Investigating Cultural Differences in Employee Privacy Perceptions: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Advances in workplace technologies are reshaping organisational practices and establishing new forms of employee monitoring, raising concerns about privacy and fairness across cultures. This study explores cross-cultural differences in employees’ privacy perceptions regarding workplace monitoring. Prior empirical work on employee monitoring has largely relied on single-country samples, limiting understanding of cultural variation in privacy perceptions. This article adopts a cross-cultural approach that links cultural value profiles to employees’ preferences for mandatory versus optional monitoring. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are utilised as a theoretical lens. Samples are taken from the United Kingdom, France, and Japan, as they vary in terms of individualism and power distance. An exploratory mixed-methods design was employed, combining a vignette survey with open-ended responses. Participants evaluated two hypothetical job offers that differed only in whether monitoring was mandatory or optional. Subsequently, they were asked to select one and provide responses to follow-up questions, explaining their rationale. This captures employees’ reasoning about privacy choices in context. Quantitative analyses indicate that individualism significantly predicts preference for an optional monitoring scenario, whereas power distance does not. Qualitative findings identified themes that employees link to monitoring practices, including trust, autonomy, fairness, and shared benefits, which were expressed differently across the three national contexts. Together, these findings extend cross-cultural privacy research to contemporary monitoring technologies and highlight the need for organisations operating transnationally to move beyond uniform global policies. The findings’ implications suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to succeed and that organisations should glocalise their policy frameworks to align with relevant cultural expectations.

Keywords

• Employee monitoring
• cross-cultural privacy
• workplace surveillance
• Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

Çalışanların Gizlilik Algılarındaki Kültürel Farklılıkların Araştırılması: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Abstract

İş yeri teknolojilerindeki gelişmeler, örgütsel uygulamaları yeniden şekillendirmekte ve çalışanların izlenmesine yönelik yeni biçimler ortaya çıkararak kültürler arası gizlilik ve adalet konularında endişeler yaratmaktadır. Bu çalışma, iş yerindeki izlemeye ilişkin çalışanların gizlilik algılarındaki kültürler arası farklılıkları incelemektedir. Çalışan izleme üzerine yapılan önceki ampirik çalışmalar çoğunlukla tek ülke örneklemlerine dayanmış, bu da gizlilik algılarındaki kültürel çeşitliliğin anlaşılmasını sınırlamıştır. Bu makale, kültürel değer profillerini çalışanların zorunlu ve isteğe bağlı izleme tercihleriyle ilişkilendiren kültürler arası bir yaklaşım benimsemektedir. Teorik bir çerçeve olarak Hofstede’in kültürel boyutları kullanılmaktadır. Örneklemler bireycilik ve güç mesafesi açısından farklılık gösteren Birleşik Krallık, Fransa ve Japonya’dan alınmıştır. Açıklayıcı bir karma yöntem tasarımı uygulanmış; bir senaryo anketi ile açık uçlu yanıtlar bir araya getirilmiştir. Katılımcılar, yalnızca izlemenin zorunlu veya isteğe bağlı oluşu bakımından farklılık gösteren iki varsayımsal iş teklifini değerlendirmiştir. Daha sonra birini seçmeleri ve gerekçelerini açıklayan takip sorularını yanıtlamaları istenmiştir. Bu yöntem, çalışanların bağlam içinde gizlilik tercihleri hakkındaki düşünme biçimlerini yakalamaktadır. Nicel analizler, bireyciliğin isteğe bağlı izleme senaryosunu tercih etmede anlamlı bir yordayıcı olduğunu; buna karşın güç mesafesinin etkili olmadığını göstermiştir. Nitel bulgular ise çalışanların izleme uygulamalarıyla ilişkilendirdiği güven, özerklik, adalet ve ortak faydalar gibi temaları ortaya koymuştur; bu temalar üç ulusal bağlamda farklı şekillerde ifade edilmiştir. Bulgular birlikte ele alındığında, kültürler arası gizlilik araştırmalarını günümüz izleme teknolojilerine genişletmekte ve kültürler arası faaliyet gösteren örgütlerin tek tip küresel politikalardan kaçınması gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bulguların ortaya koyduğu sonuçlar, tek kalıba uyan bir yaklaşımın başarılı olma olasılığının düşük olduğunu ve örgütlerin politika çerçevelerini ilgili kültürel beklentilerle uyumlu hâle getirmek üzere glokalleştirmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Çalışan izlemesi
• kültürler arası gizlilik
• iş yeri gözetimi
• Hofstede’in kültürel boyutları

References

1. Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). PsYchological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(10), 1027-1039. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982410001 google scholar
2. Adamovic, M. (2023). Breaking down power distance into 5 dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 208, 112178. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112178 google scholar
3. Aguinis, H., & BradleY, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodologY studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952 google scholar
4. Auspurg, K., & Jâckle, A. (2015). First equals most important? Order effects in vignette-based measurement. Sociological Methods & Research, 46(3), 490-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115591016 google scholar
5. Bellman, S., Johnson, E. J., Kobrin, S. J., & Lohse, G. L. (2004). international differences in information privacY concerns: A global surveY of consumers. The Information Society, 20(5), 313-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507956 google scholar
6. Blodgett, J. G., Bakir, A., & Rose, G. M. (2008). A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(6), 339-349. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760810902477 google scholar
7. Brown, W. S. (2000). Ontological security, existential anxiety and workplace privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(1), 61-65. https://doi. org/10.1023/a:1006223027879 google scholar
8. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2020, August 4). Can surveillance Ai make the workplace safe? MIT Sloan Management Review. https:// sloanreview.mit.edu/article/can-surveillance-ai-make-the-workplace-safe/ google scholar

9. Chang, S. E., Liu, A. Y., & Lin, S. (2015). Exploring privacy and trust for employee monitoring. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(1), 88-106. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-07-2014-0197 google scholar
10. CiPD. (2020). Workplace technology: The employee experience. Chartered institute of Personnel and Development. https://www.cipd. org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/workplace-technologY-2_tcm18-80853.pdf google scholar
11. Cockcroft, S., & Rekker, S. (2015). The relationship between culture and information privacy policy. Electronic Markets, 26(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0195-9 google scholar
12. Dai, Y., Li, H., Xie, W., & Deng, T. (2022). Power distance belief and workplace communication: The mediating role of fear of authoritY. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2932. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052932 google scholar
13. De Vos, S., Bockel-Rickermann, C., Van Belle, J., & Verbeke, W. (2024). Predicting emploYee turnover: Scoping and benchmarking the state-of-the-art. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 67, 733-752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-024-00898-z google scholar
14. Dienlin, T., & Metzger, M. J. (2016). An extended privacy calculus model for SNSs: Analyzing self-disclosure and self-withdrawal in a representative U.S. sample. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 368-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12163 google scholar
15. Engström, E., Eriksson, K., Björnstjerna, M., & Strimling, P. (2023). Global variations in online privacy concerns across 57 countries. google scholar
16. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 9, 100268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100268 google scholar
17. Eurofound. (2023, November 1). France: Employee monitoring and surveillance. https://apps.eurofound.europa.eu/LegisLationdb/ employee-monitoring-and-surveiLLance/france google scholar
18. European CounciL. (2024, June 13). The general data protection regulation. https://www.consiLium.europa.eu/en/poLicies/data-protection/data-protection-regulation/ google scholar
19. Eurostat. (2008, JuLY 10). Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community NACE Rev. 2. https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/documents/3859598/5902521/KS-RA-07-015-EN.PDF google scholar
20. Hodges, J. (2024). People-centric organizational change. Kogan Page. google scholar
21. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (VoL. 5). Sage PubLications. google scholar
22. Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of Life concept. The Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 389-398. https://doi. org/10.5465/amr.1984.4279653 google scholar
23. Hofstede, G. (2015, December 8). Dimension data matrix. Geert Hofstede. https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/ google scholar
24. Hofstede, G. (2024). Geert Hofstede biography in brief since 1928 until the present day. Geert Hofstede. https://geerthofstede.com/geert-hofstede-biographY/ google scholar
25. Hofstede, G., Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. J. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. google scholar
26. Hoorens, V., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). SociaL comparison of health risks: Locus of control, the person-positivity bias, and unreaListic optimism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(4), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01088.x google scholar
27. iCO. (2023). Employment practices and data protection. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/ empLoYment/monitoring-workers/data-protection-and-monitoring-workers/ google scholar
28. iE UniversitY. (2019, November 27). Data is the current and future source of competitive advantage. iE Driving innovation. https://drivin ginnovation.ie.edu/data-is-the-current-and-future-source-of-competitive-advantage/ google scholar
29. Jain, S. S., & Jain, S. P. (2018). Power distance beLief and preference for transparency. Journal of Business Research, 89, 135-142. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.016 google scholar
30. Johnson, M. K. (2001). Job values in the Young adult transition: Change and stability with age. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(4), 297317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090156 google scholar
31. Konle-Seidl, R., & Danesi, S. (2022). Digitalisation and changes in the world of work (PE 733.986). Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life PoLicies, Directorate-General for internal Policies, European Parliament. google scholar
32. Krasnova, H., Veltri, N. F., & Günther, O. (2012). Self-disclosure and privacy caLcuLus on sociaL networking sites: The roLe of cuLture. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(3), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-0216-6 google scholar
33. L&E GLobaL. (2024, October 22). 06. Social media and data privacy in Japan. https://LegLobaL.Law/countries/japan/empLoYment-Law/ empLoYment-Law-overview-japan/06-sociaL-media-and-data-privacY-in-japan/ google scholar
34. Lagios, C., Lagios, N., StingLhamber, F., & Caesens, G. (2022). Predictors and consequences of work aLienation in times of crisis: Evidence from two LongitudinaL studies during the COViD-19 pandemic. Current Psychology, 42(26), 22866-22880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 12144-022-03372-9 google scholar
35. Lamarre, E., Chheda, S., Riba, M., Genest, V., & Nizam, A. (2023, July 31). The value of digital transformation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2023/07/the-vaLue-of-digital-transformation google scholar
36. Laufer, R. S., & WoLfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a sociaL issue: A muLtidimensional deveLopmentaL theorY. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x google scholar
37. Li, Y. (2022). Cross-cuLturaL privacy differences. in B. P. Knijnenburg, X. Page, P. Wisniewski, H. R. Lipford, N. Proferes, & J. Romano (Eds.), Modern socio-technical perspectives on privacy (pp. 267-292). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_12 google scholar
38. Lowne, C. (2025, December 1). Nineteen eighty-four: Summary, characters, analysis, & facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www. britannica.com/topic/Nineteen-Eighty-four google scholar
39. Madan, S., Savani, K., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2023). Privacy please: Power distance and peopLe’s responses to data breaches across countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 54, 731-754. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00519-5 google scholar
40. Martin, K., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Some probLems with employee monitoring. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 353-361. https://www. jstor.org/stabLe/25075004 google scholar
41. McInroy, L. B., & Beer, O. W. J. (2021). Adapting vignettes for internet-based research: Eliciting realistic responses to the digital milieu. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/l0.1080/l3645579.2021.1901440 google scholar
42. Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(i), 68-74. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.68 google scholar
43. Metreau, E., Young, K. E., & Eapen, S. G. (2024, July i). World Bank country classifications by income level for2024-2025. World Bank BLogs. https://bLogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/worLd-bank-country-cLassifications-by-income-Level-for-2024-2025 google scholar
44. Mezey, N. (2001). Law as culture. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. https://scholarship.Law.georgetown.edu/ facpub/317 google scholar
45. Mihet, R. (2012). Effects of cuLture on firm risk-taking: A cross-countrY and cross-industrY anaLYsis. Journal of Cultural Economics, 37(1), 109-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-012-9186-2 google scholar
46. MiLberg, S. J., Burke, S. J., Smith, H. J., & KaLLman, E. A. (1995). VaLues, personaL information privacY, and reguLatorY approaches. Commu-nications of the ACM, 38(12), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1145/219663.219683 google scholar
47. MiLberg, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Burke, S. J. (2000). information privacY: Corporate management and nationaL reguLation. Organization Science, 11(1), 35-57. [suspicious link removed] google scholar
48. NPSA. (2018). France: Relevant legislation. NPSA https://www.npsa.gov.uk/system/files/documents/npsa_dentons_france.pdf google scholar
49. OECD. (2025). WorKing age population. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/working-age-popuLation.html google scholar
50. Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg. google scholar
51. Pogosyan, M. (2017). Geert Hofstede: A conversation about culture. PsychoLogy Today. https://www.psYchoLogYtodaY.com/intl/blog/ between-cultures/201702/geert-hofstede-a-conversation-about-cuLture google scholar
52. Post, R. (2003). Law and cuLturaL conflict. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78(2), 485-508. https://schoLarship.kentLaw.iit.edu/ckLawreview/voL 78/iss2/3 google scholar
53. Poushter, J., GubbaLa, S., & Austin, S. (2024, February 5). 8 charts on technology use around the world. Pew Research Center. https:// www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/05/8-charts-on-technology-use-around-the-world/ google scholar
54. Ravid, D. M., Tomczak, D. L., White, J. C., & Behrend, T. S. (2019). EPM 20/20: A review, framework, and research agenda for eLectronic performance monitoring. Journal of Management, 46(1), 100-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319869435 google scholar
55. ReaLo, A., Koido, K., CeuLemans, E., & ALLik, J. (2002). Three components of individuaLism. European Journal of Personality, 16(3), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.437 google scholar
56. Saif, D. (2024). The concept of aLienation and aLienation in organizations. Pancasila International Journal of Applied Social Science, 2(02), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.59653/pancasiLa.v2i02.714 google scholar
57. SawYer, J. E., & Gampa, A. (2020). Work aLienation and its gravediggers: SociaL cLass, cLass consciousness, and activism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(1), 198-219. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v8i1.1132 google scholar
58. Shantz, A., ALfes, K., Bailey, C., & Soane, E. (2015). Drivers and outcomes of work aLienation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(4), 382393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615573325 google scholar
59. Shook, E., Knickrehm, M., Sage-Gavin, E., & Accenture. (2019). Putting trust to worK: Decoding organizational DNA: Trust, data and unlocKing value in the digital worKplace. Accenture. google scholar
60. SiegeL, R., König, C. J., & Lazar, V. (2022). impact of eLectronic monitoring on empLoYees: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8, 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100227 google scholar
61. Siu, N. Y. M., & Lam, K.-C. J. (2009). A comparative study of ethical perceptions of managers and non-managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 167-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9824-Y google scholar
62. Squires, A., Sadarangani, T., & Jones, S. (2020). Strategies for overcoming Language barriers in research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(2), 706-714. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14007 google scholar
63. Steiner, P. M., AtzmüLLer, C., & Su, D. (2016). Designing vaLid and reliabLe vignette experiments for survey research: A case studY on the fair gender income gap. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 7(2), 52-94. https://doi.org/10.2458/v7i2.20321 google scholar
64. Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., ELLison, N. B., Quiring, O., Yao, M. Z., & ZiegeLe, M. (2017). A cross-cuLturaL perspective on the privacY caLcuLus. Social Media + Society, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116688035 google scholar
65. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., ViLLareaL, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). individuaLism and coLLectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on seLf-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323 google scholar
66. Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. (2010). Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1259-1274. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.41 google scholar
67. U.S. Congress. (1987). The electronic supervisor: New technology, new tensions (OTA-CiT-333). U.S. Government Printing Office. https://ota.fas.org/reports/8708.pdf google scholar
68. Viberg, O., KiziLcec, R. F., Jivet, i., Martînez Mones, A., Oh, A., Mutimukwe, C., Hrastinski, S., & Scheffel, M. (2024). Cultural differences in students’ privacy concerns in learning analytics across Germany, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 14, 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100416 google scholar
69. Wolff, J., & Atallah, N. (2021). EarlY GDPR penalties: Analysis of implementation and fines through May 2020. Journal of Information Policy, 11, 63-103. https://doi.org/l0.5325/jinfopoli.11.2021.0063 google scholar
70. Wolford, B. (2024). What are the GDPR fines? GDPR.eu. https://gdpr.eu/fines/ google scholar