A study of employee attitudes towards position monitoring
Nitai Sallem
Psychology, bachelor's level 2018
Luleå University of Technology
Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences
Abstract
During the last 100 years, elevated focus has been on workplace safety. The use of
technological improvements and work design changes contributed to saving thousands of lives.
This study was designed to understand employee attitudes towards an employee-positioning technology. The positioning technology developed by Mobilaris shows employees location in real time with the intention of aiding in decision making and improving safety in dangerous work environments. Employee attitudes towards the positioning technology and the privacy issues that may follow were studied using semi-structured qualitative interviews with
employees of the steel factory SSAB in Borlänge Sweden. Results show different positive uses for the technology, and acceptance of it by all the participants. However, participants believed that privacy issues will arise in other departments who would not gain of the technology as clearly, due to less unsafe work conditions. The type of work being done, the situation, trust, control and empowerment were found to be important factors in affecting employee attitudes.
These findings are in line with previous research on employee attitudes towards surveillance.
Further research including other departments as well as changes in work design may be needed when aiming to achieve a smooth integration of such a system, and better cooperation with employees.
Keywords: Safety, positioning, privacy, employee acceptance.
Under de senaste 100 åren har fokus på arbetsplatsens säkerhet ökat. Användningen av tekniska förbättringar och förändringar av utformningen av arbetet bidrog till att spara tusentals liv.
Denna studie utformades för att förstå medarbetarnas attityder gentemot en personal- positioneringsteknik. Den positioneringsteknik som Mobilaris utvecklar visar arbetstagarnas plats i realtid med avsikt att hjälpa beslutsfattande och förbättra säkerheten i farliga arbets- miljöer. Medarbetarnas attityder gentemot positioneringstekniken och de integritetsproblem som kan bli följden studerades med hjälp av halvstrukturerade kvalitativa intervjuer med anställda i stålfabriken SSAB i Borlänge, Sverige. Resultaten visar olika positiva användnings- områden för tekniken och acceptans av alla deltagare. Deltagarna menade emellertid att integritetsproblem kommer att uppstå i andra avdelningar som inte skulle ha samma nytta av tekniken på grund av mindre osäkra arbetsförhållanden. Den typ av arbete som utförs, situationen, förtroendet, kontrollen och empowerment visade sig vara viktiga faktorer som påverkar medarbetarnas attityder. Dessa resultat ligger i linje med tidigare forskning om
medarbetares attityder till övervakning. Ytterligare forskning som inkluderar andra avdelningar samt förändringar av arbetsmetoder kan behövas för att uppnå en smidig integrering av ett sådant system och bättre samarbete med de anställda.
Nyckelord: Säkerhet, positionering, integritet, anställdas acceptans.
Introduction
During the last 100 years, elevated focus has been on workplace safety, contributing to saving thousands of lives. In the early 1900s, deaths and injuries in the workplace were a common phenomenon (Hofmann, Burke, & Zohar, 2017). Since then there has been a great
improvement in occupational safety, but it is still of great concern. In 2012 there were 4,930,000 injuries in the USA, requiring medical attention at a cost of 198 billion dollars (National safety council, 2014 referenced in Hofmann et al., 2017). And so, the workplace has become safer thanks to technological improvements, work design changes and the use of personal protective equipment. However, there are still too many incidents and a recent report informed that approximately 150 workers die in the USA every day due to hazardous working conditions (Hofmann et al., 2017).
Statistics from the work environment authority show the amount of work related injuries and accidents in Sweden. During 2016 there were 122,468 work related injuries reported in Sweden. 45 of those accidents resulted in death. This means 0,8 deaths in work accidents for every 100,000 employees (Arbetsmiljöverket, 2016).
The work environment of miners is considered to be one of the most dangerous in the world.
The lack of information regarding the location of miners caught in accidents and the delayed information that an accident happened and where, dramatically increases the number of fatalities. In case of an emergency, it is critical to be able to locate personnel as soon as possible (Pronenko & Dudkin, 2016). Evidence shows the risks, with 3120 workers injured in Ukraine from 1994-2003 and 1822 fatally injured in Russia during the same period (Pronenko &
Dudkin, 2016). One company which aims to make the work environment of miners safer is Mobilaris.
Mobilaris is a company based in Sweden that develops a position-based decision support system. According to A. Wittenberg (personal communication, 10 April 2018), business development and product manager at the company, the system aims at increasing safety and productivity in underground mines. Using real-time positioning, the system visualizes where all the miners, vehicles and equipment are, at any given moment. With that overview, decision making becomes easier and better. One of the most important features of the system is evacuation support. It enables the ability to: locate all personnel in case of an emergency, know if they are above ground or underground and whether they are safe or not.
Mobilaris is now interested in spreading its technology to other dangerous work
environments. The steel factory SSAB in Borlänge Sweden claims to have increased its safety work during recent years and to put safety first (https://www.ssab.com/company/about- ssab/borlange). As it seems, SSAB Borlänge might have the kind of work environment who could use Mobilaris technology. Having such a system in SSAB and other hostile work environments could possibly benefit both the organization and employees in many ways.
However, according to Chang, Liu, and Lin (2015) employee attitudes regarding acceptance of the different ways to monitor employees differ depending on who you ask.
Figure 1. Mobilaris system real-time positioning in Boliden, Sweden.
Ciocchetti (2011) gives a different view on the use of GPS and radio frequency identification.
Employers today use these technologies to authorize the operation of equipment, determine if the number of hours employees claim to have worked are correct, produce real-time reports on employee productivity and encourage competition among employees to enhance
productivity (Ciocchetti, 2011). The most problematic use of this kind of location monitoring involves tracking employees who are off duty or outside company territory. Regardless of the reason for monitoring, whether it is used on equipment or the persons themselves, it is disliked by employees (Ciocchetti, 2011).
Canoni (2004) takes a law-related perspective on employees’ privacy rights regarding location awareness technologies. He warns of the risks of resistance when employers try to implement such systems. Canoni (2004) warns that employees might be inventive and find different ways around such positioning systems. They may find ways to block wireless signals, run out of battery or lose these company-provided tracking devices. Employers can even expect resistance from unions who will demand to bargain over location awareness technologies so that it will not be used to discipline or evaluate employees. If GPS information is going to be used to discipline an employee the employer must be able to show the existence of reasonable suspicion before accessing the information (Canoni, 2004).
Townsend and Bennett (2003) propose a few areas for unions to focus on while bargaining for employee privacy while maintaining the employer's interest in productivity and corporation.
The first one is creating clear privacy boundaries. This will give employees a work environment where observation and monitoring are predictable and bound. The second proposal is to establish privacy procedures and guidelines. This refers to areas such as; who does the monitoring, and how the information can be used. Finally, protecting employees’
personal information needs to be discussed and clear security guidelines should be achieved (Townsend & Bennett, 2003).
Theoretical background
A study made by Allen, Walker, Coopman, and Hart (2007) showed that employees’
acceptance of employee monitoring depended on privacy rules being determined early and that the purpose of monitoring was explained to employees when they first started working.
Many employees accept monitoring as legitimate and do not experience a privacy threat by it (Mason, Button, Lankshear, Coates, & Sharrock , 2002). According to Allen et al. (2007) in general, employees draw the line at monitoring private messages or tracking specific places, so that information will not be used to build a case against an employee and affect them
negatively.
Some other important findings from Allen et al. (2007) are that monitoring must be essential for guaranteeing effective employee performance, protect the organization's interests, or protect a third party such as the client. Besides that, the monitoring must happen as effectively, with as little invasion of privacy as possible (Persson & Hansson, 2003). Hoffman, Burke, and Zohar (2003) suggest that employers should create a possibility for employees to participate in setting privacy boundaries and affect the way monitoring is used.
Zweig and Webster (2002) found that when monitoring systems were not invading privacy, justified reasons for system implementation were given and the system was perceived as useful, individuals were likely to accept monitoring systems. Spitzmüller and Stanton (2006) claims that if organizations can find a way to enhance employees’ organizational identification and affective commitment they would decrease the likelihood of resistance and concomitantly increase compliance with monitoring and surveillance. Other studies have shown that employees who receive an advance notice about the use of surveillance and justifications for monitoring were more likely to see monitoring as fair (Hovorka-Mead, Ross Jr., Whipple, &
Renchin, 2002; Stanton, 2000).
Communication privacy management.
The theory Communication privacy management (CPM) is a practical theory for evaluating employee monitoring and study employee’s reactions towards workplace surveillance (Chang, et al., 2015). According to CPM, individuals have a need for privacy and feel that they have the right to own private information either alone or collectively. CPM focuses on how the individual manages the boundaries between private and openly shared information. When information is shared with others they become co-owners of that information and some sort of negotiation takes place around how the information can be used or shared. Boundary
turbulence appears when a person who is not a co-owner of the information attempts to access it (Petronio, 2002).
Petronio (2002) describes five fundamental assumptions in CPM theory. Assumption number one involves revealing aspects of oneself which are not known to others. Individuals believe they have a right to own private information even in the workplace, as for example private errands or relationships at work. The second assumption concerns the boundaries between what should be private information, information to be shared with others, and publicly known information. Individuals manage the boundaries of sharing or withholding information
depending on certain conditions which are either agreed upon beforehand or depend on the specific context (Petronio, 2002).
Assumption number three says that individuals feel vulnerable and offended when control is taken away from them because they are worried about how their private information will be used. The fourth assumption explains that when you share private information with someone, that person becomes a co-owner of the information and its boundaries. That gives rise to privacy rules. These rules decide on who should have access to the information, when and how much of the information (Petronio, 2002). The fifth assumption says that dialectic tensions rise during different kinds of interactions when a person needs to choose how much private information they wish to share, depending on the gain or cost that follows (Petronio, 2002).
A study by Chang et al. (2015) showed the importance of organizational culture for turbulence appearance in CPM. Their study showed that control-oriented organization culture was associated with higher turbulence in CPM than a flexibility-oriented organization culture. The difference can depend on the fact that flexibility-oriented emphasize
empowerment, teamwork, creativity, information sharing, and that these work environments often come with less privacy invasion and supervising (Chang et al., 2015). Apart from that, Chang et al. (2015) found that when turbulence in CPM arises, it is followed by less trust towards the employee monitoring policy, and that trust in monitoring policy and monitoring members led to higher commitment and cooperation regarding employee monitoring.
Smith and Brunner (2017) designed a study in order to see which “core” or “catalyst”
criterions employees use when deciding to share or withhold private information. These two criterions are relatively new components in CPM (Petronio, 2013, referenced in Smith &
Brunner, 2017). With core criterions they mean fixed reasons humans use to decide between sharing private information or keeping it to themselves (Petronio, 2013, referenced in Smith
& Brunner, 2017). The study found two primary core criterions which employees use to regulate privacy boundaries. The first was organization culture. How much information should be shared depended on what people believed was accepted in the organization. The other criterion was relationship and trust. Trust in both the organization and an individual person had great impact on turbulence in CPM (Smith & Brunner, 2017).
Catalyst criterions describe situations in which humans change their privacy boundaries
(Petronio, 2013, referenced in Smith & Brunner, 2017). Smith and Brunner (2017) found that humans change privacy boundaries in situations when they calculate risks vs gains, and when they desire feedback. Under normal circumstances the information would not be revealed because of the core criterion organization culture, but when gains overshadowed risks, it was easier for employees to reveal the information. The same thing applies to the feedback criterion. If it was important for an individual to receive feedback on something, the core criterion was abandoned for the circumstantial catalyst criterion and private information was revealed (Smith & Brunner, 2017).
Empowerment.
Empowerment in the workplace applies to an employee’s cognitive appraisal of attributes that lead to a feeling of control (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Empowerment depends on intrinsic task motivation which is represented by four cognitive premises: competence, self-
determination, influence and meaning. Competence is all about one’s confidence in completing an assignment skillfully. Self-determination is the level of autonomy one has in planning and executing work assignments. Impact means that an employee can have an effect
on work execution and result. Meaning refers to the sense of personal worth and value of one’s contribution (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
When organizations exercise power in the form of systematic monitoring it is likely that employees will show resistance through avoidance or counterproductive work behavior (Lawrence & Robinson, 2007). Perceived control is also an important factor in research about surveillance and workplace behavior. Employees’ perception of control seems to be a critical factor which affects their attitudes towards surveillance (Varca, 2006). Lower levels of perceived control lead to more avoidant behavior towards the organization since employees try to take revenge against the organization and gain back their lost freedom (Lawrence &
Robinson, 2007).
Martin, Wellen, and Grimmer (2016) discovered that empowerment in the workplace plays a vital role in negating these unwanted effects of surveillance. Employees who have a strong sense of empowerment appeared to be more resilient to the negative attitudes and behaviors that result from extended surveillance. These findings are of great importance as organizations have the ability to enhance employee’s feelings of empowerment through work design adjustments (Martin et al., 2016).
Purpose and research questions
The Swedish steel production factory SSAB in Borlänge and other industries are constantly trying to improve safety and promote a safer work environment for their employees. The Mobilaris system was designed to improve safety and effectivity in mines. The work environment in SSAB is of course different than that found in a mine in various ways. It is therefore interesting to explore if and how such a positioning system could be of use there and whether it would improve safety or violate integrity.
Considering how new this technology is, it is understandable that there is a limited amount of research on this positioning system. Based on the earlier research presented above we can understand some of the expected difficulties with bringing such a system to a workplace. As it seems, most research done on the topic of employee monitoring or positioning discusses work environments where the purpose of the surveillance is to control employee behavior or protect company equipment through for example email monitoring, performance monitoring, surveillance cameras and more. The purpose of the discussed technology by Mobilaris looks to be of a different purpose, which is to increase the safety of workers and improve the effectivity of the organization. It is therefore important to understand how employees feel towards this kind of position monitoring, and which factors are important for them when implementing this kind of positioning system.
Gaining more information about employees’ privacy boundaries can improve integration of such a system and increase employee cooperation. It will improve safety in these kinds of dangerous work environments, give employees a greater sense of security, improve effectivity and save many lives. Therefore, this subject is important to study. The purpose of this study was to investigate SSABs employees’ acceptance of such a positioning technology and their attitudes towards it.
The research questions were:
- How do employees experience positioning technology?
- How can positioning technology be implemented effectively without intruding employee privacy?
- Which factors affect employee attitudes towards positioning technology?
Method Choice of method
In order to achieve an understanding of how Mobilaris decision-making and positioning technology could be used in SSAB Borlänge and how employees felt regarding it a qualitative approach was taken. As Howitt (2013) describes it; qualitative method puts the focus on detailed descriptions and catching the individual’s perspective. My reasoning was mainly inductive, using earlier research to gain some understanding of the research area, without generating any hypotheses to test. Instead, I have focused on trying to generate detailed data which was later discussed in relation to the earlier research done on the subject.
Choice of respondents
A strategic selection of participants was made. The respondents were SSAB Borlänge
employees working in the security department of the facility. The choice seemed relevant due to the purpose of the Mobilaris technology which mostly serves safety and effectivity purposes.
Respondents were alarm operators and alarm mechanics, both working mainly with
security/safety issues. According to the interviewees, alarm operators are located in a control room and their work is to supervise the company’s perimeters, receiving security alarms and delegating assignments to alarm operators. They also provide service to departments and are coordinators throughout the facility. The alarm mechanics have a dynamic role as they are in constant movement, checking the different alarm centrals, inspecting safety equipment in the facility such as fire extinguishers, sprinklers etc. They also provide services to other personnel, and answer alarms regarding for example accidents or a security breach.
The specific department was considered as the most appropriate for the study because of their involvement and experience in the organization’s safety work and their familiarity with other departments and the organization entirely.
Data collection
The data for this study was collected in the SSAB factory in Borlänge Sweden. The head of security in the factory had arranged for me and my supervisor to conduct semi-structured interviews with the above-mentioned members of the security department. Howitt (2013) describes the qualitative interview as a method which encourages respondents to talk openly and thoroughly. Semi-structured interviews were chosen as the desired method since the
purpose was to understand their attitudes towards the positioning technology and to generate new ideas for implementation of it in SSAB Borlänge. The semi-structured interview guide was built based on earlier research and relevant theories on Empowerment and
Communication privacy management (CPM) (Appendix).
The interview guide was first tested on an SSAB worker at the factory in Luleå. The pilot interview helped with readjusting the questions and getting an estimation of the interview time. A total of six individual interviews were performed in Borlänge during two days; the 20- 21 in March 2018. Four of the participants were males and two females. The interviews were conducted in the employees break room during work hours. They took between 40-90 minutes each. The interviews started with more general questions and thereafter we explained and exemplified the current uses of the Mobilaris technology. More specific questions
regarding positioning followed afterwards. The interviews were performed by me and my supervisor. Being two interviewers made it easier to notice different aspects of the answers given by the participants and to ask relevant follow-up questions. The interviews were recorded by both a mobile phone and a recording device.
Data analysis
The recorded data was transcribed using an orthographic transcription style in a Word format.
This style is described by Howitt (2013) as focusing on the content of what is being said rather than how it is being said. Citations were translated from Swedish to English in the most precise way possible. After the transcripts were done I began coding the data. The data was coded using “QDA miner lite”, which is a free software designed to aid with qualitative analysis. Basit (2003) recommended the use of software in the coding process to make the analyzing process smoother and less time-consuming. Basit (2003) describes a method to create codes. It is possible to create a list of codes before the fieldwork, the list is created from the conceptual framework, the research questions and key variables of the study. Regarding category names, Basit (2003) mentions that they can come from a pool of concepts the researchers have from their professional reading. They can even be borrowed from literature or be words and phrases that informants have used. Thanks to my pilot interview and my review of earlier studies I was able to generate a list of relevant codes and possible categories in advance. Other codes were added, removed or modified afterwards.
The coding was done for each line or a group of sentences depending on the content. The coding software made it easier to create new codes, edit existing ones and eventually merge the data into four main categories/themes. Some codes and themes were more concrete, describing the content of data while others were more abstract, being related to theoretical concepts. My purpose was not to create a new theory from the data but instead describe employees’ attitudes towards Mobilaris technology, the uses of it and how to implement it without employees experiencing privacy invasion. Therefore, I have focused on understanding and describing the data and the patterns leading to these attitudes. This was done with the help of similar earlier research and appropriate theoretical concepts, together with my own
comprehension.
In order to assure high credibility, we designed the interview based on the appropriate theories and the specific purpose of the study. Applicability was also designed to be high considering how specific the research questions are and the purpose this study aims to serve. To ensure high quality analysis and let the data speak for itself, I made sure to keep an objective approach
in mind during the whole process of data gathering and analysis, trying not to use leading questions, or express any attitudes towards positioning.
Ethical considerations
Throughout the entire research, the ethical requirements were kept in mind. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and what their role in the study is according to the ethical principles given by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002). They were informed that their involvement was voluntary and that they were free to call off their
involvement. The information given by them would be deleted if they wished, without consequences for them. Regarding the anonymity aspect, we informed the participants about the fact that the recordings were only going to be handled by us, no one else would have access to them and it could not be traced back to who said what in the complete report. Once all the necessary information was given, participants gave their consent to participate and their approval was recorded with the rest of the interview. All participants were over 30 years old and were able to give their consent by themselves (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002).
Results
This qualitative study was designed to achieve an understanding of employees attitudes towards a positioning technology by using a thematic analysis. Using data from interviews with employees we have managed to identify some main aspects when implementing such a technology and the implications of it. Once the coding was done, the different codes were assembled under four main themes showing the most important findings from our research.
These themes were Safety, Empowerment, Communication privacy management (CPM), and Positioning.
Safety
The way safety was viewed in the organization had clearly changed for the better in the last couple of decades. Participants reported that safety is discussed regularly nowadays, employees work in a safer way and are more inclined to use security equipment than before. Participants described the view on safety in the following ways: “There is very much talk about safety, very very much, and it has changed a lot I would say since I started working here…”. There are even fewer accidents nowadays than before, “we have been working really hard with the safety aspect in the company so that there aren’t so many accidents and it looks much better today”.
The subject of safety routines was also discussed. The responsibilities of the alarm mechanics are divided into two parts. The first is preventive work through inspection of fire
extinguishers/safety equipment, doors etc. One of the most important routines for alarm- mechanics is doing patrols with a vehicle around the facility, preventing intrusion from the outside. This is done by one alarm-mechanic at night while the other one stays in the inside area. Answering calls from accidents and providing help to those involved is the second part of their responsibility. In case something happens the routine today is that the person calling or alarming should give the alarm-mechanic the closest gathering point for them to meet at.
These gathering points are all around the fabric and also serve as a gathering point in case of an evacuation situation. The security department is also involved in planning and leading safety
drills for all the departments in the facility. Participants reported that there are often some shortcomings when performing these evacuation drills.
When asked about what is prioritized, safety or production, it appears that safety usually comes first but in some situations, production must keep going at the cost of safety. “When working in production they always say that safety comes first, but later you can question some decisions being made because many times it's about producing and there is a lot of money involved”. A few participants associated the difference in safety thinking to age, “it sits still in those who are older, that you have to keep production rolling”. One participant believed safety behavior varies between different workgroups as well, “You see a big difference between new people who got the right information from the beginning and teams who have been here 40 years.
It’s a big difference”.
In order to understand the uses of such a positioning system in the factory, we asked participants about risks and dangerous situations in the factory. Participants even described their current routines for dealing with these dangerous situations. Some of the more common dangers according to participants are: “There are such areas wherever you go, there are
moving parts, acid, steam, hot water, risk of crushing injuries, all kinds possible as mentioned”.
Participants described the dangers when they are going in by themselves to underground culverts; “You can fall, hit your head, you have both things over your head and a stumbling risk, there are electricity cables in many places”.
There are situations when one alarm-mechanic work alone in dangerous environments or situations, going in underground tunnels or checking alarms coming from the fences, meeting intruders. During such times when working alone, most of the participants said that they have a routine of communicating with the alarm-operator and reporting that they are going in to a risky area where connection is bad, and they are going to report after a decided amount of time, otherwise the alarm-operator can try to contact them or send someone to check on them.
Empowerment
The second theme is empowerment. We asked participants questions regarding empowerment to understand if and how empowerment or the lack of it can affect attitudes towards
positioning. Participants described their control over work assignments as very high. They are in charge of how they perform their routine assignments, with some deadlines to meet. Their control is limited though when emergency calls come in and they need to prioritize them. “I have no supervisor or work manager, we are our own managers”. Another participant described it as followed: “You can decide by yourself actually. I can decide which time I am doing patrols…I think you can decide here, everyone does it differently, as long as things get done, you sort of have your own routines”. Participants who had experience from working in the production departments described much less control in the production departments, compared to where they work now, “then you have a driving schedule that you follow… it’s the production that decides”.
It seems that there is much flexibility in the work assignments of the security department.
Flexibility can even be required of the employees themselves who need to handle different and unexpected situations. “I can choose a little bit how I plan my day as I want, when I come in the morning I don’t have to do that exactly at 8 o’clock, we have some meetings that we have to attend but otherwise I can mostly choose how I plan my shift, I think that
flexibility is good”. Another participant described the need to be flexible: “It’s pretty much taking the day as it comes, you don’t know at all what waits here and so”.
When asked about their ability to control the results of their performance, most of the
interviewees did not worry too much about failing or making wrong decisions. “We can’t be everywhere, but I feel no pressure for missing something I should have seen, you try to do the best you can and work according to the circumstances”.
All the participants experience meaning with their work - giving service to people and even saving lives when responding to accident scenarios. “We are both ambulance, fire department and police in our little universe so its something that is appealing in my opinion”.
Communication privacy management (CPM)
Another theme that was generated from the theoretical background is Communication privacy management (CPM). Under this theme, I have gathered the findings which can be related to the different components of the theory and earlier studies on it.
An interesting aspect regarding the organizational culture was brought up by the participants.
The interviewees mentioned that the security department is also in charge of doing alcohol and drug tests on workers from the different departments. It is also normal to do these tests on drivers involved in accidents. Participants also revealed that the alarm mechanics sometimes wait by the entrance gate and check the bags of workers finishing their shift, making sure they have not stolen anything. When asked about how necessary the drug/alcohol checks are, one participant responded; “I think so absolutely, I don’t want any colleague to die from someone lifting 30 tons material when are under influence and misjudges and drops the material
somewhere it's not supposed to be”. Other participants simply said that it was a decision made by the management who are aware of the stealing.
Most of the participants revealed to us that there are some issues regarding relationships between the workers in the security department and the management. Contact with their manager is mostly professional according to them, and there was some critique towards the management. “Hmm yeah its professional I would say, we talk work and not much more”. “I can only talk about the small stuff I brought up, it sounds like it is heard but then nothing happens”. Participants reported that they believe the management trusts that they do a good work; “I understand it so that they believe I do a good work anyway, I have never received anything negative, I only got to hear good things about myself from the management”.
“Yeah, I think so, I always got to hear when I was working well so I think it’s good, constantly actually”.
As it seems, feedback and the contact with management differ a bit depending on who we asked. Compared to the last two excerpts above, described another participant the feedback from the management in the following way: “It’s the kind of stuff that makes you not get involved because you know it doesn’t matter, even if I wouldn’t do anything it wouldn’t do nothing. No one reacts about it”. Compared to their relationships with the management, participants told us that they have a good relationship with their co-workers and most of them can talk about almost anything with others. However, there have been some conflicts between workers of the different teams in the department. Participants did not go into details but
mentioned that there are still some conflicts and that they are currently working on a solution.
Positioning
The final theme collects all the data regarding the mentioned Mobilaris positioning technology. It includes attitudes, privacy issues, advantages/disadvantages, how the system could be used and by who.
There is apparently some sort of positioning system used today by the security department.
The system is called “Amigo” and enables users to see a trail of where other users have been between point A and B, so it does not show a live location. The location function of the system can be used to write reports showing where alarm mechanics have been under their patrols. Participants also mentioned that the union stepped in so that it will not be possible for managers to monitor their employees location and see where they have been. One of
participant told us: “When we started using it the union said no to it, so we don’t use it anymore, the union means that we shouldn’t be monitored in our work”.
After explaining to the participants how the studied technology works we asked participants what they believed could be the uses, advantages or disadvantages of such a technology. All of the participants mentioned that they would react positively to this kind of positioning
technology and named different kinds of positive uses for it. All of the participants mentioned the usefulness of such a system when working alone in dangerous situations/places where radio communication might not work. Alarm mechanics working in underground tunnels or answering alarms by themselves mentioned that they would feel safer when their colleagues know where they are.
Different participants described their attitudes towards positioning in the following ways: “I believe in such strictly from a safety point of view, you are found much easier then…working as an alarm mechanic one would feel safe”. “If we say that I’m working by myself then I have no problems with them seeing where I am, I would like to have the one in the alarm-center knowing where I am”. “For me personally it would be supreme because I’m in so many places and alone. Down in cable-culverts and very strange places where you have no signal”.
Participants also explained how such a system could be helpful in evacuation situations given that they are the ones who manage such crisis situations. “For us it would totally be good, same goes when you evacuate a place you get a fast view if everyone is out, it is so”. “If there is a catastrophe alarm when you have to evacuate the area then it would be good to see, wait there are people left there, now its empty, so we can be calm”.
Another useful application of the technology could be locating callers who report accidents or other safety issues. The person calling may have difficulties describing the location of the incident because of injury/illness or unfamiliarity with the facility. “For us its very good if you can directly get an exact position, the thing you sometimes waste most time on is finding someone”. “For us it would be very good if we got to see directly…they call in the alarm phone…so we know which gathering point, it comes as a blinking dot on the map that it is there”.
As seen above, the security department saw such a positioning system as useful in different ways. But there are also disadvantages and difficulties when implementing such a system in a workplace. The interesting part is that when speaking of themselves, participants would not have any problems if their position was seen by others. However, they saw a difficulty for other employees to accept such a system even if it is only the security department who
receives the information. All of the participants believed that other departments would protest
and would have a hard time accepting a positioning system, especially those who work in production. Participants explained that production personnel work mostly in teams and are rarely alone so that they would not see the positioning system as useful and they would simply feel monitored.
“You basically never sit alone anywhere, the feeling of being unsafe does not exist when you know you have colleagues around you all the time, they know if I go somewhere and don’t come back they might be suspicious”. “They are so many there, so you have communication so often with each other and know where people are all the time. They keep an eye on each other, there you are not in inaccessible places and run by yourself”. “If you would put it out in the production there would be an outcry, because it is a problem now when you ask them to use the card in the card reader, because then you are monitored”.
Another issue brought up by the participants is the mistrust towards the security department by other workers. “People think we sit up here and have total knowledge of where they go, that we have cameras and sit and check what people do and stuff”. Another participant believed that those who are worried being positioned are workers who misbehave in their work, taking long breaks or going to places they should not be at. “If I am somewhere I shouldn’t be, if I’m in the city driving around there and something happens here the only downside is that you can see where I was”. A difficulty for the alarm operator to follow the big number of employees in the factory was also mentioned. “There are so many people moving around here so it might be difficult”. “It completely depends on how many people there are, if it's 10 or 500”.
Other difficulties and risks that were brought up were the fact that other employees should not gain access to how patrols are done by the alarm mechanics, and the risk for someone from outside hacking the system gaining information about the factory. Most of the participants also saw no need for being able to look back on how others moved over time.
Looking backward at where other workers have been was mentioned by different participants as something that could be used against employees and would not be approved by the union worried about privacy invasion, as mentioned above with the “Amigo” technology.
Regarding how the positioning information should be used and by who, participants believed it is the security department that should have the access to it. “In that case it’s the alarm center that has some positioning, so the alarm operator has access and can see on a screen…so it's just them that have access into the alarm center”. “You could use the system so that you turn it on when you are alone, but it can be good for the one in the alarm center if it is them who know where we are so when they get a call they can easily delegate work from the alarm center, because they see who is closest”.
Participants did not mention the management as someone who would have use of the system, even if a few participants said that they wouldn’t have anything against it. Other people who would have use of being positioned are according to the participants those who work alone in dangerous places. These people can be mechanics, electricians or plumbers that work alone in dangerous places, and today have a lone-worker alarm, otherwise, new employees or
entrepreneurs who are unfamiliar with the area. When discussing which factors can affect employee acceptance towards positioning, different factors were mentioned. The most significant factor was whether working alone or with others. Participants believed those who work alone would accept the positioning system much easier. The following statements were made by participants:
“I think that if you work alone it's easier to accept it because its self-protection. If you work in a group, sitting in a cabin as an operator in a line in here then I think it would be hard to understand why really, they don’t see a benefit from it”. “It's only when its alone-work that you can explain it in a good way, that it's for one’s own safety”.
Having control over the activation of the system was also seen as a possible factor for avoiding resistance towards being positioned. However, one participant believed it is an individual thing. “Some would always have it closed because they don’t want to be monitored while others would feel: great now you have full awareness of where I am”. Two of the participants mentioned the importance of giving employees information about the uses and purpose of the system to get them to corporate with it.
“I can think that if you get much and clear information about how the system is built and what the purpose is, that it’s a good enough explanation”. “If you have a discussion with them and explain that it is not used always and constantly, but only in emergency situations”.
One participant also brought up the issue of the security department checking other employees, which could make it harder for others to accept them having the position information. “As long as our department stands for the exit controls then…I know we have had so before that Securitas did the exit controls, that might make sense to do”.
Discussion Results discussion
This study was designed in order to gain an understanding of employee attitudes towards Mobilaris technology which aims to improve safety and productivity in dangerous industries/work environments.
Results have shown that the way employees and management view safety in the factory has improved over the course of time. I would like to believe that the elevated focus on working safely and using security equipment is noticed by all the employees, making them feel safer. It might also be that when the organization promotes safety, and the number of accidents decreases, employees may develop an understanding of the importance and usefulness of such security systems and equipment.
Under the theme “Safety” we have uncovered some of the safety routines used today by the security departments. The responsibilities and the different kinds of dangerous situations they face were also presented. An interesting finding is that the security department is the one leading evacuation drills. Participants told us that there are often shortcomings whenever an evacuation drill takes place. This might depend on safety routines not being taught to employees or that they are not being repeated enough and therefore forgotten. It might also be a communication failure or lack of engagement from some employees. Knowing what these flaws depend on is an important issue that needs to be studied in order to implement such a positioning system to be used in evacuation situations.
As results show, safety is usually preferred over production, meaning less risk for human lives and more trust from employees towards their employer’s interest in keeping them safe.
Considering how different participants mentioned the fact that safety may sometimes be overlooked in favor of production, it might affect the trust relationship between employees
and management. If employees believe that production is more important than their safety, I assume that it would make them more suspicious towards the purpose of the positioning, leading to less acceptance. By making sure employees know that their safety comes first, organizations may be able to enhance employees’ affective commitment towards the organization, something that according to Spitzmüller and Stanton (2006) could increase employee compliance with monitoring and surveillance.
The subject of empowerment in the organization was also studied. As mentioned, we asked participants questions regarding empowerment in their workplace in order to see if and how empowerment can be related to employee acceptance of surveillance in the workplace.
Studying the different components of empowerment, it seemed that both alarm mechanics and alarm operators experience a high level of each of the empowerment components in their work. As mentioned above these are competence, self-determination, influence, and meaning.
Results show that participants have a high amount of control over their work assignments, planning their day freely according to their own preferences. As mentioned by Lawrence and Robinson (2007), employees’ perception of control could be a critical factor affecting their attitudes towards surveillance. Given the fact that in general, our participants experience a great amount of control over their assignments I believe it had contributed to their positive attitudes towards being positioned just as earlier research has found.
Another aspect to amplify my argument is the claim by Varca (2006); lower perceived control leads to more avoidant behavior, and a desire for revenge against the organization to regain lost freedom. Participants who had earlier experience from working in the production departments described having much less control over work assignments in these departments and at the same time strongly believed that employees working there would strongly protest against being positioned. I believe my findings support those made by Martin et al. (2016) regarding how empowerment plays a vital role in negating the negative effects of surveillance.
Even in my study, it appears that those who have a stronger sense of empowerment are more resilient to the negative attitudes and counterproductive behaviors that can result from extended surveillance. Considering these findings, it might be wise to adopt the recommendations by Martin et al. (2016), and through work-design try to enhance
production employees feeling of empowerment to avoid the negative consequences following position surveillance.
Another theory I have used to evaluate employees attitudes towards surveillance is Communication privacy management (CPM). The theory was chosen to help with
understanding which boundaries employees set when revealing private information. In this case, the private information was their location from the positioning technology.
One discovery which I find very interesting is the fact that the security department sometimes do alcohol/drug tests on other employees and even check their bags when leaving the
workplace to make sure they have not stolen anything. I suspect that this finding is some sort of indication regarding the organization culture. As I mentioned earlier Chang et al. (2015) showed the importance of organizational culture for turbulence appearance in CPM, showing that control-oriented organization culture leads to higher turbulence in CPM. In this case, it would seem like the organization culture in SSAB Borlänge might be more control-oriented.
Taking this into consideration, employees may experience supervision, privacy invasion and lack of trust represented by such invasive checks. Therefore, it is understandable that
turbulences in CPM might occur when asking employees to reveal information about their
location. These turbulences may lead to negative attitudes towards employee positioning, as it was found by Chang et al. (2015), which eventually could lead to counter-productive
behavior by employees as they feel less trust, flexibility, and empowerment.
Smith and Brunner, (2017) describe two core criterions used by employees to decide privacy boundaries. Those were firstly; organization culture and secondly; relationships & trust. As my findings regarding organization culture show, it is likely that employees experience the
organization as more control-oriented. This I believe, might cause decreased trust and relationship quality because when feeling controlled, one would be less keen to open up and share information compared to when feeling trusted. Regarding relationships & trust, the findings show a good relationship and high trust between co-workers, and a seemingly professional relationship with the management with lower levels of trust.
The catalyst criterions described by Smith and Brunner (2017) were calculating the risks vs gains, and a desire for feedback. I believe that the findings of my study support those of Smith and Brunner (2017). In my study as well, the core criterions organization culture and
relationship & trust would seemingly not encourage employees to reveal their private information (constant position) to the management. However, participants willingness to be monitored could be partially explained by the catalyst criterions risk vs gains and their desire for feedback. As a few participants believed, those who have nothing to hide would not have anything against being monitored, meaning that employees who do their work properly have nothing to lose by being positioned. If information regarding employees’ location could be used against them in the form of control, it could also be used to protect them in case of emergency, and even be used as proof in case of false accusations against them, depending on what each employee could lose or gain.
Secondly, it was mentioned by some participants that motivation for performing well at work or taking extra responsibilities is low because such actions are not being noticed by the
management, and no feedback is given. I see a possibility in which these employees are more accepting of being positioned because they desire their efforts to be noticed by the
management and co-workers, meaning that they might receive the feedback they do not get nowadays.
Under the theme “Positioning” I have gathered all the aspects regarding the Mobilaris technology and the implementation of it. Results have shown that a positioning technology already existed in the factory, although it is different in its nature from the Mobilaris
technology. The “Amigo” technology used by the alarm mechanics faced resistance from the union just as Canoni (2004) warned about the union showing resistance and bargaining over location awareness technologies so that it will not be used to discipline or evaluate employees.
The different purpose of Mobilaris technology might be less intrusive and may face less resistance from the union.
From a safety point of view, we can see the usefulness of positioning the alarm mechanics and other employees who work alone in dangerous areas of the facility where there is no
communication. The positioning system is also seen as useful by participants in case of emergency evacuation or locating callers reporting accidents in need of assistance. As several participants mentioned, there seems to be no real necessity of positioning employees who work in the production departments and motivating the need for it would be difficult. As Zweig and Webster (2002) found, individuals were more likely to accept monitoring systems when the system was perceived useful, justified reasons for it were given and it was not
invading privacy. Considering the difficulty in giving justified reasons for monitoring
production employees and the difficulty for them to experience usefulness from the system, it is reasonable to believe that production employees would only see the positioning system as privacy-invasive.
Another important finding by Zweig and Webster (2002) was the importance of being able to modify the technical aspects of the technology, choosing which features would be presented and how. I also believe this might be of importance when implementing Mobilaris technology in different work environments, seeing how participants in the current study suggested
different modifications and conditions which might affect acceptance of being positioned.
Participants also mentioned the importance of giving information to employees regarding the nature of the technology, and how it would be used. This supports Allen et al. (2007) findings that employee acceptance of monitoring depended on privacy rules being set early and
explanation regarding the purpose of the technology was given to them when they started working. This might also explain the difference mentioned by participants on attitudes of older employees and those teams who have been working there a long time. These employees seemingly tend to be less accepting of position monitoring compared to younger and newer employees.
When discussing, who are the ones who should use the system and have access to the information, the security department was seen as the ones who would have the best usage of it, mostly the alarm operator. As mentioned earlier, the security department is also the one in charge of alcohol/drug tests, and even checks for theft. I tend to believe that just as one of the participants mentioned, it would be wise to either cancel these checks or let another
department oversee them. By doing this, it could remove the lack of trust and the suspicion other departments have towards the security department, and they would more willingly give their location information to alarm operators/alarm mechanics, knowing the information is used to make them safer.
Method discussion
This study used a qualitative method in the form of semi-structured interviews. After performing this study, I still believe this was the most relevant method for gaining the most appropriate data in this research. Regarding the inter-rater reliability, I believe it to be high. It is difficult for one to assess their own coding and categorizing because each researcher might focus on different aspects of the data. I believe that the fact that I used earlier research to conceptualize themes in advance helped with a more accurate coding of the data and ensuring focus on the findings which were most relevant for my research questions.
I would like to say that the credibility of this research was high as well. Considering how my results and interpretations showed much consensus with earlier findings I would like to believe that I was able to understand my results in a good way, giving relevant analysis and
clarifications to the issues discussed in this paper. I trust that the meaningfulness of this research shows itself through how interrelated the results are, describing the different aspects to be considered when monitoring employees in the form of positioning, from individual and psychological aspects affecting attitudes to collective and organizational ones.
The applicability of this study is believed to be of good quality. This comes as a result of the specific purpose of the study, aiming at using this research for a practical and more effective implementation of the discussed positioning technology. Also revising earlier research and
giving a better understanding of employee attitudes makes this study a useful tool for the studied SSAB factory, and other organizations who seek to use similar technologies for different purposes.
As an objective researcher, I had no other intentions with this study but to gain more
understanding on the subject of this study. I made sure to be objective throughout the whole study, analyzing my data with the help of earlier research and an objective viewpoint. I realize that it is difficult to be completely aware of one’s own preunderstanding and how it affects the analysis process. In any case, I find it assuring that as Howitt (2013) mentioned, each
researcher has a different way of viewing the data and generating codes and themes from their own point of view, giving much freedom to the researcher.
I found it challenging to choose which excerpts to take so that they would mirror the results of the study in the best possible way. I tried to present the results so that they would show what most of the participants believed and even mention interesting individual statements. A factor that could have affected the results is that the specific purpose of the study and usage of a theoretical analysis for creating themes in advance may have caused our follow-up questions to be more limiting and not as wide as I would like them to have been. Having that in mind I still do not believe that our questions were non-objective in any way.
Another challenge was finding relevant research on the subject, considering the specific issue and how new the technology is. It was also difficult to choose excerpts and analyzing data regarding CPM because of the sensitivity of what was said and the low number of participants, coming from the same department. The initial plan was to also talk to participants in other departments, but due to constraints, we did not get the opportunity to do that. I also anticipated being able to complete more interviews and have more participants during the time we stayed in Borlänge. I feel however that we received clear results from our participants, who started to repeat themselves, so more interviews with members of the security
department may not have been needed.
Conclusions
Studying SSAB Borlänge employees’ attitudes towards the Mobilaris positioning technology has uncovered much interesting information. My findings show that higher amounts of trust, empowerment, and control over the system can affect employee attitudes towards location monitoring positively, and lower levels of these factors, negatively. It is also of great
importance for employees to receive information about the uses of the positioning technology and being able to see the usefulness of it. In the case of the studied factory, it seemed that most of the employees which are production personnel, do not feel unsafe and do not work alone in dangerous places where the usefulness of the positioning technology is felt more. Those who had more positive views towards using the positioning system were the participants of this study, working as alarm mechanics and alarm operators. These employees work with safety/security issues or alone in dangerous places and seemed to experience positioning as useful in certain situations rather than experience privacy invasion.
As it appears now, it would be difficult to implement the Mobilaris system in the SSAB factory in Borlänge without resistance from employees. It would require work design changes for production employees, detailed information and negotiation about how and when the system will be used, and a convincing explanation regarding the necessity of the positioning
technology. The results of my study are in line with previous research, supporting earlier studies on the subject and just as the purpose of this qualitative study was, describing and explaining the research area through rich information and an analysis of the findings.
This study brought light to the attitudes of the employees in the security department at the facility. To avoid speculation regarding other employees’ attitudes, it would require further research with employees of different departments. By doing a study of larger scale it would be possible to gain a complete and accurate picture of how employees from the different
departments view such a positioning technology. We could then also understand how it could be implemented to increase safety in the most effective way possible without the negative consequences from employees experiencing privacy invasion. Understanding employees’ needs and their attitudes towards such new technologies is I believe to be the key to better
cooperation from employees working in such dangerous environments, leading to less safety risks for employees and safer industries.
References
Allen, M. W., Walker, K. L., Coopman, S. J., & Hart, J. L. (2007). Workplace surveillance and managing privacy boundaries.Management Communication Quarterly, 21(2), 172-200.
doi: 10.1177/0893318907306033
Arbetsmiljöverket. (2016) Arbetsskador 2016: Occupational accidents and work-related diseases. Retrieved 18 May 2018 from:
https://www.av.se/globalassets/filer/statistik/arbetsskador-2016/arbetsmiljostatistik- arbetsskador-2016-rapport-2017-1.pdf
Basit, T. N. (2003). Manual or electronic? the role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45(2), 143-154. doi: 10.1080/0013188032000133548
Canoni, J. D. (2004). Location awareness technology and employee privacy rights. Employee Relations Law Journal, 30(1), 26-31. Retrieved from: http://www.aspenpublishers.com/
Chang, S. E., Liu, A. Y., & Lin, S. (2015). Exploring privacy and trust for employee monitoring. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 115(1), 88-106. doi:10.1108/IMDS- 07-2014-0197
Ciocchetti, C. A. (2011). The Eavesdropping Employer: A Twenty-First Century Framework for Employee Monitoring. American Business Law Journal, 48(2), 285-369.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-1714.2011.01116.x
Hofmann, D. A., Burke, M. J., & Zohar, D. (2017). 100 years of occupational safety research:
From basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 375-388. doi:10.1037/apl0000114 Hovorka-Mead, A., Ross Jr., W., Whipple, T., & Renchin, M. (2002). Watching the detectives: Seasonal student employee reactions to electronic monitoring with and without advance notification. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 329-362. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2002.tb00113.x
Howitt, D. (2013). Introduction to qualitative methods in psychology (2 uppl.) Edinburgh:
Pearson.
Lawrence, T., & Robinson, S. (2007). Ain't Misbehavin: Workplace deviance as organizational resistance. Journal Of Management, 33(3), 378-394.
doi:10.1177/0149206307300816
Martin, A. J., Wellen, J. M., & Grimmer, M. R. (2016). An eye on your work: How
empowerment affects the relationship between electronic surveillance and counterproductive work behaviours. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(21), 2635- 2651. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1225313
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. doi: 10.1080/13691180208538806
Persson, A., & Hansson, S. (2003). Privacy at Work - Ethical Criteria. Journal Of Business Ethics, 42(1), 59-70. doi:10.1023/A:1021600419449
Petronio, S. (2002) Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pronenko, V., & Dudkin, F. (2016). Electromagnetic system for detection and localization of the miners caught by accident in mine. Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods & Data Systems Discussions (GID), 1-10. doi:10.5194/gi-2016-20
Röda korsets högskola (2015). Guide till referenshantering enligt APA-systemet. Retrieved from: http://www.sh.se/p3/ext/res.nsf/vRes/bibliotek_apa_referenser_2015_pdf/$File/APA- referenser%202015.pdf
Smith, S. A., & Brunner, S. R. (2017). To Reveal or Conceal: Using Communication Privacy Management Theory to Understand Disclosures in the Workplace. Management
Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 429-446. doi:10.1177/0893318917692896 Spitzmüller, C., & Stanton, J. M. (2006). Examining employee compliance with
organizational surveillance and monitoring. Journal Of Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 245-272. doi:10.1348/096317905X52607
Stanton, J. M. (2000). Traditional and electronic monitoring from an organizational justice perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 129-147. doi:
10.1023/A:1007775020214
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An
"Interpretive" Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy Of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681. doi:10.5465/AMR.1990.4310926
Townsend, A. M., & Bennett, J. T. (2003). Privacy, technology, and conflict: Emerging issues and action in workplace privacy. Journal of Labor Research, 24(2), 195-205. doi:
10.1007/BF02701789
Varca, P. (2006). Telephone surveillance in call centers: Prescriptions for reducing strain. Managing Service Quality, 16(3), 290-305. doi:10.1108/09604520610663507 Vetenskapsrådet. (2002). Forskningsetiska rådet inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Retrieved 23 April 2018 from:
https://www.gu.se/digitalAssets/1268/1268494_forskningsetiska_principer_2002.pdf Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2002). Where is the line between benign and invasive? An examination of psychological barriers to the acceptance of awareness monitoring systems. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 605-633. doi:10.1002/job.157
Appendix
Intervjuguide
Inledning
Hur gammal är du?
Hur länge har du arbetat i företaget?
Berätta lite om din arbetsplats, vad arbetar ni med?
Vad är din roll i företaget? Vad arbetar du med?
Hur ser en typisk arbetsdag ut?
Hur är känslan i gruppen?
Tillit och uppfattning av ledning (cpm)
Hur ser kontakten ut med chefer?
Finns det någon form av övervakning idag? Hur går den till?
Hur är stämningen mellan arbetslaget och ledningen?
Hur öppet pratar du med dina chefer? Kan du ge exempel på när ni delade med varandra om något privat?
Var tycker du går gränsen mellan vad som är accepterad övervakning och vad som är integritetskränkande?
Hur upplever du tilliten på arbetsplatsen? Tycker du att dina chefer litar på att du gör ett bra jobb?
Hur mycket information delar du med dina arbetskamrater?
Hur väljer du vilken information du kan dela med och vilken som du ska hålla för dig själv?
Kontroll och Empowerment
Hur upplever du din kontroll över dina arbetsuppgifter? På vilka sätt får du arbeta självständigt?
På vilka sätt är ditt arbete flexibelt?
Får du arbeta kreativt? Hurdå?
Hur skulle du beskriva ditt bidragande till företaget? Vad hittar du för mening med ditt arbete?
Hur ser organisationskulturen ut? Vad lägger man särskilt betydelse på?
Skulle du beskriva den som mer kontrollorienterad eller flexibilitetorienterad? Varför?
Presentera tekniken
Positionering
På vilka sätt tror du att ett positioneringssystem skulle kunna förbättra din arbetsplats/säkerhet?
Vad tror du att nackdelarna/fördelarna med ett sådant system kan vara?
Hur hade du reagerat till en sådan teknologi? Vad blir skillnaden mellan google/ sociala medier?
På vilka sätt hade man kunnat förbättra denna teknologin eller anpassa den till arbetsplatsen?
Vad är viktigt för dig när du ska acceptera ett sådant system?
På vilka sätt hade du önskat att denna teknologin används?
Vilka regler eller gränser tror du att man ska ha vid användning av en sådan teknologi?
På vilka sätt hade du önskat att informationen från denna teknologi ska användas eller inte användas?
Vilka personer tycker du borde ha tillgång till denna information? Eller inte få?
På vilka sätt tror du att ett sådant system skulle påverka ditt eget arbete?
På vilka sätt skulle denna teknologi påverka din motivation?
Hur tror du att dina medarbetare skulle acceptera denna teknologi?
Säkerhet på arbetsplatsen- rutiner och risker
Hur ser man på det här med säkerhet och produktivitet? Är det tydligt vad som prioriteras?
Har ni någon gång haft en säkerhetsolycka här? Hur har denna påverkat din arbetsmotivation?
Hur känns det för dig gällande trygghet på arbetsplatsen? Berätta om någon gång du har upplevt fara.
Hur väl känner du till säkerhetsrutinerna? Hur tycker du dessa fungerar?
Hur ser säkerhetsutrustningen ut idag?
Vad känner du att du hade behövt för säkerhetsutrustning? På vilket sätt hade du känt dig tryggare?
Ensamarbete
Hur ofta arbetar du ensam? Arbetar du ensam i farliga områden?
Vilka farliga områden finns det? Vilka är mer farliga?
Vad finns det för risker där?
Vad har ni för rutiner ifall en olycka sker där du arbetar ensam?
Hur trygg känner du dig med att arbeta ensam på de farligare områden?
Vilka är det som vet var du är när du arbetar där?
