Implications of electronic mail policies for fairness and invasion of privacy: A field experiment

To date, most companies have not implemented formal electronic mail (E-mail) regulatory policies, despite cogent arguments that such policies protect the rights of both employers and employees in the workplace (Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1997; Society for Human Resource Management, 1997; Stone & Stone-Romero, 1998). Companies may be hesitant to implement formal E-mail policies due to the implications of such policies for employee attitudes toward management and the organization, among other concerns (Electronic Messaging Association & Bruce, 2001; OTA, 1987). Empirical research relevant to E-mail policies to date generally has been limited to electronic monitoring practices and E-mail confidentiality (e.g., Ambrose, Alder, & Noel, 1998). Research suggests, however, that other aspects of policies may have implications for fairness (e.g., Greenberg, 1990), and privacy perceptions (e.g., Stone & Stone, 1990).; The present study used a 2 x 2 experimental design with a sample of E-mail users employed at the corporate office of a large organization to examine the effects of E-mail policy restrictiveness and justification on fairness and invasion of privacy. In addition, the moderating role of values for privacy on these effects was examined. The results demonstrate that restrictiveness had a negative influence on fairness and a positive influence on invasion of privacy. Justification had a positive influence on fairness. There was mixed support for a relationship between justification and invasion of privacy. Likewise, there was mixed support for an interactive effect of restrictiveness and justification on fairness. No evidence for an interactive effect of restrictiveness and justification was found for invasion of privacy.; Values for privacy were negatively related to fairness and positively related to invasion of privacy. Values for privacy moderated the effect of restrictiveness on fairness, however, values for privacy did not moderate the effect of restrictiveness on invasion of privacy. The results show an interaction of values for privacy, restrictiveness and justification for invasion of privacy. The nature of the interaction, however, was inconsistent with the hypothesis that the interactive effect of justification on the relationship between restrictiveness and invasion of privacy would be stronger for individuals with stronger values for privacy than for individuals with weaker values for privacy.; The results of the study suggest that the effect of restrictiveness on fairness was mediated by invasion of privacy. The results also suggest that the relationship between values for privacy and fairness was mediated by invasion of privacy. However, the results indicate that the effect of justification on fairness was direct. A discussion of the practical and theoretical implications of the study, directions for future research, and limitations of the study is presented.