HR analytics and the data collection process: the role of attributions and perceived legitimacy in explaining employees’ fear of datafication

Purpose: This paper analyzes employees’ perceptions of data collection processes for human resource analytics (HRA). More specifically, we study the effect that information sharing practices have on employees’ attributions (i.e. benevolent vs malevolent) through the perceived legitimacy of data collection and monitoring processes. Moreover, we investigate whether employees’ emotional reaction (i.e. fear of datafication) depends on their perceived legitimacy and attributions. Design/methodology/approach: The research is based on a sample of 259 employees operating for an Italian consulting firm that developed and implemented HRA processes in the last 3 years. The hypothesized model has been tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) on Stata 14. Findings: This paper demonstrates the mediating role of perceived legitimacy in the relationship between information sharing practices and employees’ benevolent and malevolent attributions about data collection and monitoring processes for HRA practices. Results also reveal that perceived legitimacy predicts employees’ fear of datafication, with benevolent attributions that partially mediate this relationship. Practical implications: This research indicates that employees perceive, try to make sense of and emotionally react to HRA processes. Moreover, we reveal the crucial role of information sharing practices and perceived legitimacy in determining employees’ attributions and emotional reactions to data collection and monitoring processes. Originality/value: Combining human resource (HR) attributions, HR system strength, information processing and signaling theories, this work explores employees’ perception, attributive processes and emotional reactions to data collection processes for HRA practices.