USA 
United Kingdom
Just how private are our conversations with our colleagues?
The uncomfortable reality is that they aren’t private at all. When employees are angry, frustrated, or just fancy a good moan, the temptation to send off a quick message to a colleague can be hard to resist.
But when it happens on company software – be it email or messaging platforms – employees lose their right to privacy. In cases where messaging strays from mere gossip or a throwaway complaint to sustained criticism or personal attacks on co-workers, employers may have no choice but to intervene and even fire the quick-fingered employees in question.
This can make employee surveillance an uncomfortable topic for most employers. In many forms, it’s legal. Email monitoring has been an established practice for years, and most U.S. companies have policies that allow them to monitor messages and screen contents taking place on a company-owned device.
But whilst 78% of employers use some type of surveillance software, 83% cite ethical concerns with employee monitoring.
Yes, employee surveillance is legal. But is it ethical, and could mishandling surveillance practices irreparably damage the relationship between employer and employee?
The “chilling” rise of employee surveillance
With the vast majority of employers concerned about the ethical implications of monitoring, it’s worth considering why so many organizations are increasingly using surveillance software to track employees.
HR Grapevine recently covered the news that employers including Starbucks, Walmart, Delta Airlines, Nestle, and AstraZeneca were named as customers of Aware, an AI data platform that among other products, offers a platform to monitor and gather intelligence from workplace messages.
Delta Airlines says it uses the platform to monitor employee sentiment. AstraZeneca uses it to aid legal investigations. Aware’s CEO, Jeff Schuman, claims the software can track ‘real-time’ toxicity and reduce compliance risks associated with communication between employees.
Matthew Castillo Ph.D., Head of Employee Listening at Whole Foods, believes employee monitoring and surveillance could be an important data point within a broader employee listening strategy, depending on the context and how it is conducted.
“The need to monitor employees depends on the type of organization and industry. It also depends on the organizational culture, levels of employee trust and psychological safety, and perceptions of organizational justice,” he suggests.
Bryan Vermes, Director of Employee Communications at Mimecast, takes a similar view.
“Every organization has their own challenges, and that can require solutions that may not work in our own situations,” he says. “Because of that, I avoid a broad-stroke judgment on these approaches. I can see the potential for data that helps identify challenges employees are facing or productivity blockers that may not be otherwise known. On the other hand, there is the often-immeasurable impact – both positive and negative – that trust can have.”
As Vermes and Castillo suggest, it’s not all positive. An unfortunate reality behind the rise in the use of monitoring software is the lack of trust between employer and employee.
This, argues David Lewis, CEO of OperationsInc, has been exacerbated by the rise of remote work. “Managers managing remote workers are lost when it comes to how to ensure that those not working on site are actually working,” he argues. “There is a disproportionately high lack of trust between the manager and remote worker, and this [employee surveillance] tech is supposed to solve that.”
Ethical surveillance starts with trust and transparency
When the implementation of any form of surveillance software is based on a lack of trust, it raises an ethical conundrum. When speaking to CNBC, Amba Kak, Executive Director at the AI Now Institute at New York University, said the use of AI-enabled surveillance in U.S. companies has “a chilling effect on what people are saying in the workplace,” adding that “these are as much worker rights issues as they are privacy issues."
Given the impact this software has on the worker, Castillo argues employers can only meet the bar for ethical surveillance if they are transparent and communicative.
“There are more opportunities to misuse employee monitoring data than not which is why it is critical to be transparent with employees about how they are being monitored, why, and how the data will and will not be used,” he explains. “Managers must ensure that employees trust them and feel empowered to share their opinions and feedback without fear of retaliation to ensure that employee monitoring does not hinder the employee experience.”
Lewis echoes these sentiments. “Some are not telling their employees purposely, and then using the collected data to confront an employee about performance and productivity,” he explains. “So long as the employee understands this software is in place and will be used to measure productivity, the ethical use standard should be met.”
If done correctly, Castillo argues employees will not fear monitoring and data can be used to drive non-biased decisions to benefit all. “One example of how employee monitoring could help the employee experience and be used properly is if data reveals that some employees are completing an essential task more efficiently than others,” he offers. “This could lead to changes in how work is performed, resulting in a win-win for employees and the organization by redesigning training programs to increase productivity and reduce waste.”
When employees are not clear on how they are being monitored, or why, it can cause high levels of stress, anxiety, and poor mental health. This can hurt morale and damage company culture.
If employers do choose to use employee surveillance software, Lewis suggests the best way to use the technology is collaboratively. “Start by introducing the tech to the employee population, run a trial, review the findings and data, and then, collaboratively set standards.” Given the inherent impact employee monitoring will have on trust, getting the implementation right from the start is crucial.
