitoring transforms modern labor control within the framework of the digital panopticon. With digitalization, work processes have become visible and measurable, evolving into an algorithmically managed structure in which employees are not only producers of labor but also continuous generators of data. Based on a synthesis of the literature, this conceptual analysis shows that digital surveillance reshapes organizational behavior in multiple ways. This transformation occurs through the objectification and visibility of employee behaviors, the classification and comparison of performance, and the growing role of algorithmic authority and predictive control in decision-making processes. As a result, algorithmic management produces psychosocial effects such as technostress, evaluation anxiety, and loss of control, while weakening organizational trust, relational capital, and organizational citizenship behaviors. In this context, the digital panopticon reduces performance evaluation to observable metrics and establishes a data-driven control regime. The study conceptualizes digital surveillance through a process–mechanism–outcome framework, integrating fragmented literature and highlighting the need to address its ethical, legal, and governance dimensions. It thus provides a theoretical basis for future research.

Keywords

• Digital Panopticon
• Employee Monitoring Systems
• Algorithmic Management
• Organizational Behavior and Surveillance

Supporting Institution

None

Project Number

Yoktur.

Ethical Statement

This study has been conducted in accordance with research and publication ethics. The study does not involve human participants, personal data, or any procedures requiring ethics committee approval. All data and analyses were carried out in line with academic integrity and ethical principles.

Thanks

None

References

1. Ajunwa, I., Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2017). Limitless worker surveillance. California Law Review, 105(3), 735-776.
2. Andrejevic, M. (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. University Press of Kansas.
3. Ball, K. (2010). Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History, 51(1), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00236561003654776
4. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147
5. Bentham, J. (2020). The panopticon writings. Verso Books.
6. Bernstein, E. S. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212453028
7. Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2012). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 34(4), 542-559. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1847
8. Boudreau, J., & Cascio, W. (2017). Human capital analytics: why are we not there?. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(2), 119-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2017-0021

9. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. The costs of connection. Stanford University Press.
10. Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L., & Neysen, N. (2019). Working for an algorithm: Power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(3), 644–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219867024
11. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
12. De Stefano, V. (2015). The rise of the just-in-time workforce: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the gig-economy. Comparative Labour Law and Policy Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682602
13. Deleuze, G. (2006). Postscript on the Societies of Control. Surveillance, crime and social control. Routledge. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization science, 12(4), 450-467. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
14. Edward, R. C. (1980). Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. Basic Books.
15. Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology, 49(3), 401–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975609000150
16. European Parliament and Council. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
17. European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
18. Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2016). What is data ethics?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0360
19. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
20. Gandy, O. H. (2021). The panoptic sort: A political economy of personal information. Oxford University Press.
21. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. Surveillance, crime and social control. Routledge.
22. Han, B.C. (2017). Şeffaflık toplumu (çev. H. Barışcan). Metis Yayınları.
23. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
24. König, C. J. (2025). Electronic monitoring at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 12, 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-060758
25. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity.
26. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
27. Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization science, 24(5), 1337-1357. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806
28. Moore, P. V. (2018). Tracking affective labour for agility in the quantified workplace. Body & Society, 24(3), 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X18775203
29. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
30. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
31. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
32. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. The Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
33. Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary approach. Springer.
34. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. Yale university press.
35. 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.
36. Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2017). The technostress trifecta‐techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information systems journal, 29(1), 6-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169
37. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2018). Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, employment and society, 33(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
38. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.