Journal of Global Economics, Management and Business Research

Electronic performance monitoring has moved from the call centre and the data-entry office into almost every occupational setting, and its scope now extends from keystrokes and screen activity to location, physiological signals and algorithmically generated ratings. Human resource management is directly implicated because monitoring data increasingly inform appraisal, development, scheduling, reward and discipline. This critical narrative review examines how electronic performance monitoring relates to employees’ perceptions of organisational justice and privacy, and how these perceptions shape well-being, attitudes and behaviour. Peer-reviewed literature from organisational psychology, human resource management, information systems, labour sociology and labour law, together with key regulatory instruments, was identified through structured searches of multidisciplinary and discipline-specific scholarly indexes, supplemented by citation tracking, and appraised qualitatively for relevance, design adequacy, measurement quality, analytic transparency and contextual informativeness. The synthesis indicates that the presence of monitoring, on average, yields no reliable performance benefit and is associated with modestly higher stress and lower job satisfaction, whereas the manner of monitoring matters considerably. Developmental purpose, job relevance, advance notice, explanation, employee voice and control over data, constructive feedback and limited invasiveness are consistently associated with more favourable justice and privacy judgements, and perceived privacy invasion frequently carries the effect of monitoring design onto procedural fairness, trust and discretionary behaviour. Confidence in these conclusions is constrained by heavy reliance on vignette experiments and single-source cross-sectional surveys, inconsistent measurement of monitoring itself, short time horizons and a concentration of samples in Western economies, alongside recent studies from Asian settings that report positive associations. Algorithmic management and people analytics complicate the established framework by shifting the perceived source of justice from supervisors to systems and by joining surveillance to automated decision-making, while emerging European regulation translates several justice and privacy principles into legal duties. Monitoring is best understood as a human resource practice whose consequences depend on its purpose, design and governance rather than on technology alone, although longitudinal, field-experimental and cross-cultural evidence is needed before firm prescriptions can be made.