Employers have long used employee monitoring techniques to understand what workers do all day. Reasons for monitoring run the gamut from keeping an eye out for thieves and slackers to discovering ways to improve processes, ultimately leading to increased efficiency.
Those reasons remain, but the rise of remote work has created even more interest in monitoring technology since supervisors may no longer have close proximity to workers. Employers have much to consider—including what to monitor and the effect monitoring has on morale and potential legal liability.
Effect on Employees
Even when employers feel justified in monitoring employees, they may worry about the effect on morale. If employees feel they’re distrusted and spied on, resentment can take a toll and crush morale and productivity.
Some kinds of monitoring are more intrusive than others, so you need to decide on your goals and what kind of monitoring to use. You have a vast array of tools at your disposal.
For example, many employers use video surveillance and software to record employees’ email and internet use. Others use tools to monitor computer usage. That software can collect data such as how much time is spent on productive work, when the computer is passive, and which applications have the most usage.
Keystroke-monitoring is another option, although that’s often seen as a violation of privacy. Phone calls also may be monitored, and sometimes GPS tracking is used to monitor employees’ whereabouts.
A June 2022 Harvard Business Review article reported on a study of the effect monitoring has on employees, revealing startling results. Researchers examining two studies found that monitored employees in certain circumstances were more likely to break rules than unmonitored workers.
Why? The researchers found monitoring caused some workers to lose their “sense of agency,” making them feel less responsibility for their conduct. The article said such workers were more likely to take unapproved breaks, ignore instructions, damage property, steal office equipment, and intentionally work slower than necessary.
How should employers keep monitoring from going wrong? The researchers found that when employees feel they are treated fairly, they are more likely to behave responsibly.
“There are countless ways leaders can enhance perceptions of justice (and thus preserve employees’ sense of agency),” the authors wrote. “As a starting point, rather than unilaterally implementing a monitoring system, leaders should find ways to give employees visibility and input into when surveillance is appropriate and when it should be off-limits—and then stick to those boundaries.”
Addressing the Downsides
Besides the unintended consequences noted in the article, legal concerns are another problem related to monitoring. ActivTrak, a workforce analytics software provider, reminds employers that many kinds of monitoring are allowed under the law, especially if company-owned equipment is being monitored. But different states have different laws, so you need to check state laws to see how far monitoring can go.
“For best results and to foster a culture of trust, we recommend always telling your employees you plan to install the software and explaining how it is going to be used,” ActivTrak says on its website. “They’ll be aware of the types of data gathered, when and for what reasons. The more transparency there is, the less likely you’ll have to deal with legal issues.”
Communication Is Key
Communication with employees can ward off many of the downsides associated with monitoring. A March 29, 2023, article from Business News Daily includes advice on how employers can effectively communicate their monitoring goals.
The article suggests installing signs informing employees that cameras are being used. Transparency is also advised since employees will be more comfortable if they understand how surveillance aligns with business goals.
Also, you should communicate your monitoring policies to new employees and any policy changes to all employees. Also, employees should have access to the data collected on them, so they can challenge how it’s interpreted.
Tracking only what is necessary is also advised. For example, when GPS tracking is used on company vehicles, it’s likely seen as appropriate since a company has a right to know where its vehicles are and where they’ve been. But tracking other company equipment may pose problems since keeping track of things such as phones and laptops may allow employers to learn more than they should about employees when they’re off the clock.
Tammy Binford is a Contributing Editor at HR Daily Advisor.