The effects of employer SNS motioning on employee perceived privacy violation, procedural justice, and leave intention

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a model to understand how and when employees’ perceived privacy violations and procedural injustice interact to predict intent to leave in the context of the use of social networking sites (SNSs) monitoring. Design/methodology/approach This study was conducted in a field setting of Facebook to frame the hypotheses in a structural equation model with partial least squares-structural equation modeling. Variables were measured empirically by administering questionnaires to full-time employed Facebook users who had experienced SNS monitoring. Findings The results showed that when an employee believed that he/she had more ability to control his/her SNS information, he/she was less likely to perceive that his/her privacy had been invaded; and when an employee believed that the transparency of the SNS data collection process was higher, he or she was more likely to perceive procedural justice in SNS monitoring. Research limitations/implications This research draws attention to the importance of intent to leave in the absence of perceived procedural justice under SNS monitoring, and the partial mediation of the perception of justice or injustice by perceived privacy violations. Practical implications For employers, the author recommends that employers come to know how to conduct SNS monitoring and data collection with limited risk of employee loss. Social implications For employees, the author suggests that SNS users learn how to control their SNS information and make sure to check their privacy settings on the SNS that they use frequently. Originality/value This study provided an initial examination and bridged the gap between employer use of SNS monitoring and employee reactions by opening a mediating and moderating black box that has rarely been assessed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.