In today’s increasingly digitised corporate landscape, businesses are turning to advanced surveillance technologies to monitor employee activity, both remotely and within office premises. A recent survey by Attest, reveals that over 80% of employees perceive a moderate to high level of monitoring by their employers.
The escalation in surveillance tactics is supported by a 2023 StandoutCV analysis, which shows a significant rise in the utilisation of video surveillance, document scanning, and attendance tracking tools compared to 2021. Innovative measures, such as integrating heart-rate sensors in office furniture, are being considered to monitor stress levels, underscoring the evolving nature of workplace surveillance.
As firms encourage a return to office environments, tools like access-control card monitoring have become commonplace. For example, EY uses these methods to track employee movements within their facilities. The shift towards remote work has also heightened employer vigilance, with companies like Monzo leveraging BizOps systems to ensure remote employees work a requisite percentage of their contracted hours. Other notable firms, including Starbucks, Nestlé, and AstraZeneca, have adopted Aware, an AI tool that scrutinises employee communications.
While some surveillance methods make headlines for their intensity, common practices such as logging hours and recording office attendance remain prevalent. However, only a small fraction of employees are aware of more invasive techniques like ‘bossware’, which tracks individual keystrokes or mouse movements.
Industry experts like Josh Bersin of The Josh Bersin Company note that while employee monitoring is established, especially in customer-facing roles, its recent intensification is linked to the remote work model. Bersin emphasises that surveillance tools should enhance productivity, not merely confirm employee presence.
The potential backlash from such monitoring practices is notable. The survey indicates that 63% of employees might consider leaving their jobs if overly surveilled, highlighting the delicate balance employers must maintain. Terez Rijkenberg, Chief People Officer at Socium10X, advocates for transparency to cultivate a trust-based corporate culture. Similarly, Hayfa Mohdzaini from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development advises that monitoring should not replace robust leadership and must be contextually appropriate.
The resistance to surveillance manifests in various low-tech avoidance strategies employed by workers, from using private browsing modes to secure messaging platforms like WhatsApp. More extreme measures include the use of virtual private networks and software to simulate activity, suggesting a significant trust gap between employees and employers.
This distrust is especially pronounced among younger employees, with Gen Z workers more likely to feel surveilled and seek ways to circumvent monitoring, even though they recognise its potential productivity benefits.
Simon Watson, Global Head of Innovation at Kinly, suggests reframing the narrative around monitoring technologies to highlight their benefits for employee wellbeing, such as optimising home office environments.
However, legal considerations loom large. John Palmer from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and Gearalt Fahy, an employment law expert at Womble Bond Dickinson, stress that monitoring must respect privacy, be justified, and comply with data protection laws. Excessive monitoring can lead to legal repercussions, as evidenced by a significant fine imposed on Amazon in France and regulatory actions in the UK.
As surveillance becomes more pervasive, businesses must navigate their legal responsibilities and consider the broader implications on employee morale and trust, ensuring that the benefits of monitoring do not undermine the foundational elements of a positive and productive workplace environment.