UZAKTAKİ İŞGÖRENLERİ YÖNETMEK: ELEKTRONİK İZLEME-GÖREV PERFORMANSI İLİŞKİSİ

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 21 Sayı: Special Issue on 24th International Business Congress, 82 - 91, 27.03.2026

Gökhan Bitmiş , Mert Özkum

https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.1811375

https://izlik.org/JA87KK79TS

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Elektronik izleme , Gözetim , Görev performansı , Organizasyonlarda davranış

Etik Beyan

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Etik Komisyonu’nun 2025/395 sayılı kararı ile bu çalışmada kullanılmış olan anketin etik açıdan uygunluğu onaylanmıştır.

MANAGING REMOTE WORKERS: THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING-TASK PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP

https://izlik.org/JA87KK79TS

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Electronic monitoring , Surveillance , Task performance , Organizational behavior

Etik Beyan

The Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Ethics Committee has approved the ethical suitability of the questionnaire used in this study with its decision numbered 2025/395.

Kaynakça

• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Bartels, L. K., & Nordstrom, C. R. (2012). Examining big brother's purpose for using electronic performance monitoring. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(2), 65-77.
• Bhave, D. P. (2014). The invisible eye? Electronic performance monitoring and employee job performance. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 605-635.
• 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.
• 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.
• Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• 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.
• 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.
• Findlay, P., & McKinlay, A. (2003). Surveillance, electronic communications technologies and regulation. Industrial Relations Journal, 34(4), 305-318.
• 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.
• 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.
• Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131-146.
• König, C. J. (2025). Electronic monitoring at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 12, 321-342.
• Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Attributing trustworthiness in supervisor-worker relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(2), 214-232.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current directions in psychological science, 15(5), 265-268.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Stanton, J. M. (2000). Reactions to employee performance monitoring: Framework, review, and research directions. Human Performance, 13(1), 85-113.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.