Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Cyberloafing in the workplace: mitigation tactics and their impact on individuals’ behavior

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the Internet permeating every aspect of daily life, organizations of all types are increasingly concerned about the degree to which their employees are cyberloafing by shirking their work responsibilities to surf the Internet, check e-mail, or send text messages. Although technological interventions against cyberloafing have been shown to be effective, they might be perceived by employees as an invasion to their privacy, and are expected to have repercussions on employee behavior and loyalty. The main objectives of this study are to (1) examine how the introduction of such technological interventions might affect employees’ emotions and fairness perceptions, and (2) understand the effect of the interventions on behavioral outcomes, i.e., employees’ intentions to cyberloaf and their loyalty to the company. We developed a justice-based framework that we empirically test using a field experiment composed of field surveys complemented with hypothetical scenarios describing new organizational initiatives to curb employees’ cyberloafing. Our findings suggest that technological interventions, although associated with perceptions of unfairness, are effective at controlling cyberloafing, albeit at the expense of employee loyalty. On the other hand, contrary to prior findings, we find that fairness perceptions of technological interventions, although reinforcing employee loyalty, are ineffective at curbing cyberloafing. These findings are especially enlightening in that they contradict a common belief that perceived fairness encourages employees, as a sign of their appreciation for this fairness, to curb their misuse of IT. The findings also help managers fine-tune their cyberloafing policies to achieve a long-lasting remedy to their employees’ cyberloafing while maintaining a necessary level of employee loyalty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Organizational justice research defines three types of justice perceptions: distributive justice, i.e., the perceived fairness of outcomes, e.g., pay; procedural justice as the fairness of the “procedures used to determine one’s outcomes” [18, p. 435], i.e., their “consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality” [18, p. 435]; and interactional justice as encompassing “various actions displaying social sensitivity, such as when supervisors treat employees with respect and dignity (e.g., listening to a subordinates’ concerns, providing adequate explanations for decisions, demonstrating empathy for the other person’s plight)” [18, p. 435]. It is also widely recognized in organizational justice research “that a considerable proportion of perceived injustices did not concern distributional or procedural issues in the narrow sense but instead referred to the manner in which people were treated interpersonally during interactions and encounters” [18, p. 435].

  2. We reassessed a structural model after taking into account CMV and confirmed that the results of the hypotheses did not change.

References

  1. Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckman J (eds) Action control: from cognition to behavior. Springer, New York, pp 11–39

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anandarajan M (2002) Profiling web usage in the workplace: a behavior-based artificial intelligence approach. J Manag Inf Syst 19(1):243–266

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anandarajan M, Simmers C (2005) Developing human capital through personal web use in the workplace: mapping employee perceptions. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 15:776–791

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson C, Agarwal R (2010) Practicing safe computing: a multimethod empirical examination of home computer user security behavioral intentions. MIS Q 34(3):613–643

    Google Scholar 

  5. Askew K, Buckner J, Taing M, Ilie A, Bauer J, Coovert M (2014) Explaining cyberloafing: the role of the theory of planned behavior. Comput Hum Behav 36:510–519

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bagozzi R, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bearden W, Netemeyer R, Mobley M (1993) Handbook of marketing scales: multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bies R (2001) Interactional (in) justice: the sacred and the profane. In: Greenberg J, Cropanzano R (eds) Advances in organizational justice. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 89–118

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bonifield C, Cole C (2007) Affective responses to service failure: anger, regret, and retaliatory versus conciliatory responses. Mark Lett 18(1–2):85–99

    Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell MC (2007) “Says who?!” How the source of price information and affect influence perceived price (un) fairness. J Mark Res 44(2):261–271

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cheng L, Li W, Zhai Q, Smyth R (2014) Understanding personal use of the Internet at work: an integrated model of neutralization techniques and general deterrence theory. Comput Hum Behav 38:220–228

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chin W, Gopal A, Salisbury W (1997) Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: the development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Inf Syst Res 8(4):342–367

    Google Scholar 

  13. Colquitt J, Rodell J (2015) Measuring justice and fairness. Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace, 187–202

  14. Colquitt J, Scott B, Rodell J, Long D, Zapata C, Conlon D, Wesson M (2013) Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. J Appl Psychol 98(2):199

    Google Scholar 

  15. Culnan M, Bies R (2003) Consumer privacy: balancing economic and justice considerations. J Soc Issues 59(2):323–342

    Google Scholar 

  16. Farh J, Earley P, Lin S (1997) Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Adm Sci Q 42(3):421–444

    Google Scholar 

  17. Finkel NJ (2001) Not fair! The typology of commonsense unfairness. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  18. Folger R, Skarlicki DP (1999) Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment. J Org Change Manag 12(1):35–50

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fornell C, Larcker D (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garrett R, Danziger J (2008) Disaffection or expected outcomes: understanding personal Internet use during work. J Comput Med Commun 13(4):937–958

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 4(7):1–77

    Google Scholar 

  22. Guo K, Yuan Y, Archer N, Connelly C (2011) Understanding nonmalicious security violations in the workplace: a composite behavior model. J Manag Inf Syst 28(2):203–236

    Google Scholar 

  23. Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108:814–834

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hair JF Jr, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1995) Multivariate data analysis, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Henle C, Kohut G, Booth R (2009) Designing electronic use policies to enhance employee perceptions of fairness and to reduce cyberloafing: an empirical test of justice theory. Comput Hum Behav 25(4):902–910

    Google Scholar 

  26. Herscovitch L, Meyer JP (2002) Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. J Appl Psychol 87(3):474–487

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hu L, Bentler P (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J 6(1):1–55

    Google Scholar 

  28. Iverson RD (1996) Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organizational commitment. Int J Hum Resour Manag 7(1):122–149

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jöreskog K, Sörbom D (1996) LISREL8: user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  30. Khansa L, Kuem J, Siponen M, Kim S (2017) To Cyberloaf or not to cyberloaf: the impact of the announcement of formal organizational controls. J Manag Inf Syst 34(1):141–176

    Google Scholar 

  31. Khansa L, Liginlal D (2009) Valuing the flexibility of investing in information security process innovations. Eur J Oper Res 192(1):216–235

    Google Scholar 

  32. Khansa L, Xiao M, Liginlal D, Kim S (2015) Understanding members’ active participation in online question-and-answer communities: a theory and empirical analysis. J Manag Inf Syst 32(2):162–203

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kim S, Malhotra N, Narasimhan S (2005) Two competing perspectives on automatic use: a theoretical and empirical comparison. Inf Syst Res 16(4):418–432

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kim S, Son J (2009) Out of dedication or constraint? A dual model of post-adoption phenomena and its empirical test in the context of online services. MIS Q 33(1):49–70

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kumar N, Scheer L, Steenkamp J (1995) The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. J Mark Res 32(1):54–65

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lee S, Lee S, Yoo S (2004) An integrative model of computer abuse based on social control and general deterrence theories. Inf Manag 41(6):707–718

    Google Scholar 

  37. Li H, Sarathy R, Zhang J, Luo X (2014) Exploring the effects of organizational justice, personal ethics and sanction on internet use policy compliance. Inf Syst J 24(6):479–502

    Google Scholar 

  38. Liberman B, Seidman G, McKenna K, Buffardi L (2011) Employee job attitudes and organizational characteristics as predictors of cyberloafing. Comput Hum Behav 27(6):2192–2199

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lim V (2002) The IT way of loafing on the job: cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. J Organ Behav 23(5):675–694

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lim V, Teo T (2005) Prevalence, perceived seriousness, justification and regulation of cyberloafing in Singapore: an exploratory study. Inf Manag 42:1081–1093

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lim V, Teo T, Loo G (2002) How do I loaf here? Let me count the ways. Commun ACM 45(1):66–70

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lindell M, Whitney D (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J Appl Psychol 86(1):114–121

    Google Scholar 

  43. Malhotra N, Kim S, Patil A (2006) Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Manag Sci 52(12):1865–1883

    Google Scholar 

  44. Marsden P, Kalleberg A, Cook C (1993) Gender differences in organizational commitment: influences of work positions and family roles. Work Occup 20(3):368–390

    Google Scholar 

  45. Maruping L, Magni M (2012) What’s the weather like? The effect of team learning climate, empowerment climate, and gender on individuals’ technology exploration and use. J Manag Inf Syst 29(1):79–113

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mathews BP, Shepherd JL (2002) Dimensionality of Cook and Wall’s (1980) British Organizational Commitment scale. J Occup Organ Psychol 75:369–375

    Google Scholar 

  47. Moody G, Siponen M (2013) Using the theory of interpersonal behavior to explain non-work-related personal use of the Internet at work. Inf Manag 50(6):322–335

    Google Scholar 

  48. Moorman R, Blakely G, Niehoff B (1998) Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Acad Manag J 41(3):351–357

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mowday RT, Steers R, Porter LW (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment. J Vocat Behav 14(2):224–247

    Google Scholar 

  50. O’Guinn T, Faber R (1989) Compulsive buying: a phenomenological exploration. J Consum Res 16(2):147–157

    Google Scholar 

  51. Olivier RL (1999) Whence consumer loyalty? J Mark 63:33–44

    Google Scholar 

  52. Posey C, Bennett R, Roberts T, Lowry P (2011) When computer monitoring backfires: invasion of privacy and organizational injustice as precursors to computer abuse. J Inf Syst Sec 7(1):24–47

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rahim M, Magner N, Shapiro D (2000) Do justice perceptions influence styles of handling conflict with supervisors? What justice perceptions, precisely? Int J Confl Manag 11(1):9–31

    Google Scholar 

  54. Robinson S, Morrison E (2000) The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. J Organ Behav 21(7):855

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schmidt T, Houston M, Bettencourt L, Boughton P (2003) The impact of voice and justification on students’ perceptions of professors’ fairness. J Mark Educ 25(2):177–186

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schneier B (2008) How the human brain buys security. IEEE Sec Priv 6(4):80

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schoefer K, Ennew C (2005) The impact of perceived justice on consumers’ emotional responses to service complaint experiences. J Serv Mark 19(5):261–270

    Google Scholar 

  58. Schwartz B (2000) Self-determination: the tyranny of freedom. Am Psychol 55(1):79–88

    Google Scholar 

  59. Seifert M, Brockner J, Bianchi E, Moon H (2016) How workplace fairness affects employee commitment. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 57(2):15

    Google Scholar 

  60. Seo M, Barrett L, Bartunek J (2004) The role of affective experience in work motivation. Acad Manag Rev 29(3):423–439

    Google Scholar 

  61. Siponen M, Vance A (2010) Neutralization: new insights into the problem of employee information systems security policy violations. MIS Q 34(3):487–502

    Google Scholar 

  62. Son J, Kim S (2008) Internet users’ information privacy-protective responses: a taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Q 32(3):503–529

    Google Scholar 

  63. Son J, Park J (2016) Procedural justice to enhance compliance with non-work-related computing (NWRC) rules: its determinants and interaction with privacy concerns. Int J Inf Manag 36:309–321

    Google Scholar 

  64. Tang M, Zhang T (2016) The impacts of organizational culture on information security culture: a case study. Inf Technol Manag 17(2):179–186

    Google Scholar 

  65. Taylor S, Todd P (1995) Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf Syst Res 6(2):144–176

    Google Scholar 

  66. Terry D, Oleary J (1995) The theory of planned behavior: the effects of perceived behavioral-control and self-efficacy. Br J Soc Psychol 34:199–220

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ugrin J, Pearson J (2013) The effects of sanctions and stigmas on cyberloafing. Comput Hum Beh 29:812–820

    Google Scholar 

  68. Umphress E, Labianca G, Brass D, Kass E, Scholten L (2003) The role of instrumental and expressive social ties in employees’ perceptions of organizational justice. Organ Sci 14(6):738–753

    Google Scholar 

  69. Vance A, Lowry P, Eggett D (2013) Using accountability to reduce access policy violations in information systems. J Manag Inf Syst 29(4):263–289

    Google Scholar 

  70. Vance A, Siponen M (2012) IS security policy violations: a rational choice perspective. J Organ End User Comput 24(1):21–41

    Google Scholar 

  71. Venkatesh V, Davis F (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wang J, Tian J, Shen Z (2013) The effects and moderators of cyber-loafing controls: an empirical study of Chinese public servants. Inf Technol Manag 14:269–282

    Google Scholar 

  73. Weber PS, Weber JE (2001) Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadersh Organ Dev J 22(6):291–300

    Google Scholar 

  74. Weckert J (2005) Electronic monitoring in the workplace: controversies and solutions. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey

    Google Scholar 

  75. Williams LJ, Anderson SE (1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J Manag 17:601–617

    Google Scholar 

  76. Willison R, Warkentin M (2013) Beyond deterrence: an expanded view of employee computer abuse. MIS Q 37(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  77. Xia L, Monroe KB, Cox JL (2004) The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. J Mark 68(4):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  78. Xue Y, Liang H, Wu L (2011) Punishment, justice, and compliance in mandatory IT settings. Inf Syst Res 22(2):400–414

    Google Scholar 

  79. Yoon J, Thye SR (2002) A dual process model of organizational commitment. Work Occup 29(1):97–124

    Google Scholar 

  80. Zangaro GA (2001) Organizational commitment: a concept analysis. Nurs Forum 36(2):14–22

    Google Scholar 

  81. Zhang D, Lowry P, Zhou L, Fu X (2007) The impact of individualism-collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence. J Manag Inf Syst 23(4):53–80

    Google Scholar 

  82. Zhao H, Wayne S, Glibkowski B, Bravo J (2007) The impact of psychological contract breach on work related outcomes: a metaanalysis. Pers Psychol 60(3):647–680

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Information Technology, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech, 1030 Pamplin Hall (0209), Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Lara Khansa

  2. Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech, 3090 Pamplin Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0101, USA

    Reza Barkhi

  3. Institute of Service Science, College of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan, People’s Republic of China

    Soumya Ray

  4. Department of Business Information Technology, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech, 1007 Pamplin Hall (0235), Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Zachary Davis

Authors
  1. Lara Khansa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reza Barkhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soumya Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zachary Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Barkhi.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

Appendix: Measures and scenarios*

Appendix: Measures and scenarios*

Part A

Attitudes toward cyberloafing (ATT)

  • Using the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes is a wise idea.

  • I like the idea of using the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes.

  • Using the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes is pleasant.

Subjective norm (SN)

  • People who influence my behavior think that it is fine for me to use the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes occasionally.

  • People who are important to me think that it is fine for me to use the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes once in a while.

Perceived behavioral control (PBC)

  • I can use the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes whenever I want.

  • It is easy for me to use the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes.

  • I have control over using the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes.

Past cyberloafing (PCL)

  • On average, how frequently have you used the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes over the past month? (1 = less than once a week; 2 = a few times a week; 3 = about one a day; 4 = a few times a day; 5 = once an hour; 6 = several times an hour).

  • I frequently use the Internet at work for non-work related purposes on a typical day.

Organizational commitment (OC)

  • I am proud to be working for this organization.

  • I find that my values and those of the organization are very similar.

  • I feel loyal to this organization.

  • I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help this organization succeed.

Part B

Scenarios (CNTX)

Your management team announces that a new information system will be implemented to keep track of your use of the Internet in the organization (e.g., emails, social networking services, online news, software downloads, and financial transactions).

  • They indicate that the new system will generate a weekly report on the websites you visited, and the management team will review the report. [CNTX = 1]

  • They indicate that the new system will generate a weekly report on the websites you visited, but the report will be sent to you only. The report will NOT be sent to anyone else. [CNTX = 2].

Interactional justice (IJ)

  • In the scenario described previously, the management team treats me in a kindly manner.

  • In the scenario described previously, the management team shows concern for my rights as an employee.

  • In the scenario described previously, the management team behaves in a way that fosters trust on my part.

Negative emotions (NE)

When you read the previous announcement by the organization, to what extent did you experience the following feelings? (1 = not at all to 7 = to a great extent).

  • Furious

  • Irritated

  • Angry

Perceived fairness (PF)

  • The management team is fair in this plan.

  • This new plan is reasonable.

  • I feel I am treated fairly by the management team.

Cyberloafing intention (CLI)

  • I predict that I would use the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes.

  • I intend to use the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes.

  • I plan to use the Internet at work for non-work-related purposes.

Loyalty intention (LOYI)

  • I will defend the organization when outsiders criticize it.

  • I will encourage friends and family to utilize the organization’s products and services.

  • I will stand up to protect the reputation of the organization.

Part C

Control variables

  • Age: (Years old)

  • Gender: (1 = male; 2 = female)

Note: * Unless otherwise indicated, the anchors for all items were 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khansa, L., Barkhi, R., Ray, S. et al. Cyberloafing in the workplace: mitigation tactics and their impact on individuals’ behavior. Inf Technol Manag 19, 197–215 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-017-0280-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-017-0280-1

Keywords