Motivator or Depletor? Unraveling the Double‐Edged Effects of Peer Monitoring on Employee Job Performance

Summary

This paper examines how peer monitoring — colleagues watching or checking each other — affects job performance through two self-regulatory routes. The authors propose and test a dual-path model: peer monitoring can boost work engagement (a motivating effect) but also increase ego depletion (a draining effect). Trait self-control moderates these pathways. Evidence comes from a two-wave multisource field study in China (203 employees, 49 supervisors) and an experimental study in the US (149 employees).

Key Points

Peer monitoring produces simultaneous positive and negative self-regulatory outcomes: higher work engagement and higher ego depletion.
Ego depletion consistently mediates a negative indirect effect of peer monitoring on job performance across studies.
The positive engagement pathway (peer monitoring → engagement → better performance) was supported in the field survey but not robustly in the experiment.
Trait self-control moderates effects: low trait self-control strengthens the positive engagement path; high trait self-control strengthens the negative depletion path.
Practical implication: monitoring systems are not one-size-fits-all — they can motivate some employees while draining others, so design and implementation matter.

Content summary

The authors build a theoretical model rooted in self-regulation theory. Peer monitoring is treated as an organisational control mechanism that can increase attention, accountability and engagement but also requires regulatory effort that consumes self-control resources (ego depletion). They test their model using (1) a two-wave field study in China matching employee reports with supervisor-rated performance, and (2) an experimental study with full-time US employees. Results show a reliable negative indirect effect via ego depletion; the positive route via engagement is evident in the field data but not fully replicated experimentally. Trait self-control operates as a boundary condition producing opposing indirect effects depending on its level.

Context and relevance

Peer monitoring is growing in prominence as teams become more self-managing and as organisations adopt peer-review and collaborative performance systems. This study is timely because it moves beyond the simple assumption that peer oversight is uniformly beneficial. By linking monitoring to self-regulation, engagement and depletion, it clarifies why monitoring can backfire for some employees. HR leaders, team managers and designers of performance systems will find the nuance useful when deciding where, how and for whom to use peer-based controls.

Why should I read this?

Because if your organisation uses peer reviews, buddy checks or team-level monitoring — or you’re thinking of introducing them — this paper tells you when they might actually help and when they could harm. Short, practical takeaways: don’t assume monitoring always boosts output; consider individual differences in self-control and build supports (resources, autonomy, recovery) into monitoring systems.

Author style

Punchy — the paper is empirical and actionable. It matters: the findings force a rethink of common peer-control practices and show managers that monitoring can be a double-edged sword unless tailored to people and context.